AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Rich Kid Defense...

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JerryBoBerry

V.I.P. AmberLander
Jul 6, 2011
7,029
16,603
793
A 16 year old who was drunk driving (3 times over the legal limit for an adult) kills 4 people and doesn't get sentenced to jail time. Instead he'll be going to a high end rehab facility in California, probably have a facial and a spa while he's there. Evidently being rich makes you so stupid you can't be held accountable for your decisions. At least under the eyes of the law. Thank God he wasn't poor or black, he'd be serving multiple life sentences.

http://www.ryot.org/16-year-old-rich-ki ... nza/497245

A Texas teen who killed four people in a drunk driving accident has dodged a 20-year prison sentence due to “affluenza,” otherwise known as being too affluent to know right from wrong. Instead, Ethan Couch, 16, was sentenced to 10 years’ probation, a ruling that has outraged the victims’ families.

The Fort Worth brat’s legal team argued that Couch’s lack of judgment the June night he and seven of his teen friends stole liquor from a WalMart, drank it and later piled into his truck, going 70 in a 40 zone was due to poor parenting.

There was also valium in Couch’s system when he crashed into a broken down car on the side of the road, killing Breanna Mitchell, 24, the stopped vehicle’s driver, along with three Good Samaritans who were helping her. Two teens sitting in Couch’s truck bed were critically injured

“The teen never learned to say that you’re sorry if you hurt someone,” Dr. Gary Miller, a psychologist who spoke on Couch’s behalf told the courtroom. ”If you hurt someone, you sent him money.” Miller added that the 16-year-old boy has the “intellectual age” of 18 but an “emotional age” of 12.

Defense attorneys asked that, instead of two decades in prison, Couch be sent to a Southern California rehabilitation center which costs a whopping $500,000 a year. His father said he’d pay for it.

Judge Boyd agreed that the sort of therapy Couch requires for his “affluenza” would not be available to him in prison.

Affluenza? A more legit excuse for Couch’s slap on the wrist punishment would have been influenza. Nobody wants a cold in an already frigid jail cell.
 
While I actually agree with the final verdict, the reason for me would be because he is 16 fucking years old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: curvyredhead
When I got my license, learning about drinking & driving was part of the exam, which I'd imagine is common for most places. So there'd be no "I didn't realize it was bad" excuse. That's a fucked up logic they're using, and personally I think he should've been sent to prison. Insane what people can get away with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PlayboyMegan
Affluenza is total bullshit! That judge should be fired. At the minimum, I'd have added 15,000 hours of community service and half of those hours would have to be at a food bank feeding the less fortunate.

Taking 4 innocent lives and the punishment is a posh rehab facility?

Fuck that!

Talk about grounds for a HUGE civil lawsuit. Since they believe that money is the cure for doing others wrong, the parents of those killed by that spoiled brat should take them for every last cent they have.
 
JoleneBrody said:
While I actually agree with the final verdict, the reason for me would be because he is 16 fucking years old.
I agree.

Prison isn't a place for rehabilitation anymore. It's used as a storing house for cheap subsidized labor. And for a child (which is what a 16 year old is, regardless of the seriousness of their crime) the only effect it will have is creating another person who doesn't know how to function outside those walls so it probably a better option. Not just for him but for the general public. We have enough people who've gone to prison, subsequently can't find jobs and go back to prison.

I agree with what Boce said about community service though. It'll teach him a hell of a lot more than what prison and rehab would.

(Just to be clear what he did is HORRIBLE. I hope he lives with that weighing on him forever but I just don't think our prison system would truly be useful in this situation and many others.)
 
SexyStephXS said:
JoleneBrody said:
While I actually agree with the final verdict, the reason for me would be because he is 16 fucking years old.
I agree.

Prison isn't a place for rehabilitation anymore. It's used as a storing house for cheap subsidized labor. And for a child (which is what a 16 year old is, regardless of the seriousness of their crime) the only effect it will have is creating another person who doesn't know how to function outside those walls so it probably a better option. Not just for him but for the general public. We have enough people who've gone to prison, subsequently can't find jobs and go back to prison.

I agree with what Boce said about community service though. It'll teach him a hell of a lot more than what prison and rehab would.

