SurvivingInfidelity.com Forum Archives

Return to Forum List

Affluenza?

You are not logged in. Login here or register.

JanaGreen posted 12/13/2013 12:27 PM

Because . . . just . . . OMG.

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

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/massive-uproar-over-the-teenager-who-won-a-drunk-driving-cas?bffb

I just have no words.

Undefinabl3 posted 12/13/2013 12:30 PM

tell you what....my kid will never suffer from this shit.

Seriously....this is horrible

JanaGreen posted 12/13/2013 12:34 PM

I am holding on to hope that this is all just an elaborate hoax.

I know it's not, but the alternative is to accept that it's real.

64fleet posted 12/13/2013 12:51 PM

There's a kid here who spent 10 yrs in prison, blew .001 at an accident that killed his friend-no tolerance here-any drinking under 21 is unlawful. Justice seems blind for sure.

tushnurse posted 12/13/2013 14:28 PM

I saw this yesterday, and given the general area where this kid is from was not really surprised. I guess this is the result of the whole everyone gets a trophy, no one gets their ass beat, and never hears the word no generation.

I find it sickening, and I certainly hope that the victims families pursue a civil suit since he isn't being punished under the law for suffering from Affluenza, perhaps mom and dad can suffer with a big hit to their bank account.

As a person who watched their best friends dad get killed by a drunk driver with a minimum sentence this just infuriates me to no end.

Yuck.

circe posted 12/13/2013 15:58 PM

To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy.

To a judge, who sentenced Couch to 10 years' probation but no jail time, he's a defendant in need of treatment.

So... because the boy's defense was that his parents never set limits for him, the judge decided to also not set limits for him as a punishment. And the kid's attorney said this was justified because putting him in jail wouldn't ease his victims families' suffering.

It's hard to know what our children are going to think, growing up in a world like this.

I think in honor of this court decision, I'm going to come up with a few genuinely good people my children can look up to with pride and we'll write them letters of appreciation for being lights in the darkness.

I don't think you can fight this kind of evil with anger, as much as it provokes, but maybe we can help tip the scales away from these inhuman people by pouring more attention and approval towards those who are good.

I can't think of any other response, it hurts my heart to realize this sort of thing happens.

caregiver9000 posted 12/13/2013 16:11 PM

I see this in a different form day after day. Failure to follow through on consequences for children because

1. The suspension numbers are too high
2. The suspension numbers for a certain group are too high... (read black males)
3. Our drop out rate is scrutinized and suspending children who are of an age to drop out encourages dropping out
4. Suspending children is "not the answer."

and my favorite:

"I didn't suspend him because it is what he wants..."

Fine. All of those reasons have merit in some degree. But don't claim to have a zero tolerance for drugs, violence, or whatever and then use one of these as an excuse in what appears to be willy nilly logic. Because I promise you the message that is received is that consequences are not enforced and that behaviors carry minimal risks if you say you are sorry/cry/have mom call and make a fuss, that there is an excuse for everything, and "one more chance" in every instance.

ok, climbing down off soap box.

Clarrissa posted 12/13/2013 16:37 PM

I saw this too. Poor little rich boy is a victim because he always got what he wanted and was always allowed to do what he wanted. This kid is going to grow up to be one of the most arrogant, selfish people on the planet. "I'm *rich*. I can do whatever the hell I want. Even mow people down with a car. And NO ONE will punish me for it." I don't normally advocate violence but someone should beat some sense into this kid.

As for his "sentence", puhleeeese. He gets to go to Club Med while the families of the victims get to plan funerals. The prosecutor in this case should be fired and disbarred. The kid was stinking drunk and committed 4 counts of vehicular homicide and got what the average joe would consider a first class vacation as sentence.

Crescita posted 12/13/2013 16:44 PM

I donít know this story just seems tragic regardless of the sentence. Unless the kid is a sociopath, he has to live with this for the rest of his life. That isnít something I would wish on anyone, regardless of their net worth.

There is an inequity here, but that is part of life.

If the situation was reversed the families of the victims would receive no compensation. Does that imply that the lives lost were less precious because the perpetrator was poor?

MissesJai posted 12/13/2013 17:05 PM

It's also racial. I will leave it at that.

sisoon posted 12/14/2013 14:32 PM

I wonder what the judge's record is with low-income defendants and with defendants of color. I wonder about the state of his campaign funds, particularly recent and future contributions.

