Posted on 12/12/2013 4:22:04 AM PST by Wolfie
Affluent drunk driving teen who killed 4 sentenced to probation on 'affluenza' defense
A Texas teen was sentenced to just 10 years of probation and forced to enter alcohol rehabilitation for killing four people and injuring two others when he crashed his car into them while inebriated.
Ethan Couch, 16, had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.24 when he crashed into four people who had pulled over to assist a stranded driver on June 15. Couch’s BAC was three times the legal limit for an adult over the age of 21. Prosecutors said Couch and his friends had stolen beer from a Walmart located near the site of the accident outside the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
All four of the pedestrians were killed: the driver of the stranded vehicle, a mother and daughter who stopped to help, and a youth minister who did the same. Couch’s two 15-year-old friends were ejected from his vehicle in the crash. Solimon Mohman suffered a number of broken bones and internal injuries, while Sergio Molina can now only communicate with his eyes because he was paralyzed in the accident.
Couch admitted to drunk driving at the time, with seven passengers in his vehicle, and tests later revealed traces of Valium in his system.
Prosecutors asked State District Judge Jean Boyd to impose a 20-year sentence. Yet, despite the severity of Couch’s crime, Boyd handed down a sentence of just 10 years probation and mandated that the 16-year-old receive therapy at a long-term, inpatient facility near Newport Beach, California.
Defense attorneys pressed for such a sentence and told the court that Couch’s family would be willing to pay the estimated $450,000 for his therapy out-of-pocket. They blamed Couch’s actions on his upbringing, with a psychologist testifying that Couch’s parents used him as a weapon against each other and that the teen’s emotional age was close to 12.
“The teen never learned to say that you’re sorry if you hurt someone,” psychologist Gary Miller said. “If you hurt someone you sent him money.”
Miller said Couch’s parents gave him “freedoms no young person should have," raised in an environment of privilege that afforded him no understanding of actions and their consequences. The psychologist ultimately branded Couch a product of “affluenza.”
The perception that money has contributed to the case’s resolution has much of the surrounding community outraged. Families of the victims spoke in court and, while many admitted they have forgiven Couch, they said that justice had not been served. Prosecutor Richard Alpert said he was disappointed in Boyd’s decision and that “there can be no doubt that he will be in another courthouse one day blaming the lenient treatment here.”
Eric Boyles lost his wife in the crash earlier this year. He told the Star-Telegram that even though the families knew a harsh sentence wouldn’t bring back their loved ones, the disappointment was palpable.
you are incorrect. Being drunk or high on drugs is not a mitigating factor…. because an ordinary person would anticipate an accident even one causing death if some one is drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car.
You are either just dimd or you spent too many years defending criminals
The judge is blaming the parents.
So — if I”m the families of the victims I sue the parents and cite the judge’s ruling as evidence.
“The psychologist ultimately branded Couch a product of “affluenza.”
If they were poor, it would be called what it is. Bad parenting.
Unfortunately she has been elected in my county and was most likely unopposed. In the next election I'm betting she is apposed and defeated.
I would expect mega civil suits to follow. Lawyers everywhere.
Bet he wears a neck brace whenever out near media....
So, now being rich and spoiled is a handicap?
If he had killed a member of my family this would be the outcome I’d want.
Justice would be served.
It negates intent
different from a mitigating factor
and I do not defend criminals
but I did take criminal law
I do family law trying to keep these dimwits from imploding their families due to lust
I’m sure part of the reason the sentence is what it is has to do with the huge amounts all the injured received from the insurance company
do we let murderers go because of life insurance?
They are sending him out of state to prevent others from exacting vengeance on him.
The purpose of the courts is to provide justice. When they fail to do so, vigilantism results. If this young man was found brutally murdered, with the suspected murderer being related to his victims, would a jury of his peers convict him?
And you thought the “Twinkie Defense” was ridiculous.
I go crazy ‘cause my folks are so f’ing rich
Have to score when I get that rich white punk itch
Sounds real classy, living in a chateau
So lonely, all the other kids will never know
We’re white punks on dope
Mom & Dad live in Hollywood
Hang myself when I get enough rope
Can’t clean up, though I know I should
White punks on dope
White punks on dope
-The Tubes
Imagine what an affluent twinkie eater could get away with.
I think this sort of thing all boils down to a judge sitting across from a defendant who looks very much like them or their loved ones, and from the same type of background, and saying “eh, he’s not such a bad kid”.
I think somebody paid the bitch of a judge off.
And how conveeeeenient that she’s retiring.
Yeah with all of that cash she’s just come into from is parents, she’s going to have a real nice vacation.
One can almost guarantee that an unmarked envelope stuffed with hard cash was handed to this Judge through a willing intermediary.
Poor and white; otherwise it would be society's fault.
So, he killed 4 people and no jail time...I think he’s earned a bounty.
BS. He chose to get behind the wheel with a belly full of beer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.