(Just to be clear what he did is HORRIBLE. I hope he lives with that weighing on him forever but I just don't think our prison system would truly be useful in this situation and many others.)

I MIGHT be inclined to agree with you two but what holds me back is this is NOT HIS FIRST DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSE and the kid is only 16. He has already gotten away with it and knows he can. Now he has killed four people, will hop in a car drunk, and do it again because he has gotten off of the offenses scott free each time... Had this been his first offense I might be more inclined to say yeah the Affluenza thing is bs but the kid is 16, but it's not.
 
KamikaziKitty said:
I MIGHT be inclined to agree with you two but what holds me back is this is NOT HIS FIRST DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSE and the kid is only 16. He has already gotten away with it and knows he can. Now he has killed four people, will hop in a car drunk, and do it again because he has gotten off of the offenses scott free each time... Had this been his first offense I might be more inclined to say yeah the Affluenza thing is bs but the kid is 16, but it's not.

Isn't Affluenza caused by not having consequences for your actions? Seems like this is only going to make things worse for him.
 
KamikaziKitty said:
SexyStephXS said:
JoleneBrody said:
While I actually agree with the final verdict, the reason for me would be because he is 16 fucking years old.
I agree.

Prison isn't a place for rehabilitation anymore. It's used as a storing house for cheap subsidized labor. And for a child (which is what a 16 year old is, regardless of the seriousness of their crime) the only effect it will have is creating another person who doesn't know how to function outside those walls so it probably a better option. Not just for him but for the general public. We have enough people who've gone to prison, subsequently can't find jobs and go back to prison.

I agree with what Boce said about community service though. It'll teach him a hell of a lot more than what prison and rehab would.

(Just to be clear what he did is HORRIBLE. I hope he lives with that weighing on him forever but I just don't think our prison system would truly be useful in this situation and many others.)

I MIGHT be inclined to agree with you two but what holds me back is this is NOT HIS FIRST DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSE and the kid is only 16. He has already gotten away with it and knows he can. Now he has killed four people, will hop in a car drunk, and do it again because he has gotten off of the offenses scott free each time... Had this been his first offense I might be more inclined to say yeah the Affluenza thing is bs but the kid is 16, but it's not.

I didn't realize it was his second. But wouldn't rehab be more useful than sending him to prison where he'll receive no rehabilitation and get out and drive drunk again when he's 36?

Idk, I'm really torn on this. He's ruined so many lives and rehab seems too cushy an option but at the same time, the prison system seems counterproductive.
 
SexyStephXS said:
I didn't realize it was his second. But wouldn't rehab be more useful than sending him to prison where he'll receive no rehabilitation and get out and drive drunk again when he's 36?

Idk, I'm really torn on this. He's ruined so many lives and rehab seems too cushy an option but at the same time, the prison system seems counterproductive.
The problem is that we don't have any middle-ground solution in this country. Either he gets the super-cushy rehab option, or he goes to prison. If we could figure out how to implement more rehabilitation into our prison systems, then we could maybe reduce the number of repeat offenders while still feeling like justice was served.

I don't think rehab alone is a guarantee that he won't get out and act this way again, though. I mean, just look at all the celebs that go back to substance abuse after leaving rehab. On the other hand, the recidivism rate is insanely high in our prison system, so clearly people aren't "learning their lesson" when it comes to incarceration. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 (the stats are a little out of date, but still proves my point.)

We need some major overhauls done in our justice system, that's for damn sure.
 
CharlotteLace said:
SexyStephXS said:
I didn't realize it was his second. But wouldn't rehab be more useful than sending him to prison where he'll receive no rehabilitation and get out and drive drunk again when he's 36?

Idk, I'm really torn on this. He's ruined so many lives and rehab seems too cushy an option but at the same time, the prison system seems counterproductive.
The problem is that we don't have any middle-ground solution in this country. Either he gets the super-cushy rehab option, or he goes to prison. If we could figure out how to implement more rehabilitation into our prison systems, then we could maybe reduce the number of repeat offenders while still feeling like justice was served.

