"Affluenza" defendant Ethan Couch violates probation, flees

[Rogue 9]

Thanas posted a thread about this case in Testing not too long ago. There have been new developments. NPR

Manhunt Underway For 'Affluenza' Teen
Updated December 19, 201510:22 AM ET Published December 18, 20159:41 PM ET
Laura Wagner

Texas teen Ethan Couch was sentenced to probation in 2013 for killing four people in a drunken-driving wreck, after his lawyers argued he had been coddled by his wealthy parents into a sense of irresponsibility. Now Couch is 18 and he's being pursued by the U.S. Marshals Service for violating his parole.

Couch missed a meeting with his probation officer on Dec. 10, a few weeks after a video was posted online showing people, apparently including Couch, playing drinking games at a party. Consuming alcohol would violate Couch's parole and if found guilty, he could face 10 years in prison, the Associated Press reports.

Couch's mother is thought to be on the run with her son, but officials have not said whether she is facing charges as well.

"He and his mother have the means to be able to travel to wherever they may want to travel," Sam Jordan, a spokeswoman for the Tarrant County district attorney's office said according to the AP.

The U.S. Marshals Service announced a reward of $5,000 for information leading to Couch's capture.

As we reported in 2013, the judge's light sentence was a point of controversy and derision.

"The sentence handed down in a Fort Worth juvenile court led Dallas Morning News editorial writer Mike Hashimoto to say that the only lesson the teen learned is that 'it's far better to come from that wealthy place where actions seldom have those nasty old consequences. That's for other folks.'"

When Couch was 16, he was drunk and speeding on a dark road in Fort Worth, Texas, when his pickup truck crashed into a disabled vehicle on the side of the road.

The Washington Post reports that "crash killed four people working on the disabled car. Two of Couch's friends were critically injured. One was paralyzed."

[Grumman]

On the plus side, the judge retired in 2014. Not imprisoned for corruption and/or gross stupidity, but at least she isn't going to be enabling any more sociopaths.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes.

I mean, IF the 'affluenza' defense is legally sustainable, then it is effectively a way of arguing that your client's mental capacity is diminished. A reduced sentence for 'diminished capacity' might justify a lesser sentence but it wouldn't justify just putting the person on probation. Probation is not an appropriate sentence for four acts of vehicular manslaughter plus two counts of... whatever the right term is for causing tremendous harm to someone without killing them using a vehicle.

Not by itself, not unless it is attached to severe terms (more so than just "stay off the sauce")

Plus, 'affluenza' isn't exactly a mental condition that you could reasonably expect to go away on its own, so this 'affluenza victim' with no sense of right and wrong would pose a high recidivism risk unless they received psychiatric treatment. So by the very nature of the affluenza defense, you are arguing either that this person should be released to cause harm and destruction in society at large... or that they need to be placed in mental health care against their will.

You are NOT arguing that they should walk.

[Broomstick]

The TV news is currently saying that they may have fled the country.

Assuming great wealth, it would be pretty trivial to charter a plane to fly them somewhere. In other words, the kid was always a flight risk.

[Sgt_Artyom]

Here I was thinking Canada's justice system was a joke with some of the sentences that get handed out.

Anyone kills four people and horrifically injures two others shouldn't be seeing the sun for a long, long time.

[LadyTevar]

And so, Affluenza strikes again, by allowing his mother to move the kid out of the country.

I'm beginning to wonder if the kid's problem wasn't Affluenza, but Bad Parenting.

[Broomstick]

The problem is an attitude that wealth makes you better than the little people, and the little people don't matter.

[madd0ct0r]

I don't suppose a bounty would be issued?

[Joun_Lord]

I'm beginning to wonder if the kid's problem wasn't Affluenza, but Bad Parenting.

That was pretty much the same thing in the case, or atleast they were highly connected. The expert Dick who testified with his testicle sucker on the case said Couch "was unable to link his bad behavior with consequences because of his parents teaching him that wealth buys privilege", essentially blaming the parents for raising a little shit. They used the fact the parents were bastards and got away with it as proof he was never taught the consequences to his actions. His father was charged with assault, theft by check, and criminal mischief but all charges were dropped and later on after the case was caught impersonating a cop. The mother used a car to try to force another car off the road and got hit with a $500 dollar fine and 6 months community service.

Pretty much the douche was like a average celeb kid with parents who did bad things with no consequences and thought he could do the same. Shit like Paris Hilton getting 45 days in jail for drunk driving and a year probation for possessing cocaine (imagine if she had been black and poor?) and Lindsay Lohan (sadly) being a coked out psycho and getting a slap on the wrist (well a slap on the ankle) after a terrible 84 minutes jail stay followed by two weeks after she fucked up again.

With rich people like that being considered celebrities rather then the menaces they should rightfully be considered and never getting more then a slap on the wrist, its no wonder people like Couch think they are above the law. They are.

[Rogue 9]

I don't suppose a bounty would be issued?

The U.S. Marshals Service announced a reward of $5,000 for information leading to Couch's capture.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm having a hard time writing anything that won't violate the tough guy rule here...