Clarrissa posted 12/14/2013 15:31 PM

Rumormill says the judge was/will be well compensated for the ruling in the form of campaign contributions (Texas judges are elected, not appointed). Rumormill also says that yes, the wealth of the parents played a major part in the ruling. Other, not so well-off, repeat DUI defendants got *much* harsher sentances, both from this judge and others.

I retract my earlier statement about the prosecutor. He wanted the maximum sentance for this kid. This wasn't his first DUI, not to mention he's guilty of underage drinking and was stinking drunk at the time.

Besides the lenient (paid for?) judge, the parents hired a "professional psycologist" to come up with the affluenza diagnosis. No one else had ever heard of it before this case.

I may sound harsh but even though he has to live with knowing he took four lives, I tend to think, because of his rarely (if ever) hearing the word "no" and the lack of consequences when he did screw up, that it doesn't bother him that much.

tushnurse posted 12/14/2013 15:58 PM

Seems to me we are encouraging and breeding sociopathic behavior. Oh don't worry about killing a family son. He's be relinquished from his internal debate and guilt publicly as a teen, and we think he will feel guilt and shame?

I don't think so. He hasn't been ever made to feel it and now is told what he did is ok because mom and dad are crappy parents.

The whole thing infuritates me!

Holly-Isis posted 12/14/2013 19:43 PM

A few months after we started dating a drunk driver hit the minivan that held MrH's aunt and her family. It killed the father, the 6yo son and the 4yo DD. The oldest son has brain damage. He went from a gifted student to learning disabled.

The driver jumped out of his car and ran to the side of the road. He threw a 40oz bottle of beer in the woods according f to witnesses. He had a broken ankle. He did not check on the family. Just full CYA mode.

The cop knew this 18yo kid. It was a small town and his dad owned the only car dealership. He put off testing his BAL for two hours. And dismissed the joints found in the car.

The kid paid a fine and did a couple hundred hours of community service. A little over a year later his mom actually had the guts to approach the mom that had been in the van. She said that everyone felt sorry for her family, but what about her son? He had to do allllllllll that community service.

This was 20yrs ago and it taught me a clear lesson about both money and small towns.

Ascendant posted 12/17/2013 09:04 AM

Back in the day (and still today, in many places) affluenza is just called "being an asshole."

And the kid's attorney said this was justified because putting him in jail wouldn't ease his victims families' suffering
This is silly to me because the punishment isn't ABOUT easing the victim's suffering. You're paying for your transgression against the laws of society. If it was about easing the victim's suffering, instead of jailing murderers, we'd put them to work to pay to support the family of the person they killed as recompense for the lost income.

Random thoughts posted 12/17/2013 19:25 PM

This kid is going to be on a future episode of 48hours or Dateline for killing his spouse or someone else.

Neither him or his parents who has had run ins with the law themselves have learn a lesson, watch the little devil walking out of court with his parents, not a look of remorse on any of their faces.


This makes me sick because if that were any of us on here we would be sitting in jail on vehicular manslaughter charges.

Just this past summer a man driving home from a waterpark killed a young child, a pregnant woman and her aunt(?) and his bail was a million dollars. And he was drunk too.

persevere posted 12/18/2013 00:12 AM

I've worked in prosecution for 20 years now and I've always tried to have an open mind to verdicts, whether by jury or judge. In this case it was by judge, who you expect to dictate their sentences much more closely to the law. In this case, I would like to think that the intent was to do the right thing for true justice, but I can see the huge concern in the community. Looking at the sentence imposed and the victims involved, it doesn't seem that their circumstance was balanced in, and that is a huge concern. The prosecutors clearly had no idea this sentence was coming.

The only fact that gives me some comfort is that the defendant will be kept away from his family for two years for intensive treatment. Is this true? I don't know but I hope so. In fairness to what the defense was trying to represent, if the kid was sentenced to prison, he would have been subjected to prison, which involves no real rehabilitation efforts, and would simply have solidified negative behavior.

My one strong opinion from dealing with prosecution of adults? Rehab doesn't exist. Prison is typically a breeding ground for future more dangerous behavior.

Was this sentence right? Probably not. Will it have a positive affect for future behavior of this defendant? Unknown at this point, but I hope so. If he does violate his conditions he will be slammed, and based on the media attention, he will be slammed quickly.

Return to Forum List

© 2002-2018 SurvivingInfidelity.com ®. All Rights Reserved.