Sickening verdict in Texas

[wildone]

Just when you figured you have heard every defense that could be conjured up

 

Teen acquitted of more severe charges due to 'Affluenza'

 

I think this quote sums it up:

 

 

"We are setting a double standard for the rich and poor," she added, noting the message is "families that have money, you can drink and drive. This is a very, very dangerous thing we're telling our children."

 

And please, this holiday season, Don't Drink and Drive!!!

Edited December 15, 2013 by wildone

[Kitt]

And don't let friends, family and guests drive drunk!  

 

We have the key basket, that is overseen by one of the tea teetotalers in the family. Keys go in when you arrive at a party here, and don't come out again unless the totally sober keeper of the basket feels you are sober. If you don't get your keys back you get a ride home from someone who IS sober, I'll call ( and pay for) a taxi, or give you a blanket and pillow and a corner to sleep it off in.  

 

Just like barkeeps are now being held responsible if they continue to serve patrons who have had too much, the hosts and hostesses should be careful of their guests!

[Daddydavek]

The judge should be officially censured and voted off the bench.   I hope the families of those he killed and maimed sue him and his 'affluent' parents for every cent they have. 

Edited December 15, 2013 by Daddydavek

[Menace]

omg. I read this somewhere too. I'm like WTH is wrong with this "Judge"....

[Bill W]

Would the same judge let off a poor person because his parents didn't teach him right from wrong and never desciplined him?  Of course not, which makes this decision even more ridiculous. 

[W_L]

Umm....(Bostonian call it something else, but it'd be far too political to say it)

 

Let's be honest here, if the legal system were equal and fair, then we'd do away with lawyers, juries, and judges. Without going into politics or social commentary, the simple truth is that any form of legal system based on arbitration can be manipulated by wealth or power. A truly fair and equal system of justice would apply the laws in a manner that is straightforward without exceptions or mitigating influences without a need for Democratic representation, Defenders of public or personal interest, nor a state sanctioned magistrate to execute open ended laws.

 

In ancient times, the wealthy were held by noble obligations that would keep them in check with a fear of God/gods being the hallmark of balancing things off. When you remove the power of eternal damnation, justice and truth will erode over time to anarchy. (Not going into religious aspects of justice either, but just stating a fact about how eastern and western systems of justice held divine elements in past)

 

There are many reasons why Justice and Fairness does not really work in the US or in many areas around the world.

[Ron]

Prison is not the be all - end all answer to every crime every time, perhaps even this one. Maybe a monitored probation and rehab is better than the choice of prison for this young man. It is unfair to judge the judge on a single word definition used by a psychologist as there is more to it than that. The prosecutor's blanket statement 'that being cushioned by the parents wealth would produce another tragedy' doesn't ring as always true. In fact the lead defence attorney suggested that it was likely he would have been out of prison in two years but this way 'he is under the thumb of the justice system for the next ten years'. In other words - he screws up, he goes to prison.

 

I am not saying that it is an option every time but it could be the right one this time. I am not so hasty to judge.

[wildone]

I guess what upsets me the most is that this person took four peoples lives for doing nothing more than walking down the street. The driver is drunk and from the radio report i heard may have been on prescription drugs not prescribed to him.

 

Then, to say his upbringing of Mommy and Daddy always taking care of him for every wrong he has done is a legitimate reason for not seeing the inside of a prison for his judgement call is the icing on the cake.

 

At what point are the apron strings cut from this person and he is held accountable for his very adult actions.

 

I concur with the opinion of 'what if'. Can anyone say that if this person was of a different social economic upbringing  and he ran down and killed four people, he would have the option to go to a treatment centre that his parents could afford. I think we all know the answer to that

Edited December 16, 2013 by wildone

[C J]

I'm not going to try and develop an opinion on this story.  There are lots of variables I don't know anything about.  One I'm sure is in play here is the states' desire to avoid spending a bunch of money keeping this person locked up.

 

I don't think punishment needs to be prescribed by a book.  Justice isn't always about an eye for an eye.  This boy didn't decide to get drunk and kill someone, and intent has to have some value in making a decision.  Circumstances we will never know about were likely considered, and the court needs to try and do what's best for the offender as well.  Simply putting him in jail might be seen as "fair" to casual observers, but the end result may be the eventual release of yet another hard criminal into the community, well trained by his fellow inmates in the art of intentional crime.

 

I think that punishment needs to be about more than punishment.  It needs to be about avoiding future offenses, and I believe the U.S. has proven that prison is not a good means of achieving that goal.  No country has as many people in prison as the U.S. does, and yet we have higher crime rates than most other countries as well.

