Crown wrote:As I posted in another thread, love Cenk's reaction to this, and more importantly Anna's;
Cenk's fury at how this would NEVER happen to a poor kid is understandable, but so is Anna's restraint in pointing out that we should want attempts at rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
I find it sort of amusing how people who would ordinarily advocate this approach are now out in force screaming 'Hang him! Hang him by his entrails!' . Not that they're wrong to be pissed off of course, given the flagrant hypocrisy of the verdict and all.
Considering he's getting away with four counts of Murder 1, I don't see the problem with being mad about it.
Neither do I. This is a perfectly valid issue to get up in arms over.
Metahive wrote:
the atom wrote:
I find it sort of amusing how people who would ordinarily advocate this approach are now out in force screaming 'Hang him! Hang him by his entrails!'
Like whom? The only person on this board that ever called for "no punishment ever, only rehabilitation" is not participating in this thread and the main issue here isn't even the punishment itself but the uneven application of justice as you yourself acknowledge with the next sentence!. So please stop with the smarmy trolling.
Wasn't intending to twist anybody's jimmies in this thread. I don't really know what this board's position is on the subject, so I can't really comment on whether this response is typical or not.
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
the atom wrote:Wasn't intending to twist anybody's jimmies in this thread. I don't really know what this board's position is on the subject, so I can't really comment on whether this response is typical or not.
Then please refrain from making such statements before you've done your research in the future.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
The UK legal system is common law, so a precendant is pretty damn important. Does that hold true in 'murica?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Of course not, part of being poor means that you're always fully responsible for both the bad things you cause to happen and which happen to you, otherwise you wouldn't be poor.
IT'S A JUST WORLD, GODDAMIT!
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
madd0ct0r wrote:could povertyitis actually become a defence now?
The UK legal system is common law, so a precendant is pretty damn important. Does that hold true in 'murica?
America has a common law system so yes, precedent is important.
But a decision by a trial level court is merely persuasive and not binding precendent. Which means that while it could be used as the basis of argument in another case that this has been done before, the judge would be under no obligation to go along with it. If other judges think that this is a stupid decision they'd be free to disregard it entirely. Its decisions at the appellate level where stare decisis starts having real teeth.
And as sentencing tends to be so idiosyncric to the facts of the case, it isn't an area of law where singular precendents are going to have as much effect in any case. There is an entire body of case law and statutory provisions to consider so one decision isn't going to have that big an impact.
The common law doesn't work on the basis of, one judge makes a decision and then every judge after them has to respect it. Precedent is important, but not to the degree that the entire justice system has to go along for the ride whenever some trial judge makes an out there decision.
Restricted movement, mandatory counseling, and he must stay squeaky clean or he goes to prison for the remainder of the term.
No. He is not a sociopath due to wealth, he is just a sociopath. Nothing can be done for him. The good news is, he will reoffend and get sent to prison for a long time anyway.
I believe in some locations, not sure about in this area of Texas, probation can also include the possibility of random drug tests as well.
From reading various news articles through google search and seeing a report on this story on Anderson Cooper from CNN, it sounds like while the kid got off easy the relatives of some of the deceased as well as the family of a now disabled friend of this kid are going to attempt to sue the family in civil court for some rather hefty fines to pay for damages and medical expenses.
I truly hope that this boy wises up and stays on the straight and narrow for the rest of his life, but OTOH I truly wouldn't be surprised if he's arrested again down the road regardless. Once he turns 18, mommy and daddy aren't going to be able to help or hide him from trouble. If he's truly that dangerous, he should at least receive a lifetime ban on being allowed to drive a vehicle. People with seizures and other medical conditions aren't allowed or are discouraged from driving or operating heavy equipment, so I would think the same should apply to him.
Edit:
After looking up "Affluenza" the term isn't considered an official medical diagnosis:
It's not likely to wind up on the DSM, that's for sure.
Basically, any actual mental illness associated with this lawyer's version of "affluenza" is going to be something else diagnosable, like "child grows up functionally psychopathic because his parents encouraged him in it." I don't think that real psychiatric diagnoses make a distinction between different ways to wind up with the same form of insanity.
Plus, of course, the origin of the term has more to do with the chronic stress associated with the pursuit of wealth and consumerism, and the description sounds almost nothing like "child raised by sheltering, wealthy parents turns into an amoral, entitled asshole."
NBC wrote:North Texas prosecutors are trying a second time to imprison a teen who was sentenced last week to 10 years' probation for drunkenly driving his truck into four pedestrians, killing them all.
Tarrant County District Attorney Joe Shannon has asked a juvenile judge to put 16-year-old Ethan Couch behind bars on two cases of intoxication assault that he says are still pending before the court, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Tuesday.
"During his recent trial, the 16-year-old admitted his guilt in four cases of intoxication manslaughter and two cases of intoxication assault," Shannon said in an email to the newspaper. "There has been no verdict formally entered in the two intoxication assault cases. Every case deserves a verdict."
