Someone here is dropping the ball and I'm calling you on it. I'm the nerdy computer hardware gaming guy. It's not my job to start social commentary threads.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

So somehow if your parents failed to hold you accountable for anything your entire life, then you commit a horrible and wreckless act, that it's legally unfair to hold you accountable for that too? I would think the judge would take this as the perfect opportunity to begin 'treatment'.

So does Affluenza sound like an acceptable defense to anyone?

No one is talking about it because the article is typical sensationalist bull****.

The kid's life is going to be ruined, he's still going to be sued by each family individually, and the only reason he got off light was because he's a juvenile, not because of some plea crap.

This is really a much more constructive sentence. The real problem is that less privileged criminals don't get similar options for rehabilitation. Oh, you're rich? We'll try to save you. Poor? County prison.

Prolly no thread because I was in SF.



His life isn't ruined.

1. He's a minor so he isn't going to end up with a criminal record, and because his family is wealthy and connected he doesn't need to worry about it affecting his future employment like a poor person would.
2. The charge really isn't any more constructive than what poor/black people get (because it's private resort ~REHAB~ that costs half a million a year) and it's a hell of a lot less punitive, considering the vehicular manslaughter charges could have gotten him 40 years by themselves if he were two years older.
3. Texas also has non-economic damages caps so the amount of money he and his family will have to pay out is extremely limited, assuming any of his victims have the means to sue in the first place, and his parents will certainly settle for much less.



OTOH he's a minor, and a non-violent unlikely repeat offender, and the kid's parents are certainly psychopathic considering they are willing to pay for ~REHAB~ and for a psychologist to perjure and humiliate himself. So getting the kid away from his parents for hopefully the rest of his adolescence is probably as good an outcome as we can hope.

The story here is really about his parents. Kill the rich.

"Affluenza" is the dumbest name I've ever heard of for anything and I wish everyone would stop saying it.

But yes, probation and treatment should probably be the default option for offenders of this age.

You guys make good points about rich vs poor and constructive rehabilitation. I guess the kid's lawyer should be the one getting punished for this joke of defense, except that it worked.

It probably didn't work. I mean, the only way we'd know for sure is if this judge has a history of delivering harsh sentences in similar cases, but I suspect she's just as reluctant as any other sensible adult to administer a long jail sentence to a child who honestly should never have been given the opportunity to drink and drive in the first place.

Like I said, the real story here is the parents.

It's not our son's fault, we're just too rich for society to handle.
No, please don't send our son to jail, we'll send him to private, first-class resort jail instead.

It's not like the kid was managing his own defense, here. This stuff is all entirely on the parents, trying desperately to use their wealth as a cudgel and mostly failing.

summary execution. for the parents not the child.

When I'm elected president, they'll have to wait for their executions until we've killed every banking executive. I give it five days.

Oh, also, for what it's worth, I would never fault a defense attorney for using every legitimate-seeming means at his disposal. He is, after all, required to present a zealous defense. This kid's parents were obviously willing to pay for a quack "expert" on their own, and even a good defense attorney can't be expected to throw out a witness with putative credentials based on the attorney's own judgment that the science is junk.

The real fault re: this defense ever making it into court lies primarily with the witness himself, because he's a quack and he probably knows it and probably is willing to take money for continuing to be a quack, and secondarily with the judge for not appropriately carrying out his gatekeeping function WRT expert testimony.

I think there's a fat chance somebody's going to murder this guy.

Out of curiosity, how old do you have to be in Texas before you're not tried as a juvenile for something like this?

Reckless. Obviously not wreckless.

Wow, poor spelling nearly created an awful pun.

In Texas, persons as young as 14 can be tried as adults. I emphasize can because the process for trying a juvenile as an adult is pretty much entirely discretionary.

The word in its current usage is older than you. i don't think its going anywhere.

That's nonsense. Plenty of dumb colloquialisms born before me have essentially died in my lifetime.

I got pulled over in Texas once for speeding... he just let me go with a warning.

AFFLUENZA, *****ES.

You winked at JLee and he let you go, huh.