 

I'm not trying to make excuses for what happened, but I think it's a lot more complicated than it appears.  I think it is most of the time.  Can wealthy people buy their way out of a jam?  I'm sure that they probably can, at least sometimes.  Did that happen here?  Honestly, I have no idea.  I don't think anyone else does either.

[JamesSavik]

In this case the suspect was tried in juvenile court. They did about as much as they could to him under that system.

 

Don't think that long term alcohol rehab and probation are going to be a picnic.

 

If he screws up again, he will have aged out from under the juvenile protections and will get prison time.

[Fishwings]

All specifics aside, the overall statement that this verdict makes is "if you're rich, you can get away with anything," and that's a dangerous message to endorse in. Sending him to rehab and saving some governmental money may actually be more effective than sending him to prison (I really have no idea) -- but by doing so, that doesn't tackle the root of "affluenza" at the societal level. It encourages it, and I find this very troublesome.

[hh5]

if he were texting and hitting ppl n even causing death ... he be let go ... adult or juvenile in most states

 

last texting death I read was in tennessee I think ... the guy was given light sentence what essentially is a form of (loop hole) murder 

 

the good question did they take away this guy licence forever???

[Rndmrunner]

I think that this speaks to the weakness of having elected judges who  may in part make decisions based on the approval of a voting constituency. This in turn leads to counter measures like mandatory sentencing. Both tend to favour the wealthy and connected who can hire a superior legal team to circumvent the charges. I have to admit to being biased based on the story originating in Houston and my perception of Texas style government and judiciary.

 

As mentioned above, we can do one positive thing and that is to ensure that we and the people around us do not drink and drive. It may not improve the justice system but it saves lives.

 

Merry Christmas and be safe

[crazyfish]

Umm....(Bostonian call it something else, but it'd be far too political to say it)

 

Let's be honest here, if the legal system were equal and fair, then we'd do away with lawyers, juries, and judges. Without going into politics or social commentary, the simple truth is that any form of legal system based on arbitration can be manipulated by wealth or power. A truly fair and equal system of justice would apply the laws in a manner that is straightforward without exceptions or mitigating influences without a need for Democratic representation, Defenders of public or personal interest, nor a state sanctioned magistrate to execute open ended laws.

 

In ancient times, the wealthy were held by noble obligations that would keep them in check with a fear of God/gods being the hallmark of balancing things off. When you remove the power of eternal damnation, justice and truth will erode over time to anarchy. (Not going into religious aspects of justice either, but just stating a fact about how eastern and western systems of justice held divine elements in past)

 

There are many reasons why Justice and Fairness does not really work in the US or in many areas around the world.

There has never been a time in which the justice system has been fair to the rich and poor alike.  Not in the west, not in the east either.  Religion is a good check on the poor, never for the rich.  The rich would do their many sins and then give money to the church in the hopes of God would erase their sins. 

 

In fact, a point could be made that justice has become fairer in the modern times. Being the prosecutor who brings down big men with money with terrible crimes has always been a career making move. 

[Zombie]

You can't blame the lawyers for making a specious defence / mitigation plea, just as you can't blame a turd for ruining your jacuzzi - it's what they do The key issue is that responsibility for sentencing rests with the judge not defence lawyers. In the UK judges are not elected but appointed, based on experience and competence as practising lawyers, and if they are too lenient the Prosecution can appeal - just as the defendant can appeal against harsh sentences - and judges can be reprimanded, or sacked, for incompetence or misconduct. Seems fair to me

[W_L]

There has never been a time in which the justice system has been fair to the rich and poor alike.  Not in the west, not in the east either.  Religion is a good check on the poor, never for the rich.  The rich would do their many sins and then give money to the church in the hopes of God would erase their sins.  In fact, a point could be made that justice has become fairer in the modern times. Being the prosecutor who brings down big men with money with terrible crimes has always been a career making move.

 

Well, Sale of indulgences comes to mind (Along with the Borgias, talk about wealth, power, and corruption).

 

Modern justice is still plagued with corruption, no less than in the past. However, wealth is more subversive in legal proceedings than the old bribe a judge or jury. For example, High priced jury and jurisdiction experts can sway an entire case for or against the defendant.

[Kitt]

... but this way 'he is under the thumb of the justice system for the next ten years'. In other words - he screws up, he goes to prison.

 

I am not saying that it is an option every time but it could be the right one this time. I am not so hasty to judge.

So we need to wait for him to kill one more person thru his negligence and stupidity before he should be punished?