I don't think rehab alone is a guarantee that he won't get out and act this way again, though. I mean, just look at all the celebs that go back to substance abuse after leaving rehab. On the other hand, the recidivism rate is insanely high in our prison system, so clearly people aren't "learning their lesson" when it comes to incarceration. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 (the stats are a little out of date, but still proves my point.)

We need some major overhauls done in our justice system, that's for damn sure.

Part of the problem is that our government actually BENEFITS from a high recidivism rate. You're right, there needs to be a change, it's just... Really unlikely. The prisons house a cheap labor force for the government and other businesses (most prisons are privately owned and use the inmates for their own labor). So the only people who would benefit from this rehaul would be... Those not in power/profiting from the prisons.

Maybe if instead of prison he got the shit kicked out of him by the victims families and THEN sent to rehab... I bet he'd learn then.
 
Honestly I'm thinking 'he shouldn't be sent to jail because he's 16' is probably the most stupid thing I have heard on this forum ever. Who cares how old he is. He chose to drink, then drive a 3000 pound object and murdered 4 random people.

By that logic if he had chosen to pick up a gun and walk into a school and kill 4 people he should be let go with rehab. Or is the drinking a mitigating factor to your thinking? Perhaps -get drunk- then hijack a bus full of 12 year old school girls. He could ass rape and kill every one of them and get sentenced to a spa because he's only 16.

At what point do we say no, you have to be held accountable for your actions? Guess what, he fucked up. He should be paying for his crime. The four people he murdered i'm betting aren't really caring how old he was. This isn't a case of a youth vandalizing stuff or stealing a car, he ended 4 peoples lives. Murder is one the most severe crimes we have regardless of age. If you think he shouldn't get jail for that why bother to arrest anyone under 18? Spray painting a bridge overpass doesn't even begin to compare.
 
JerryBoBerry said:
Honestly I'm thinking 'he shouldn't be sent to jail because he's 16' is probably the most stupid thing I have heard on this forum ever. Who cares how old he is. He chose to drink, then drive a 3000 pound object and murdered 4 random people.

By that logic if he had chosen to pick up a gun and walk into a school and kill 4 people he should be let go with rehab. Or is the drinking a mitigating factor to your thinking? Perhaps -get drunk- then hijack a bus full of 12 year old school girls. He could ass rape and kill every one of them and get sentenced to a spa because he's only 16.

At what point do we say no, you have to be held accountable for your actions? Guess what, he fucked up. He should be paying for his crime. The four people he murdered i'm betting aren't really caring how old he was. This isn't a case of a youth vandalizing stuff or stealing a car, he ended 4 peoples lives. Murder is one the most severe crimes we have regardless of age. If you think he shouldn't get jail for that why bother to arrest anyone under 18? Spray painting a bridge overpass doesn't even begin to compare.

I guess the discerning factor for me is that he was not in his right mind while making the decision to drive. My friend (14 yo) was murdered by her bf (16 yo) and the fucker got 64 years in jail for it. He was in his right mind, premeditated, and yes 16 but he knew what he was doing at least. This kid did not plan this nor was he thinking clearly. Adults with that much in their system don't even think clearly.

I would not be sending him to rehab though. He is not an alcoholic who needs rehab and substance abuse counseling. What he needs is to be sent to a military boarding school till he's 18. And his cushy trust fund not to kick in until he's 25 and graduated college. I think kids like this need discipline that their parents are not providing. Let a drill sergeant take over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaffronBurke
IF and only IF he truly has an emotional age of 12 and the psychologist was not bought off to say that... then I would agree that prison would do more harm than good.

I just don't believe that is the case so I'm throwing the
QsvUnt5.gif
flag on that.

If he was responsible enough to have a driver's license, then he should also be held accountable for the four deaths he caused. Probation and a posh rehab facility just doesn't cut it. This kid NEEDS to be held accountable for his own good and equine therapy along with cooking classes won't do that. There are disciplinary schools until he is 18 and then reevaluation along with the mandatory community service I mentioned earlier.
 
As soon as the lawyer brought up the "Affluenza" that should have added the parents to the charge also. Prison time after the rehab time should be part of the sentence and the parents need to be a part of that prison time. If they are going to use the defense that the parents never told him no and didn't give consequences when needed then they parents need to see what it means to take things more serious.

