OT: I Thought I Had Seen Everything

[TobyTyler]

Judge orders no jail for teen in fatal car wreck

Affluenza? What the fuck..........?

 

[aaronlindstrom]

 

[NinerSickness]

Ethan Couch was convicted last year of killing 4 people while driving drunk. His psychologist claims his family's wealth impaired the youth's ability to take responsibility for his actions.

 

[MHSL82]

Ethan Couch was convicted last year of killing 4 people while driving drunk. His psychologist claims his family's wealth impaired the youth's ability to take responsibility for his actions.

That is ridiculous. To be fair, I'm assuming that the attorney had more to his case than that. He obviously allowed the psychologist to be on the stand and knew what he was going to say so he can't claim innocence. But that probably wasn't his whole case. However, I don't see how he could not give him any jail time, even though he is a juvenile.

I understand that a person who gets drunk and drives but doesn't hit anybody made the same bad decision as one who hit and killed four people and injured two more, but is just a bad thing when even when you hit somebody you get no jail time. One who doesn't hit anyone is just lucky. But when somebody doesn't get the luckk of avoiding people, they should also not get the luck of the justice system.

 

[NinerSickness]

I've said it before: society is lost. It had a nice run, but it's over.

 

[FourBeeDen]

Ethan Couch was convicted last year of killing 4 people while driving drunk. His psychologist claims his family's wealth impaired the youth's ability to take responsibility for his actions.

So, the kid does not know how to take resposibilities for his action and the solution to this is not have him take responisbility for his action???

 

[MHSL82]

So, the kid does not know how to take resposibilities for his action and the solution to this is not have him take responisbility for his action???

Yeah. Huh... You gotta problem with that? I'm sure the attorneys argued that rehab would be taking responsibility and the teen feels really bad about what happened. I just hope that doesn't happen to anyone I know because feeling bad is not good enough for me. I'd love to say forgiving is a good thing, but I don't know. The fact that the families are speaking out should have meant something to the judge. I've seen families forgive and let go, but when the families are pushing, that should mean something.

Off-topic but on-topic, one of my grandfathers cousins was killed by a drunk driver while trying to help somebody on the side of the road. A friend of theirs lost his hand to a drunk driver doing the same thing. The story says that the 4 people who were killed were trying to help someone on the side of the road.

I'm sorry to say this about myself, but considering those things I think I might not stop to help somebody at night. Now, there would be an exception for a crash or something that I feel they might need an ambulance. But if I see somebody needing a tire change, it makes me think. I hope they get off the side of the road quickly so they don't get hit, and I know that the majority people who helped don't get hit, but it's just too much. It wouldn't hurt to call 911 anyway if someone might be hurt.

 

[TobyTyler]

That is ridiculous. To be fair, I'm assuming that the attorney had more to his case than that. He obviously allowed the psychologist to be on the stand and knew what he was going to say so he can't claim innocence. But that probably wasn't his whole case. However, I don't see how he could not give him any jail time, even though he is a juvenile.

I understand that a person who gets drunk and drives but doesn't hit anybody made the same bad decision as one who hit and killed four people and injured two more, but is just a bad thing when even when you hit somebody you get no jail time. One who doesn't hit anyone is just lucky. But when somebody doesn't get the luckk of avoiding people, they should also not get the luck of the justice system.

There are no consequences for one's actions anymore. Its always someone or something else's fault; especially if you have money.

 

[MHSL82]

There are no consequences for one's actions anymore. Its always someone or something else's fault; especially if you have money.

One of the worst things about it is that people feel like they're being educated to try to contextualize everything, try to make everything morally equivalent, or pass the buck. I don't know the full solution as condemning everybody for everything can be a bad thing but it just seems like it's too easy to shift the responsibility. Then, add in all the agendas everyone has, conservatively or liberally, and it's just a clusterfuck.

 

[TobyTyler]

One of the worst things about it is that people feel like they're being educated to try to contextualize everything, try to make everything morally equivalent, or pass the buck. I don't know the full solution as condemning everybody for everything can be a bad thing but it just seems like it's too easy to shift the responsibility. Then, add in all the agendas everyone has, conservatively or liberally, and it's just a clusterfuck.

They see it as "enlightened" thinking. Speaking of that did you hear the story about the teenage girl (15) who killed herself because she got drunk at a party and she woke up naked with stuff scribbled all over her body in magic marker? Then she found these pictures on the internet.

Anyway the kids' who did it, their effing lawyer is saying that its not the kids' fault that she committed suicide. They tried to shift the blame to the parents for not raising her properly and letting her go to drinking parties at 15. Its shameful. Don't know how those lawyers can look at themselves in the mirror.

 

[MHSL82]

They see it as "enlightened" thinking. Speaking of that did you hear the story about the teenage girl (15) who killed herself because she got drunk at a party and she woke up naked with stuff scribbled all over her body in magic marker? Then she found these pictures on the internet.

Anyway the kids' who did it, their effing lawyer is saying that its not the kids' fault that she committed suicide. They tried to shift the blame to the parents for not raising her properly and letting her go to drinking parties at 15. Its shameful. Don't know how those lawyers can look at themselves in the mirror.

I am actually a lawyer by trade, but I try to be reasonable. I steer as clear from criminal law as I can because of safety, having to maybe argue for a client I don't believe in, repercussions of being wrong (either putting innocent person in jail or free a guilty person due to a technicality or my potential incompetence), and the fact that sometimes everybody loses. Things like this add to the pile. I would either have to argue that someone is not guilty and shift the blame or have to argue that they're guilty but if I lost I would just get frustrated.