 

 This boy didn't decide to get drunk and kill someone, and intent has to have some value in making a decision. 

 

 

Then what do you believe his intent was behind ingesting alcohol, and apparently prescription drugs not belonging to him, if not to get drunk/high?  While I believe he didn't decide to kill someone, no one forced the pills and booze down his throat.

 

You can't blame the lawyers for making a specious defence / mitigation plea, just as you can't blame a turd for ruining your jacuzzi - it's what they do

An acquaintance of mine was a high profile capital case attorney before being appointed to the bench. I once asked her how she could justify defending scum knowing they are guilty. Her reply was that if the prosecutor does his job she will lose and then she can rest easy knowing damn sure the ass belongs in prison.

[Ron]

It seems that he is destined for a rehabilitation center and not just for a little while. Psychologist and the authorities are slowly coming around to the fact that it is easier to change the mindset of young offenders than it is for adults. The young brain is wired differently and can be influenced more readily to appropriate behavior. Why do you think that organized religion and militias around the world try to indoctrinate at early an age and keep control until adulthood? By adulthood it is set and difficult for the mind to break free of. That goes for both behavior and the thinking process. It's also why parents, even the crappy ones, have so much sway long after children leave the nest. So why not attempt, with restrictions and consequences of failure in place, to rehabilitate?

 

Frankly, I am surprised that the response is to assume that it will happen again with mostly anecdotal evidence and no real knowledge of this young man's life or thought processes to support your conclusion, Kitt. People do change. Especially the young.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Ron

[methodwriter85]

   Please tell me that this kid at the very least has lost his driver's license for life.

[Kitt]

Perhaps I am being a bit set in my opinions, but he HAS KILLED four people, regardless of his mindset behind it. How would you feel if it was your family he had destroyed in a moment of unthinking action in getting behind the wheel impaired?

 

 

I lost a friend in a very similar situation when I was a teen. She had been doing everything right, and was hit and killed by a woman who had mixed prescription drugs and alcohol.  That woman was also sent to rehab, and had her licence back in her pocket in less than 6 months. Admittedly that was before DUI laws were stiffened in our state. Rehab didn't help the next person she killed when she next drank and drove. Thank god the second trial saw her convicted of vehicular homicide. I cannot help but think if the first trial had ended that way there would be two people who would have lived to see their own children grow up.

[hh5]

yaaa the parents know somebody who know somebody they pay off to a campaign fund or favorite charity

yes the multiple $$$ figure

Well, Sale of indulgences comes to mind (Along with the Borgias, talk about wealth, power, and corruption).

Modern justice is still plagued with corruption, no less than in the past. However, wealth is more subversive in legal proceedings than the old bribe a judge or jury. For example, High priced jury and jurisdiction experts can sway an entire case for or against the defendant.

I asked that ... lol

   Please tell me that this kid at the very least has lost his driver's license for life.

[C J]

 

 

 

Then what do you believe his intent was behind ingesting alcohol, and apparently prescription drugs not belonging to him, if not to get drunk/high?  While I believe he didn't decide to kill someone, no one forced the pills and booze down his throat.

 

 

Let me rephrase my statement for you: 

 

The boy didn't get drunk with the intent of killing someone.

 

Is that easier to understand now? 

[Zombie]

Then what do you believe his intent was behind ingesting alcohol, and apparently prescription drugs not belonging to him, if not to get drunk/high?  While I believe he didn't decide to kill someone, no one forced the pills and booze down his throat.

 

 

Let me rephrase my statement for you: 

 

The boy didn't get drunk with the intent of killing someone.

 

Is that easier to understand now? 

 

Just to clarify "intent", drink / drugged driving is in a category of  crime where intent is not required. It's called "strict liability". So, as a matter of law, for drink / drugged driving the only intent needed is the intent to drink alcohol / take drugs - driving while drunk / drugged is then automatically an unlawful act. And killing someone while DUI is then a further, much more serious and automatic criminal offence. The reason for this is obvious - when you drive a car while drunk / drugged, whether you make it home safely or mow down and kill a group of people is a lottery, a lottery of the driver's making.

 

[JamesSavik]

I believe we are missing a salient point.

 

He was tried in Juvenile Court. They gave him the max that you can give a juvenile under their system.

 

He is under long-term rehab (a year in-patient) + 10 years probation.

 

If he screws up, he will have aged out from under his juvenile protections, he gets adult time.

 

If statistics about alcoholics and recovery are realistic (and they are), he has an 80%+ chance to be drunk 3 months out of treatment.

Edited December 17, 2013 by jamessavik

[Y_B]

I wonder what car he was driving