-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Drunk Driving teen kills 4, injures 9. His defense? Rich and spoiled.
- Thread starter luv
- Start date
flynnibus
Premium Member
Your logic is why bother punishing people because it just becomes a burden on us... which leads to not punishing people period. Unless you advocate much harsher punishments rather than jail
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
It's not my logic, just a question.
Minnie_girl
Active Member
Look at it this way: what utility is served by putting this boy in jail for 20 years versus making his family pay for substance abuse treatment?
How does making the state of Texas pay to feed and shelter him for 20 years make the world a better place?
Intersting question....
flynnibus
Premium Member
Ok, the logic behind the postulation in the question. Point is the same... you ask a hypothetical that asks what good does it do to put someone in jail and highlights it creates a burden on the state (and hence it's citizens).
The answer is he is put in jail to serve as punishment. What is the point of punishment... to penalize and deter.
The fact it is a burden on the state is a fact we accept for all criminals.. unless you offer another form of punishment that doesn't require the state to be involved with them for 20 years.
We can solve that the way the world did for thousands of years... sentence them to death and do it quickly.
If you don't want the death penalty... you either have to accept that you will have someone being a burden on you for a very long time... or you need to set them free.
Are you assuming an addiction or was that proven? I only hear about this because a friend called to ask if Affluenza was a real psychiatric thing. (If anyone is wondering, No, that is not a real diagnosis I ever heard of...and if it was, I'd have heard of it.)
I read one link online and did not follow the trial. Has the kid been diagnosed with addiction or are just assuming it?
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/health/affluenza-youth/index.html?hpt=us_c2
It doesn't sound like addiction. More like poor parenting. I fail to see how no jail time at all helps with this kid's notion that there are no consequences for his actions. Also, I'd like to hear a psychiatrist cited because all of the experts have been psychologists.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Most schools of thought recognize three justifications for punishment: retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. In order to be justified, a punishment should fulfill at least one of these nonexclusive goals. In this particular case the boy never made a conscious decision to kill anyone; his crime was borne out of recklessness, not malice, so retribution for something like murder isn't justified. Further, the boy's lawyer argued and the judge agreed that his decisions were mostly the product of a chronic lack of supervision and an abuse of alcohol. While these factors don't excuse this sort behavior, it's doubtful thst deterrence is a relevant consideration when the very nature of alcohol-related offenses means that the offender is no longer capable of making reasonable decisions. This leaves us with rehabilitation, and if the options are to place him in jail with rapists and gang members for the rest of his formative years or to allow him to complete a high-end program geared specifically to treat his problems I think the choice is more than clear.
His problem, as he argued in court, is that he has never been held accountable for his bad behavior, but has received so much special treatment that he never felt any desire to follow any rules.
I fail to see how MORE special treatment will solve anything at all.
Also, you need not be rich to be spoiled. PLENTY of parents don't set limits and make excuses for their children's bad behavior.
Parents may excuse their children, but society cannot say, "Well, he had crappy parents, so it's okay if he breaks rules. If people die as a result, that's too bad, but what can you do? He's spoiled! He shouldn't have to be punished!"
Not IMHO, anyway.
If they raise bratty children who think that they don't have to follow any rules, society must say, "Yeah, you do."
I cannot believe this, "I'm rich and spoiled" defense is working.
Megalodumb
Well-Known Member
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
)
Precisely.Well this sentencing outta help him change that mindset.
Wonder what he will do next?
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think you mixed up some words... maybe those are justifications for incarceration... but incarceration != punishment. How do you connect rehabilitation to punishment? Punishment is intended to... cause suffering in some way.
In your opinion... even unmeditated or without malice - he still cost other people their lives. It wasn't purely accidental or without fault - Such 'mistakes' carry still penalties so other people will think twice about letting those 'mistakes' happen too.
Horse@$% - The guy was perfectly competent before he got drunk so he made those decisions to get himself to that state. The 'alcohol did it' doesn't fly in absolving him from making responsible decisions in getting that drunk in the first place. You're advocating 'once your drunk.. your absolved from any liability' which is garbage.