On topic but off-topic, I hate the saying about letting a hundred guilty men free being better than one innocent person spend their life in jail. Depending what the guilty people are guilty of, I'd rather incarcerate the innocent person. 100 murdering rapists would do more harm than one innocent banker in prison for fraud he didn't commit. However, of course, I would not volunteer to be that person innocently in jail. I also don't apply the logic that it's better safe than sorry. You have to try to get it right. I'm glad that I would never get the choice of setting people free who are guilty in order to save the innocent man. It's not logical, it's obviously hyperbole.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

There are no consequences for one's actions anymore. Its always someone or something else's fault; especially if you have money.

Anymore? The Twinkie defense worked in 1979.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Re: this defense, I've run into more than a few young, poor, minority kids who basically had no parental influence or very negative parental influence. I've never seen or heard of a judge giving a slap on the wrist to one of those kids because their parents never taught them to take responsibility for the actions. This is just ridiculous.

I was reading about this case weeks ago; did the sentence only just go through?

 

[DoobieKeebler]

I'm surprised this is the first time the Ethan Couch case has been brought up, as many people were specifically looking at Couch's sentence during the Josh Brent trial to see if the two punishments would be somewhat similar or if Brent would be fed to the dogs.

I'm actually in support of the lighter prison sentences with a heightened focus on rehab. I think there is a greater potential to do good and better society by working on addiction vs throwing more people in jail, which does diddly squat and costs taxpayers more money. Keep Couch & Brent away from cars for a long time, and see if they can keep from violating probation. If they violate probation, then feel free to throw 'em in the clink.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

On topic but off-topic, I hate the saying about letting a hundred guilty men free being better than one innocent person spend their life in jail.

What about the death penalty? I've usually heard that saying in reference to sending 1 innocent man to be executed.

 

[MHSL82]

What about the death penalty? I've usually heard that saying in reference to sending 1 innocent man to be executed.

It's not an exact science and it always sounds insensitive. But if you were to take the numbers, I would think that it would be better for the innocent man to go. My thinking is, if we're talking about the same crime, 100 guilty murderers free versus one innocent person accused of murder, at least one of those 100 guilty murderers would kill again. At least two of the victims will be innocent.

If I, of course, were the one that was accused I would think differently. Also, as said, I'm glad we don't have a decision to make. I do know that there is erring on the side of caution but that's different than letting out 100 versus keeping one. I am a little bit against hyperbole. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty and I do want the methods of evidence to be correct. Things that are subject to great error, I would like to continue to be looking for better ways. So if it's one guilty person set free versus one innocent person executed, I'd rather let the guilty man free, I suppose.

 

[MHSL82]

As far as the death penalty itself, if you're talking about someone who is guilty, I have no problem with it. Some will say, what right do we have to kill this person? For me, I don't care; they took it in their own hands to take someone else's life. I guess I'm not just not as compassionate enough.

Obviously, in the case that the person may be innocent, that changes it. Obviously, you have to take a balance between those two for it to make any sense. You can't just be pro-death penalty without wanting the correct verdict.

One consideration that is practical but not really theoretical to me is the cost. I'm not against the death penalty because of the cost because simply killing somebody would be cheaper then feeding them for the rest of their lives. However, practically speaking, the government or defense attorneys have to pay for the appeals and that's what makes the death penalty more expensive. So if it was just the death penalty and just the guilty people, I would be for the death penalty. Now someone might say "No duh" but there are some people who don't want death penalty even for the worst people.

 

[TobyTyler]

Re: this defense, I've run into more than a few young, poor, minority kids who basically had no parental influence or very negative parental influence. I've never seen or heard of a judge giving a slap on the wrist to one of those kids because their parents never taught them to take responsibility for the actions. This is just ridiculous.

I was reading about this case weeks ago; did the sentence only just go through?

No, the prosecutor was just trying a differnt tact in order to get the guy some jail time. This was a serate charge on the same incident.

What is the Twinkie defense? It sounds familiar but I can't recall. Do I even want to know?

 

[TobyTyler]

I'm surprised this is the first time the Ethan Couch case has been brought up, as many people were specifically looking at Couch's sentence during the Josh Brent trial to see if the two punishments would be somewhat similar or if Brent would be fed to the dogs.

I'm actually in support of the lighter prison sentences with a heightened focus on rehab. I think there is a greater potential to do good and better society by working on addiction vs throwing more people in jail, which does diddly squat and costs taxpayers more money. Keep Couch & Brent away from cars for a long time, and see if they can keep from violating probation. If they violate probation, then feel free to throw 'em in the clink.

Fair enough, but there has to be some reurcussions for his actions other than a vacation in a 450,000 a year rehab center.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'm surprised this is the first time the Ethan Couch case has been brought up, as many people were specifically looking at Couch's sentence during the Josh Brent trial to see if the two punishments would be somewhat similar or if Brent would be fed to the dogs.

I'm actually in support of the lighter prison sentences with a heightened focus on rehab. I think there is a greater potential to do good and better society by working on addiction vs throwing more people in jail, which does diddly squat and costs taxpayers more money. Keep Couch & Brent away from cars for a long time, and see if they can keep from violating probation. If they violate probation, then feel free to throw 'em in the clink.

I don't have a huge problem with an emphasis on rehab, but the rehab center this kid is going to is like a resort, with massages and horseback riding, etc. They should send him to a run-of-the-mill in-patient treatment program.