'Affluenza defence': Rich, privileged and unaccountable

 

Ethan Couch escaped jail to attend a private $450,000-a year (£275,200) rehabilitation centre that his parents will pay for

Is there a separate justice system in the US for the rich and powerful? It all depends on whether you believe that Ethan Couch would be in jail right now were it not for his wealthy parents and privileged background.

On 15 June, Ethan, 16, was driving with a blood-alcohol level three times above the legal limit. He lost control of his speeding pick-up truck and killed four pedestrians. On Tuesday, he was sentenced to serve in a high-priced California drug rehabilitation centre paid for by the parents, with no jail time and 10 years of probation.

It's the court case that has made the "affluenza defence" a household word, as Ethan's lawyers successfully argued he had a diminished sense of responsibility due to his wealth, pampered childhood, and absentee parenting. Ever since the sentence came down, the media have been rolling in shock and outrage.

Start Quote

With affluenza, you need fear no consequences”

End Quote Alexandra Petri The Washington Post

The judge "pretty much did what his parents had always done," writes Mike Hashimoto of the Dallas Morning News, "which is let him skate". It's an example of a two-tiered legal system in the US, he wrote, where the rich are treated better than the poor.

"Blame his parents, who may richly deserve it, but bear in mind that this young man will again be driving the same streets as you and yours one day," he writes. "Watch out for big, speeding red pickups."

Other commentators echoed Mr Hashimoto's disgust. Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post writes that with affluenza, one need not fear consequences.

"I can't possibly be guilty of a crime, officer," you point out, if anything comes up. "I have far too much money." This is sound logic. You dangle a few dollar bills out the window, and suddenly it turns out you weren't speeding at all. Most things, money can buy. And for everything else, there's more money.

CNN featured a lawyer who traced the roots of the "affluenza defence" back to the 1979 "Twinkie defence", in which depression (manifested by eating junk food) was used as a mitigating factor in the defence of Dan White, who had shot and killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

"The wrong message has been sent in this case about wealth, power and the penalty for killing others while recklessly driving in an intoxicated state," writes Paul Callan. "The law exists to rehabilitate but also to deter unlawful conduct by the rich as well as the poor."

Start Quote

This case is tragic for all involved”

End Quote Editorial The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Slate's Josh Voorhees agrees: "Given the 'affluenza' defence - along with the fact that the teen's parents will be the ones paying for his stay at a $450,000-a-year, in-patient rehab facility near Newport Beach, Calif. - one doesn't have to squint to see what looks an awful lot like a double-standard predicated on the teen's family wealth."

The editors of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram take a different view, however, writing that media criticisms "fail to take into account all the circumstances of the case".

The Texas juvenile justice system "is built not on punishment but on taking account of an offender's age, offering a chance at rehabilitation and a productive life," they write. "This case is tragic for all involved. What seemed to make it worse for some was that the teen's parents are wealthy, and he's led a privileged life."

They conclude that the judge in this case, Jean Boyd, decided that justice was best served by sending Ethan to drug abuse treatment and extended probation.

"None among those who say she was wrong have sat in her chair for 26 years," they write. "In this case, she's earned our trust."

In Texas, judges campaign for office like other politicians. Ms Boyd, however, has decided not to run for re-election.

UPDATE: An Echo Chambers reader points out another interesting opinion piece out of Texas that highlights what a disaster the Texas juvenile justice system is, calling it "a system you'd do anything on earth to keep your own kid out of".

"Because we condemn everybody else's kid to violent prisons, does that mean it's unjust to let any one kid go?" writes Jim Schutze in the Dallas Observer. He argues that the "affluenza defence" is just courtroom bluster: "The real defence is: 'This kid's parents can afford a very expensive whiskey school for him, so why toss him onto the human trash heap of a brutal state prison system? Maybe he can be saved by the whiskey doctors. Why not try?'"

It's probably not an answer that will satisfy the families of the victims and those who place retribution over rehabilitation in the justice system. But the system is what it is. He concludes: "Maybe what the rest of us need to do is work to provide a more dignified and decent system of punishment for all kids."

Is the real tragedy of this case the awfulness of the US juvenile justice system and not the privileges of being wealthy?

 

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +19

    Comment number 13.

    If being raised with too much money ('Affluenza') can be used as a valid defence, why not being raised with too little? If one applies the same logic, somebody who has been brought up in poverty and is poorly educated should not be held accountable for their actions as it not their fault but instead the fault of society. Somehow, I don't think the Judge would be willing to countenance such an idea

  • rate this
    +18

    Comment number 11.

    They should have tossed him in jail for 10+ years and have his family give the $450,000/year to the families of his victims.

    One more shining example of what a sorry place the US has degenerated into. To paraphrase the visitor to ancient Rome, the country where everything is for sale.

  • rate this
    +18

    Comment number 12.

    I am actually quite stunned at this. Incredible. Young guy who has had every opportunity in life gets drunk, drives and kills four people and is let off literally because he's too rich to jail. And this is the same country that throws young boys from the ghetto in jail by their thousands for drug possession!? Only in America.

  • rate this
    +17

    Comment number 15.

    It is interesting that "being rich" has accepted as a defence in a country which very often does not regard "being poor" as any kind of defence for committing a crime.

  • rate this
    +15

    Comment number 63.

    This isn't a case of youthful indiscretion having tragic consequences, but the result of years of recklessness. To get a BAC that high, he had probably had a double digit number of drinks. His victims were parked when he hit them. No one believes this was the first time he drove drunk. You cannot rehabilitate some like this. They need to be separated from society before they do more damage.

 

Comments 5 of 166

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.