Let anyone of the middle class or lower do the same thing and they are facing 20+ years behind bars with no chance of said cushy rehab facility not to mention loss of license for the rest of whatever after release. [/rant]
 
GreatDane said:
As soon as the lawyer brought up the "Affluenza" that should have added the parents to the charge also. Prison time after the rehab time should be part of the sentence and the parents need to be a part of that prison time. If they are going to use the defense that the parents never told him no and didn't give consequences when needed then they parents need to see what it means to take things more serious.

Let anyone of the middle class or lower do the same thing and they are facing 20+ years behind bars with no chance of said cushy rehab facility not to mention loss of license for the rest of whatever after release. [/rant]
I personally think the $500,000 the parents immediately said they would pay for rehab should have been awarded to the family's of the people he murdered. Can't wait to see this go to civil. Hope they get 10 times that.
 
Personally I feel your license should be revoked after a single serious alcoholic offence regardless of age. The reason we allow 16 year olds to drive is because we expect them to have enough mental capacity to make safe driving choices. And adults: we have absolutely no excuse. I don't care if evil elves castrated you in your sleep and your wife took all your money and left. You want to drink your brain cells away to cope? Fine. But call a cab or carpool like the adult that you are.

I've seen too many deaths caused by repeat offenders. My own father was a victim of a drunk driver who had killed others before. His punishment for taking my father's life was a joke.
 
JerryBoBerry said:
Honestly I'm thinking 'he shouldn't be sent to jail because he's 16' is probably the most stupid thing I have heard on this forum ever.

If questioning sending a CHILD to a completely hopeless prison system for accidental manslaughter based on a VERY stupid decision more directly connected to his shitty ass parents shitty ass parenting skills is honestly the stupidest thing you have ever read on this forum, I honestly feel sorry for you.
I understand that comment was an exaggeration to make a point but considering some of the stuff that get's posted on this forum every day... :roll:

Our prison system is FUCKED up. Going to prison is like having all of your chances for rehab and redemption stripped away from you. I didn't have time to elaborate properly and I'll admit to not reading the entire article. I did not see it was his second offense and in that case I have to really question why a child would be allowed to continue driving AFTER a first offense. Some states wont allow kids to drive unless they are maintaining passing grades in school, but drunk driving is apparently OK? There is a lot of failure going on here and it lies almost entirely on the adults who (parents and state officials) who failed to do their jobs.
I do not agree with him getting tried as an adult and being sent to an adult prison. Juvenile detention centers exist for this very reason, and being tried as an adult is usually reserved for the pre-meditated acts that can not be even remotely chalked up to adolescent stupidity. I agree the punishment should be much heftier than just a stint in rehab but I 100% disagree with adult prison.
I can not help but feel that anyone who believes this child belongs in the adult prison system has no real understanding OF that prison system or what will happen to that child.

I don't know about any of you but I remember 16, and even though I was on my own at the time living as an adult I was not, and as an adult now I can honestly say I was completely immature and still needed a lot of guidance from adults.
 
JerryBoBerry said:
Honestly I'm thinking 'he shouldn't be sent to jail because he's 16' is probably the most stupid thing I have heard on this forum ever. Who cares how old he is. He chose to drink, then drive a 3000 pound object and murdered 4 random people.

By that logic if he had chosen to pick up a gun and walk into a school and kill 4 people he should be let go with rehab. Or is the drinking a mitigating factor to your thinking? Perhaps -get drunk- then hijack a bus full of 12 year old school girls. He could ass rape and kill every one of them and get sentenced to a spa because he's only 16.

At what point do we say no, you have to be held accountable for your actions? Guess what, he fucked up. He should be paying for his crime. The four people he murdered i'm betting aren't really caring how old he was. This isn't a case of a youth vandalizing stuff or stealing a car, he ended 4 peoples lives. Murder is one the most severe crimes we have regardless of age. If you think he shouldn't get jail for that why bother to arrest anyone under 18? Spray painting a bridge overpass doesn't even begin to compare.