Two teens riding in the back of Couch's Ford F-350 pickup in the June wreck suffered critical injuries. According to testimony, one of them, Sergio Molina, is paralyzed and can communicate only by blinking.
District Judge Jean Boyd gave Couch 10 years' probation last Tuesday after a sentencing hearing in which Couch's attorneys argued his wealthy parents coddled him into a sense of irresponsibility -- an affliction one witness called "affluenza." Prosecutors had asked for a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.
A message could not be left with the judge after hours. A message left with a one of Couch's defense attorneys was not immediately returned.
Couch's blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit and there were traces of Valium in his system when he lost control of his pickup, plowing into a group of people helping a woman whose car had stalled.
Seven passengers were riding in Couch's truck. In addition to Molina, Solimon Mohmand suffered numerous broken bones and internal injuries.
Defense attorneys had requested a lengthy probationary term at a costly rehabilitation facility in California, promising that Couch's parents would foot the bill. During sentencing, Boyd said he might not get the kind of intensive therapy in a state-run program that he could receive at the California facility.
If Couch violates the terms of his probation, he could be sent to prison for 10 years.
Under Texas juvenile law, the maximum allowable sentence in Couch's intoxication assault case would be three years in a Texas Juvenile Justice Department facility; he would be released no later than his 19th birthday.
Well at least someone is trying here, and some details about the case.
"Any plan which requires the direct intervention of any deity to work can be assumed to be a very poor one."- Newbiespud
DA is already planning his Mayors acceptance speech, is why. The uproar was to big to ignore.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Teen Drunk Driver With 'Affluenza' Is Being Sued For Millions By His Victims
A wealthy Texas teenager who got no jail time for killing four pedestrians while driving drunk still faces three civil lawsuits filed by victims’ family members, NBC’s Dallas affiliate reports.
Many of those family members were outraged when 16-year-old Ethan Couch got probation after a psychologist testified he had “affluenza” — meaning he thought he was immune from punishment because he was rich.
Couch’s family may still be on the hook for millions in related civil litigation, though. (Unlike a criminal case, Couch can’t be sentenced to jail or be found guilty. He could, however, be found liable and have to pay a monetary penalty.)
The accident happened on a road south of Fort Worth, Texas in June, when a woman named Breanna Mitchell’s SUV broke down, according to CNN. Hollie Boyles and her daughter, Shelby, left their home to help Mitchell, and a youth pastor named Brian Jennings also stopped to assist.
All four were killed when Couch ran them over in his Ford-350, which also struck a parked car, which slid into another vehicle headed in the opposite direction. Couch’s pickup truck was carrying seven passengers, two of whom were severely injured.
Couch’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.
Eric and Marguerite Boyles have filed one lawsuit on behalf of Hollie Boyles and her daughter, Shelby, seeking more than $US1 million, according to NBC. Marla Mitchell, the mother of Breanna, is also suing for unspecified damages, as is Shaunna Jennings, the wife of the youth pastor who was killed.
Couch also faces two lawsuits from passengers from in his own truck. One seeks $US20 million on behalf of a teen who was thrown from the truck during the crash and can no longer speak or move, and the other seeks unspecified damages on behalf of another teen passenger.
Hope they sue the family for every cent they deserve.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Teen Drunk Driver With 'Affluenza' Is Being Sued For Millions By His Victims
A wealthy Texas teenager who got no jail time for killing four pedestrians while driving drunk still faces three civil lawsuits filed by victims’ family members, NBC’s Dallas affiliate reports.
Many of those family members were outraged when 16-year-old Ethan Couch got probation after a psychologist testified he had “affluenza” — meaning he thought he was immune from punishment because he was rich.
Couch’s family may still be on the hook for millions in related civil litigation, though. (Unlike a criminal case, Couch can’t be sentenced to jail or be found guilty. He could, however, be found liable and have to pay a monetary penalty.)
The accident happened on a road south of Fort Worth, Texas in June, when a woman named Breanna Mitchell’s SUV broke down, according to CNN. Hollie Boyles and her daughter, Shelby, left their home to help Mitchell, and a youth pastor named Brian Jennings also stopped to assist.
All four were killed when Couch ran them over in his Ford-350, which also struck a parked car, which slid into another vehicle headed in the opposite direction. Couch’s pickup truck was carrying seven passengers, two of whom were severely injured.
Couch’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.
Eric and Marguerite Boyles have filed one lawsuit on behalf of Hollie Boyles and her daughter, Shelby, seeking more than $US1 million, according to NBC. Marla Mitchell, the mother of Breanna, is also suing for unspecified damages, as is Shaunna Jennings, the wife of the youth pastor who was killed.
Couch also faces two lawsuits from passengers from in his own truck. One seeks $US20 million on behalf of a teen who was thrown from the truck during the crash and can no longer speak or move, and the other seeks unspecified damages on behalf of another teen passenger.
Hope they sue the family for every cent they deserve.
Removing his wealth would likely cure his "affluenza".
. Not that they're wrong to be pissed off of course, given the flagrant hypocrisy of the verdict and all.