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I mean, a $5k reward is nice and all, but frankly, if I had any information on this toad and the hag that spawned him I'd give it up to the authorities for free just in hopes the little asshole would find get some real consequences.

[TheFeniX]

Plus, 'affluenza' isn't exactly a mental condition that you could reasonably expect to go away on its own, so this 'affluenza victim' with no sense of right and wrong would pose a high recidivism risk unless they received psychiatric treatment. So by the very nature of the affluenza defense, you are arguing either that this person should be released to cause harm and destruction in society at large... or that they need to be placed in mental health care against their will.

Exactly, whole thing was a fucking joke. Make him do community service helping victims of drunk drivers and their families. Fucking picking up trash on the side of the road would have at least been something. But "hey, here's probation, feel free to go out drinking again" was basically a "fuck you, I have money."

I mean, we're even outside the "pay a bunch of money to avoid consequences" route that most rich people have to go. They basically just paid a lawyer and got either the dumbest or most corrupt judge around. Sweet deal, but at least they didn't get the tax write-off of dumping some money to a charity.

I'm having a hard time writing anything that won't violate the tough guy rule here...

Same boat. At least there's two less worthless fucks roaming around Texas.

[Temjin]

I never really understood using affluenza as a defence in court.

So, a person has been brought up in a world where his actions don't have any serious consequences. Therefore, that person must... continue not face any serious consequences for his actions. He must instead be given a lighter sentence, so that he learns he doesn't have to change his behavior at all.

[General Zod]

I never really understood using affluenza as a defence in court.

So, a person has been brought up in a world where his actions don't have any serious consequences. Therefore, that person must... continue not face any serious consequences for his actions. He must instead be given a lighter sentence, so that he learns he doesn't have to change his behavior at all.

It's basically the new version of "Gay Panic". It helps if the judge in question is sympathetic to the defendant to begin with.

[K. A. Pital]

I never really understood using affluenza as a defence in court.

I think the goal is to keep the idiot offspring of the rich, that vile spawn, no less protected in case of reckless criminal behaviour, than the rich themselves generally are. Not just protect the rich but also save their dumb kids. That is the entire purpose. Of course, this kills trust in the judicial system and mocks impartial justice as a concept.

[Purple]

I agree. The Affluenza defense is essentially an evolution of the "I am rich" defense designed to further benefit the rich person. The improvement being that now he does not even have to bribe the court any more.

[Thanas]

To be honest, I can understand the affluenza defence on its face. Every defendant should be judged according to his development. If somebody has never learned that actions have consequences it is hard to punish him for that, which is why the whole concept of youth law exist.

However, the circumstances of the specific crime should have rendered the affluenza defence (which is really just a variant of the "unable to view that action had consequences" defence) moot. IIRC he had multiple people telling him he was drunk. He knew he was drunk. He still decided to drive. In no way should anybody be allowed to go "I did not know that being drunk behind the wheel had consequences" and thus escape justice after he had been drinking and partying for hours.

[Gaidin]

What I'm personally wondering is how (if) surprised the defense attorney was that such an argument worked...

[TheFeniX]

However, the circumstances of the specific crime should have rendered the affluenza defence (which is really just a variant of the "unable to view that action had consequences" defence) moot. IIRC he had multiple people telling him he was drunk. He knew he was drunk. He still decided to drive. In no way should anybody be allowed to go "I did not know that being drunk behind the wheel had consequences" and thus escape justice after he had been drinking and partying for hours.

Considering you can't drive 5 fucking feet in Texas without seeing a sign about how the police will kick your ass for a DUI, it's hard to buy the line. Texas has a fuck-huge intoxicated driving problem. Actually, Dumb-shit Texans just drink too much watered down piss passed off as beer either way. His parents could be (and likely are) the most worthless sacks of shit out there, but he's had more than enough exposure to what drunk driving consequences are just by driving in the state, going to school and dealing with their PSAs, and watching Texas television.

Really though, even for having some of the strictest drunk-driving laws in the country, there's just too many Texans who think there's nothing wrong with pounding a few beers and driving home.

[Grumman]

To be honest, I can understand the affluenza defence on its face. Every defendant should be judged according to his development. If somebody has never learned that actions have consequences it is hard to punish him for that, which is why the whole concept of youth law exist.

Youth law can be justified by the fact that we all start life as stupid, selfish creatures, but we can grow beyond that to become decent human beings - hopefully faster than we gain the capacity to act on our whims. It is unreasonable to blame a child for having the half-grown intelligence and morals of a child, and it is counter-productive to punish a child for being a child to the point where your punishment hinders their development into a functional adult.

The same reasoning does not apply to the affluenza defense. Even if you do not blame the affluenza "sufferer" for his failure to develop into a decent human being, he is still a threat that has to be dealt with that isn't going to go away on its own. You cannot justify not punishing him out of fear of disrupting his normal development because his normal development has already gone off the rails. Even if holding him accountable for his actions doesn't undo his parents' abject failure at training him to be a decent human being, it can at least persuade him that he needs to be a functional sociopath - someone who still might not respect the rights of others, but at least acknowledges that he is outnumbered and will be locked up in a small box if he doesn't play by our rules.