I hate to quote this again and double post, but your examples of premediated murder and ass raping are possibly CLOSE to the stupidest fucking thing I have EVER read on this forum!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gen
I understand the logic for not sending a underaged minor to prison for the sake of counter-productivity, but my extreme cynicism speaks when i say that i would much prefer this child to be locked up indefinitely. But if we're talking about avoiding prison, his punishment should be at least increased tenfold; such as a LARGE pileup of community service hours, rehab session hours, probation days, suspended license, house arrest and/or curfew, and whatever else that can make him feel the affects for at least a couple decades.
 
GreatDane said:
As soon as the lawyer brought up the "Affluenza" that should have added the parents to the charge also. Prison time after the rehab time should be part of the sentence and the parents need to be a part of that prison time. If they are going to use the defense that the parents never told him no and didn't give consequences when needed then they parents need to see what it means to take things more serious.

Let anyone of the middle class or lower do the same thing and they are facing 20+ years behind bars with no chance of said cushy rehab facility not to mention loss of license for the rest of whatever after release. [/rant]

This will be the unpopular opinion here, but i'm always reluctant to go the "failed parenting" claim. It's a very simplistic answer to what's more likely a very complex issue than what's taken at face value. At a sensitive age where teens are highly receptive toward their peers, many times at the defiance of their parents, many teens are willing to take such high risks alongside their peers. Thus influence is not solely a parental thing. I'm sure there are some of you here who have committed to deviant activities behind your parents' back, such as sneaking out of the house, experimenting with drugs, having unprotected sex, etc. Additionally, parents who work 40, 50, 60 or more hours a week providing financial support for their family, only have so much time to actually raise their children properly. Those are variables that just scratch the surface. While a parents' influence has a significant impact on a child's upbringing, i can't simply say it's the end-all-be-all reason for this teen's, or any other teen's, deviant behavior. So many variables could be at play.
 
mutantdonut said:
GreatDane said:
As soon as the lawyer brought up the "Affluenza" that should have added the parents to the charge also. Prison time after the rehab time should be part of the sentence and the parents need to be a part of that prison time. If they are going to use the defense that the parents never told him no and didn't give consequences when needed then they parents need to see what it means to take things more serious.

Let anyone of the middle class or lower do the same thing and they are facing 20+ years behind bars with no chance of said cushy rehab facility not to mention loss of license for the rest of whatever after release. [/rant]

This will be the unpopular opinion here, but i'm always reluctant to go the "failed parenting" claim. It's a very simplistic answer to what's more likely a very complex issue than what's taken at face value. At a sensitive age where teens are highly receptive toward their peers, many times at the defiance of their parents, many teens are willing to take such high risks alongside their peers. Thus influence is not solely a parental thing. I'm sure there are some of you here who have committed to deviant activities behind your parents' back, such as sneaking out of the house, experimenting with drugs, having unprotected sex, etc. Additionally, parents who work 40, 50, 60 or more hours a week providing financial support for their family, only have so much time to actually raise their children properly. Those are variables that just scratch the surface. While a parents' influence has a significant impact on a child's upbringing, i can't simply say it's the end-all-be-all reason for this teen's, or any other teen's, deviant behavior. So many variables could be at play.

I think most of us would agree with that, but if the lawyers are using the defense that it's the parent's fault, then why should they not be charged as accessories? Personally I don't agree with blaming the parents for a crime, but that's what their lawyers did, so therefore they should be held responsible following that logic.
 
There need to be consequences for this. If he's sent to prison for a long period, it might not do him much good, but that's not the only consideration. Society needs to be protected from him, and others like him. A long prison sentence would be a wake-up call to parents who indulge their children too much.

As it stands, the system of justice has fallen into disrepute because punishes the poor, and lets the rich get off too often. There would be no question of a poor black kid who killed 4 people while high on crack getting off with the excuse that his parents didn't do a good job of disciplining him.
 
JoleneBrody said:
JerryBoBerry said:
Honestly I'm thinking 'he shouldn't be sent to jail because he's 16' is probably the most stupid thing I have heard on this forum ever. Who cares how old he is. He chose to drink, then drive a 3000 pound object and murdered 4 random people.

