Now just read through this and it should infuriate you.
‘Affluenza’ defense in DWI assailed
“Affluenza,” the affliction cited by a psychologist to argue that a North Texas teenager from a wealthy family should not be sent to prison for killing four pedestrians while driving drunk, is not a recognized diagnosis and should not be used to justify bad behavior, experts said Thursday.
A judge’s decision to give 16-year-old Ethan Couch 10 years of probation for the fatal accident sparked outrage from relatives of those killed and has led to questions about the defense strategy. A psychologist testified in Couch’s trial in a Fort Worth juvenile court that as a result of “affluenza,” the boy should not receive the maximum 20-year prison sentence prosecutors were seeking.
The term “affluenza” was popularized in the late 1990s by Jessie O’Neill, the granddaughter of a past president of General Motors, when she wrote the book “The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence.” It has since been used to describe a condition in which children
— generally from richer families — have a sense of entitlement, are irresponsible, make excuses for poor behavior, and sometimes dabble in drugs and alcohol, said Dr. Gary Buffone, a Jacksonville, Fla., psychologist.
But Buffone said Thursday that the term wasn’t meant to be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to justify such behavior.
“The simple term would be spoiled brat,” he said.
“Essentially what he (the judge) has done is slapped this child on the wrist for what is obviously a very serious offense which he would be responsible for in any other situation,” he said. “The defense is laughable, the disposition is horrifying … not only haven’t the parents set any consequences, but it’s being reinforced by the judge’s actions.”
District Judge Jean Boyd issued her sentence Tuesday after Couch “admitted his guilt” last week in four cases of intoxication manslaughter in the June accident, according to a news release from the Tar-rant County prosecutor’s office. The ruling came after the judge heard three days of testimony from witnesses, victims’ loved ones, investigators and treatment experts.
Psychologist testimony
The psychologist who testified as a defense witness at Couch’s trial said the boy grew up in a house where the parents were preoccupied with arguments that led to a divorce, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
But prosecutor Richard Alpert argued in court that if the boy continues to be cushioned by his family’s wealth, another tragedy is inevitable.
A message left for Boyd by the Associated Press was not returned Thursday. But the Star-Telegram reported that the judge said the programs available in the Texas juvenile justice system may not provide the intensive therapy Couch could receive at a $450,000-a-year rehabilitation center near Newport Beach, Calif., that the parents would pay for.
Although Couch’s case was handled in juvenile court, he has been identified publicly by the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office.
One legal expert said he had never even heard of “affluenza.”
“The concept that I did something because I’m rich and spoiled doesn’t look like a good causation,” Richard Segura, a supervising attorney at the University of Texas at Austin’s Criminal Defense Clinic, told the AP. “It doesn’t sound like something that would ameliorate the punishment.”
However, the judge likely factored in rehabilitation, restitution and other factors when sentencing Couch, Segura said.
Surveillance video
Authorities said the teen and friends were seen on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a store. He had seven passengers in his Ford F-350, was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to trial testimony. His truck slammed into the four pedestrians, killing Brian Jennings, 43, Breanna Mitchell, 24, Shelby Boyles, 21, and her mother, Hollie Boyles, 52....
Enough to really get your blood boiling, but this is an upper income version of what certain "advocates of the poor" have been saying for generations. It's not my fault, blame the system, etc. And it's still as infuriating. You say someone is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions but they are mature enough to be drive a vehicle, receive and use money, etc (Poorer people get SSI, Kennedy's get their inheritance).
I am fairly new to the fatherhood racket (two beautiful girls) and I've said to them more than once the only person responsible for what you do is you. I don't knock the defense attorney for pushing this tripe, he's getting paid to get a client off. But it's disgusting to see there are "learned" people on the bench who buy this crap.
No comments:
Post a Comment