[Flagg]

Would be a real shame if he were caught and accidentally dropped off in Northern Syria handcuffed with red, white, and blue colored smoke canisters duct taped to him, and his US passport stapled to his head right next to mommy. Except that we're talking about 4 cases of inebriated drunken vehicular manslaughter, so hardly deserving of being crucified or given any other treatment by, or even close to the like of what ISIS and any other batshit crazy "DEATH TO AMERICA!" fuckers would do to them.

And while I'm sure this over-privileged and under-empathy'd little shit and his family are such foul "human beings" that even starving hyena's wouldn't touch their meat if it were still fresh, warm, and not close to stiff, far worse "people" who have done far worse things are still allowed to exist in "polite society", let alone outside of a cage (though I'm sure they contact several lawyers before travelling abroad) and the joke that is western journalism seeks out their opinions despite them being worth less than my Agent Orange degraded semen-swimmers.

Also that might not be much worse than what he (and by extension) the Texas "justice" system has already, and would, do if pixies existed and they'd ever be caught in a country that would extradite a mother and son that can grease the right wheels considering the fact that at this point I think all or most of his case is still being proceeded over by the Juvenile system, which is only used for middle-class and up white kids when felonies are involved.

Plus I think serving out the rest of his 10-year probation in an adult Texas ColoRectal Institute would actually be more cruel.

You know, if he couldn't just pay the Aryan Brotherhood for protection.

I guess what I'm getting at is, any revenge fantasies we or the public at large may have for this little cocksucking momma's boy and said cocksucking momma, they are just fucking fantasies. We live in a world that makes the Gilded Age look like a goddamned Commune and the real problem isn't one little shit from one over-resourced family, it's the systems, countries, and attitudes that lets a 16 year old Rich Bitch who gets behind the wheel hammered resulting in 4 dead victims and others with lifelong injuries and disabilities get 10 years probation because he was shit out of a wealthy cunt who would rather flee the country with him because he couldn't go a year without violating said probation that he got because he's a wealthy white southern fuckbag who got a sympathetic judge who would probably have wanted to execute an impoverished 12 year old black kid who did something half as bad and used the bad parent (fuck the media for actually using the term "affluenza", I don't give a shit how well the attorney polished that turd) defense.

[Aether]

On the plus side, the judge retired in 2014. Not imprisoned for corruption and/or gross stupidity, but at least she isn't going to be enabling any more sociopaths.

I am honestly curious, when/how can a judge be liable for accepting a, what many people consider bullshit, defense?

[Grumman]

On the plus side, the judge retired in 2014. Not imprisoned for corruption and/or gross stupidity, but at least she isn't going to be enabling any more sociopaths.

I am honestly curious, when/how can a judge be liable for accepting a, what many people consider bullshit, defense?

She can lose her job if she pisses enough people off to have them remove her from office (and even that's hardly reliable given that some of them run opposed), but short of money being exchanged I can't imagine she's going to face any legal penalties.

[Gaidin]

'Affluenza' teen Ethan Couch detained in Mexico

(CNN)Mexican authorities have detained so-called "affluenza" teen Ethan Couch and his mother near the popular Mexican Pacific beach resort town of Puerto Vallarta, officials briefed on the matter told CNN.

Couch, 18, went missing earlier this month, two years after he made national news when he was sentenced to probation for a drunken driving crash that killed four people.

Couch is expected to be turned over to the U.S. Marshals Service, who have spent weeks searching for him. A spokesman for the service declined to comment.

He is wanted by authorities in Tarrant County, Texas, for allegedly violating probation. His mother was listed by Texas authorities as a missing person after her son's disappearance, and the authorities said they believed she was assisting her son.

A warrant had been issued for the teen to be taken into custody after his probation officer couldn't reach him earlier this month. His apparent disappearance came after a video allegedly showed him at a party where alcohol was being consumed, authorities said.

Word of the search for Couch has reignited controversy over the case, which drew widespread attention after a psychologist testified that Couch, who was 16 at the time, suffered from "affluenza," describing him as a rich kid whose parents didn't set limits for him.

Prosecutors had requested that Couch be sentenced to 20 years behind bars. The judge's decision to give him probation instead of jail time was controversial at the time, and more so after the recent video appeared to show the teen playing a drinking game at a party.

District Attorney Sharen Wilson has said it "certainly looks like him" in the video, but added that without further investigation, the video alone did not prove he violated his probation.

But leaving the county and not meeting his probation officer are violations, she said.

When asked to confirm Couch's attendance at the event, his attorneys Scott Brown and William Reagan Wynn told CNN's sister network HLN they knew authorities were investigating whether their client violated his probation conditions.

"It would not be prudent for us to make any further statement on Ethan's behalf until the investigations are concluded and it is determined what, if any, action will be taken against him," the lawyers added.

At the time of his conviction, prosecutors said Couch could be incarcerated up to 10 years for violating his probation terms.

When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people who have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re murderers. And some, I assume, are gingers.
-Don Julio Trump