By that logic if he had chosen to pick up a gun and walk into a school and kill 4 people he should be let go with rehab. Or is the drinking a mitigating factor to your thinking? Perhaps -get drunk- then hijack a bus full of 12 year old school girls. He could ass rape and kill every one of them and get sentenced to a spa because he's only 16.

At what point do we say no, you have to be held accountable for your actions? Guess what, he fucked up. He should be paying for his crime. The four people he murdered i'm betting aren't really caring how old he was. This isn't a case of a youth vandalizing stuff or stealing a car, he ended 4 peoples lives. Murder is one the most severe crimes we have regardless of age. If you think he shouldn't get jail for that why bother to arrest anyone under 18? Spray painting a bridge overpass doesn't even begin to compare.

I hate to quote this again and double post, but your examples of premediated murder and ass raping are possibly CLOSE to the stupidest fucking thing I have EVER read on this forum!
Not my defense, yours. Unless your changing your mind about the 16 year old excuse?
 
Sevrin said:
There need to be consequences for this. If he's sent to prison for a long period, it might not do him much good, but that's not the only consideration. Society needs to be protected from him, and others like him. A long prison sentence would be a wake-up call to parents who indulge their children too much.

As it stands, the system of justice has fallen into disrepute because punishes the poor, and lets the rich get off too often. There would be no question of a poor black kid who killed 4 people while high on crack getting off with the excuse that his parents didn't do a good job of disciplining him.

Thanked instead of quoted. I think if it was a drug induced murderous rampage it'd be different no matter the skin color or financial situation.

Side note: why, when the story was changed to black kid, did you also change it to "high on crack"? Drunk driving is pretty different from being high on crack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: curvyredhead
Whether technically a child or not, the guy still deserves to be punished for causing the death of four innocent people and ruining the lives of their families. At 16, he's potentially as little as 13 months away from adulthood, at which point there would be no debate about whether he should be tried as an adult or not. At 16, he's old enough to know what might happen if he drives while drunk. Risk assessment and morality aside, he knew it was illegal as he'd previously been arrested for it. It may sound harsh to some, but I'd have zero sympathy for him had he been tried as an adult, and the sentence he was actually given is a joke. Whether prison would have rehabilitated him and allowed him to function as a productive member of society after he'd served his time should be secondary to whether or not the people he killed and their families are receiving the justice they are owed. As it stands, he's not being punished for his crimes at all.
 
Sevrin said:
There need to be consequences for this. If he's sent to prison for a long period, it might not do him much good, but that's not the only consideration. Society needs to be protected from him, and others like him. A long prison sentence would be a wake-up call to parents who indulge their children too much.

As it stands, the system of justice has fallen into disrepute because punishes the poor, and lets the rich get off too often. There would be no question of a poor black kid who killed 4 people while high on crack getting off with the excuse that his parents didn't do a good job of disciplining him.

I agree.

We send people to prison for a least four reasons: justice, deterrence, societal protection, and rehabilitation.
For at least the first three reason his sentence is a miserable failure.

Justice: Four people are dead by his actions, even a 20 year sentence which is likely to be reduced by at least a 1/3 is hardly sufficient.

Deterrence: I have had several friends get DUI, but none got a 2nd DUI. DUI are expensive, a hassle, humiliating, and the mandatory jail time, loss of license for the 2nd DUI (in most states) scared all my friends. Hell as 21 year old watching my best friend and roommate deal with it changed how drank and drove. It makes mockery of all the lecture when can not only a 16 year old get a DUI and avoid jail, but actually kill four people. Plus it reinforces that our justice system operates differently for rich than the poor.

Societal protection. The number of laws this 16 year old kid broke to end up driving drunk is staggering. He obviously has no respect for laws or the well being of others. With his access to money he is a danger to society. While there is no guarantee that he'll hurt others if he is on the street. I doubt anyone would be surprised if we hear about this kid in the next few years. He is a lot less dangerous behind bars until his teen age crazy hormone years are behind him.