When someone feels like crap the day after... they remember that even when drunk. Well, when you're drunk, you should be cognizant that driving a 2 ton vehicle can kill people. If not, you shouldn't be driving in the first place. People do it because they believe they are invincible or that it won't happen to them - not because they are unaware of the consequences.
I can tell you in other countries where the tolerance for such behavior is FAR FAR lower - the behavior changes. In Norway, people are scared to drive THE DAY AFTER being out partying because the enforcement is so strict and penalties so harsh. No one makes excuses like 'oh, I was drunk, I didn't realize it was illegal...'
No, it also leaves us with 'he should suffer for his crimes'.
But let's take your train of thought to conclusion... since none of your rewards fit his needs.. what do you suggest we do with such criminals? Give them a prescription and ask them nicely not to do it again?
The idea that everyone should be rehabilitated as a universal endgame is flawed. Not everyone wants to live the life society thinks everyone should live.
Do I care 'we might throw this kids life away'? No more than he cared about the lives of the other people he put at risk when he decided to drive drunk.. with people in the back of his truck no less.
This isn't 'a tragic accident' - this is a tragic end to poor life choices. Choices he shouldn't be able to just walk away from because 6 people will never have that choice.
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
Gets this POS off the streets. 1 less danger to my family. Wouldn't ya think?
If the problem according to the case is poor parenting then I believe his parents should be responsible for his actions. SOMEONE is responsible. Hold Mommy & Daddy accountable (ie. incarceration & civil liability) and I bet they serve Junior up on a platter quick enough. That's the problem here: lack of consequences for the entire disgusting family.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
It's a theory that I was actually going to post here, too, in regards to the person who wanted to know why Texas should pay to keep him alive for 20 years. I don't know the exact proper wording, but I think of it as the goals of the justice/prison system: punish, rehabilitate, deter. Punish the dumb kid for what he did, rehabilitate him so he understands the dangers of alcohol and that actions have consequences, and the punishment should be severe enough that it deters other people from doing it. Sadly, this and one high profile local case that resulted in a death have made me think that driving drunk and killing someone is "worth it" for the punishment received... no big deal. I don't drink and drive, but I could totally see someone who does looking at these cases and thinking, "Maybe something happens someday, and it won't be a big deal."
The thing that I was thinking of that I haven't heard discussed is that he (presumably) legally obtained his license/permit... shouldn't he have taken some kind of written test? That covered the dangers of driving while impaired by drugs and/or alcohol? Not in Texas? That would be proof right there that he understood that drinking and driving is wrong. I can totally see the merits of charging even 17 year olds or 18 year olds in high school as minors for some crimes; I think it's a blurry line between childhood and adulthood. When you get your license to operate a motor vehicle, however, it is a very discrete and concrete step into adulthood the endows you with the capacity to inflict great harm unto the rest of the population. I think if you commit a crime with your car once you've passed your road test, you should be treated as an adult... whether it's a speeding ticket or a DWI that kills four people.
Finally, to add to the lawsuit speculation, where did the alcohol come from? He's 16! You can bet whoever provided the alcohol will also have their pants sued off.
prberk
Well-Known Member
The lawyer for the mayor of Toronto would like to call you as a witness for his client...
OK, all joking aside, the decision to get drunk carries consequences in itself, among which are the things you get in trouble with while intoxicated.
Second, the deterrence factor is more related to others who are aware of the case than for the actual individual in the case at hand. If others see him "getting off easy," they are not deterred from similar crimes; but if they see him get "the book thrown at him," they are likely to think twice.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
As predicted, massive civil suits have been filed.
Couch's parents have been named in some of them and, interestingly, his father's business that owned the truck.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Vi...awsuits-Against-Affluenza-Teen-236006321.html
Couch's parents have been named in some of them and, interestingly, his father's business that owned the truck.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Vi...awsuits-Against-Affluenza-Teen-236006321.html
This is where the deep pockets are. You have family policy and most likely umbrella coverage, then the business policy. If its bad enough the carriers will tender policy limits, but only under the condition the plaintiffs release the defendants formally. If they don't release, then the carrier owes legal defense to the insured all the way through verdict.