Rehabilitation: This kid has a serious drinking problem it is a lot harder to get booze in prison than in rehab center.(Dope is easier to get) If still has drinking problem after prison, daddy can buy him treatment. I read Orange is the New Black recently (and watched the TV show). I suspect like Piper, (the upper middle class woman sent prison) this kid is likely to go to minimum security prison which while not a country club, is also not a place where you get raped by Bubba every day. Like Piper, in prison he'd learn some discipline, that action have consequences, and also be force to deal with people without being to buy his way out of problems. Now calling this rehabilitation is obviously huge stretch but it isn't all bad for a spoiled rich kid to experience this stuff.
 
SexyStephXS said:
Sevrin said:
There need to be consequences for this. If he's sent to prison for a long period, it might not do him much good, but that's not the only consideration. Society needs to be protected from him, and others like him. A long prison sentence would be a wake-up call to parents who indulge their children too much.

As it stands, the system of justice has fallen into disrepute because punishes the poor, and lets the rich get off too often. There would be no question of a poor black kid who killed 4 people while high on crack getting off with the excuse that his parents didn't do a good job of disciplining him.

Thanked instead of quoted. I think if it was a drug induced murderous rampage it'd be different no matter the skin color or financial situation.

Side note: why, when the story was changed to black kid, did you also change it to "high on crack"? Drunk driving is pretty different from being high on crack.
Although I agree that high on crack and driving drunk are not comparable in the strictest of the sense, He was purposefully driving in an altered state. An altered state known to cause people to have personalities uncharacteristic of their sober selves. Angry drunks, emotional drunks, stupid drunks, shy gone outspoken drunks, etc. Drinking does alter your mental state severely ESPECIALLY at three times the legal limit. Depending on the state, three times the legal limit can be deadly to the one consuming the alcohol just from consumption alone, not just the people around them if they hop into a one ton vehicle and try to drive home. (ftr, I was married to an angry drunk who almost killed me in a drunken rage who got off scott free thanks to the good ole military courts and his command... I sit in the hospital with a cracked skull and broken nose among other injuries while he's at home playing video games... His actual "punishment" was attending one class on alcohol safety and attend counselling once a week.)
 
GenXoxo said:
I think most of us would agree with that, but if the lawyers are using the defense that it's the parent's fault, then why should they not be charged as accessories? Personally I don't agree with blaming the parents for a crime, but that's what their lawyers did, so therefore they should be held responsible following that logic.

Thank you. If i may tangent here a wee bit off track...

Oftentimes i hear snap conclusions of parental blame as if it were the sole reason for misbehaving minors, which is such an easy go-to answer. From what i understand in psychology, parental influence is most heavy during prepubescent ages - when a child is learning ideas of right from wrong, practicing good behavior, developing manners, etc. But when a child begins their teen years, influence dramatically shifts toward their peers. This, of course, is when we begin to see heavy rebellion against parents, which is actually studied as a necessity of a teenager's growth process. Perhaps this drunk driving teen had succumbed to peer pressure against his parents' will. Now i wouldn't rule out the idea of easy-going adult supervision, but i rather see the full picture before reaching that conclusion. Other than parental or peer influence, I would also consider other theories such as does this kid suffer from a mild cognitive disorder (i.e. aspergers syndrome), among others?

What's interesting is when i hear of young adults (18-24 age range) commit to a misbehavior, parental blame is virtually nonexistent, perhaps in light of the idea that 18+ is considered a legal adult (in the US). As if once a child has reached adulthood, parents are no longer accountable for their child's action, hence liberated from blame. It could be a coincidence or i somehow overlook it. It's now official that the term "adolescence" has been extended to age 24 (ending at 25) since the cognitive mind is still developing well past teen years, despite government law deeming legal adulthood at 18.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gen
A few years ago, a middle class high school kid ran a red light and slammed into a car, killing a teen aged girl. The guy tried to pull the girl out of the burning car, but was too late. The kid had no prior arrests and no tickets. The sentence was 20-25 years in prison because they said he was drag racing and should have known better.

And this spoiled brat can kill 4 people (and paralyze two others), and get away with a celebrity rehab type joint? Huh? What a joke.

One kid won't see the outside of a prison until he's in his late 30's early 40's, and the brat's lifestyle won't change a bit.

Too bad we don't have canings, like Singapore. 24 strokes with that rattan stick, and that brat will wish he got jail time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.