Teen gets probation after killing 4 people - "Affluenza" Blamed

[BloatedGuppy]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/12/12/wealthy_teen_gets_probation_in_drunkdriving_crash_that_killed_4_affluenza_blamed.html

FORT WORTH, TEXAS?The probation-only sentence for a North Texas teen who was drunk when he lost control of his pickup truck and killed four pedestrians has left the families of the dead outraged and prosecutors disappointed.

A juvenile court judge sentenced the 16-year-old boy in Fort Worth on Tuesday to 10 years of probation after he confessed to intoxication manslaughter in the June 15 crash on a dark rural road near Fort Worth. Killed were Brian Jennings, 43-year-old Burleson youth minister; Breanna Mitchell of Lillian, 24; Shelby Boyles, 21, and her 52-year-old mother, Hollie Boyles, who lived near the crash site.

A psychologist called as an expert defence witness said the boy suffered from "affluenza," growing up in a house where parents were preoccupied with arguments with each other that led to a divorce.

Right, so, clearly this is very silly and kind of appalling, but I know there's a lot of teens around these parts, and young twenties, and I wonder how you feel about this defense. Do you think being raised rich/spoiled constitutes some form of mental disability, to the point where it should be taken into consideration when sentencing is applied for a crime? We take other forms of problematic upbringing into consideration when sentencing (at least, hypothetically we do). Is neglect through over indulgence different than good old fashioned vanilla neglect?

 

[Queen Michael]

Reminds me of what I read in a book once -- if you want to kill, do it with a car and it won't be as bad, legally speaking.

 

[JoJo]

His punishment seems more than a little lenient from the article but that said, none of us were at the trial and perhaps the article is misrepresenting the position that the defence took. Despite the article repeatedly mentioning his family's wealth, the only part about the actual defence focuses on his parent's being preoccupied with arguments and divorce, rather than their money.

Prison is generally ineffective for young offenders and so maybe this sentence is the most reasonable way to punish him but also not trap him permanently in a life of crime. Or maybe it was ridiculously lenient for underage drinking and accidently killing four people, but there's not enough information in the article to judge either way. I hope the judge made the right decision.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, he wasn't a gamer, or Muslim, or anything, and they went with "affluenza" rather than "mentally ill"?

Makes a change.

Anyways, yeah, bad parenting is an issue these days, the same as it's always been.

Neglect through over-indulgence would be different from common or garden neglect, though exactly how I couldn't say.

 

[BakedSardine]

I honestly don't know what they punishment should be here, but if this was a 16 year-old black kid and he plowed over a wealthy white family, you can be this kid would be behind bars. He should probably have a couple thousand hours of community service and be banned from drinking alcohol for a looooooong time, but I agree that putting a kid like this behind bars really accomplishes nothing.

 

[Weaver]

I mean he was driving drunk and killed four people. I don't think probation seems that just.
I kind of just want to see him get punched in the face really, really hard by a UCF fighter.

 

[Wickatricka]

My dad killed 2 people in a drunk driving accident. You people need to realize that guilt will follow this kid throughout his life. Honestly if my father hadn't of done that I think he'd probably be in jail or dead by now. Now he's a loving hardworking father and has been throughout his his life. Always trying to do the right thing.



EDIT- Oh yeah almost forgot the irony of my pathetic life. I was in a drunk driving accident as well and suffered a broken femur. One of the worst pains someone will ever have. Do I blame the driver no. Now I realize that this is way different from what happened here but kids will be stupid kids even if it costs the life of others. Throwing them in jail will not teach them anything.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Fun fact: Freudian excuses aren't as great an excuse in real life as they are in fiction.

He killed four people. Four.. People. 10 years of probation isn't nearly enough.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Being white and wealthy in America will get you that privilege. I'm surprised that people are surprised.

 

[Ryotknife]

Well, he IS a minor. Minors get lesser punishments as a rule of thumb. That said, even minors with similar crimes face a little bit of jail time, so yea he got off light. Must be nice to have fancy lawyers.

And before people jump on the "he is white so of course he got away," OJ Simpson wasn't white and he got away with murder, but he was rich (and famous).

 

[EternallyBored]

Well, he IS a minor. Minors get lesser punishments as a rule of thumb. That said, even minors with similar crimes face a little bit of jail time, so yea he got off light. Must be nice to have fancy lawyers.

And before people jump on the "he is white so of course he got away," OJ Simpson wasn't white and he got away with murder, but he was rich (and famous).

Yeah, money is a major factor in things like this, especially at the juvenile level, punishments are usually light enough that no parent bothers hiring a lawyer, so they rely on the public defender. The juvenile system outside of major cities like New York and L.A. just isn't set up to handle lawyers coming in and fighting the system, the already reduced punishments become even less when a good lawyer gets involved in the process.

That's not to say he still can't be punished, do we know what the actual terms of his probation are? His probation may come with the stipulation that even minor infractions will have him serving out a jail term, and with juveniles, things like bad grades and disobeying your parents can count as probation violations.

The problem with juvenile punishment is that unless you can prove they are an imminent threat to society, you really can't hold them past the age of 21, so for this crime he would likely get no more than 5 years in jail as the maximum punishment anyway, of which, he would probably be spending them all at a youth camp or long term juvenile detention facility. With 10 years probation they can basically control him a lot longer, and if he screws up once he's past 21 they can send him straight to adult prison to serve his term, rather than a juvenile detention facility where some won't hold kids past the age of 18.

That's probably the angle the lawyer went for here, he's getting a severe probation, so he's not locked up, but a single misstep will likely see him serving the full prison sentence he would have gotten anyway. Depending on the leniency of his probation officer and the local juvenile judge of course.

 

[Zhukov]

Wait... you can get pissed and kill four people in a car accident and only get probation?

That's... that's a thing? Like, an actual thing-thing?

I mean, I can understand the thought behind not throwing a kid in jail for an accident, but isn't drink driving an offense on it's own? Plus manslaighter on top of that. Would have thought that would add up to more than a probation, however long.

Blaming "affluenza" is its own kind of weird. If I'm ever on trial in the US I'm going to try and blame it on be being penniless.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

10 years probation seems like a light sentence, and really it is, but it leaves the window open for bad things to happen to him in the future.

This kid wasn't being tried as an adult, there was no way he was going to get the 20 year maximum. The article said that if he got any jail time it would have been 2 years at minimum (basically until he turned 18). On the other hand, if he screws up his probation in the future, he will go to prison as an adult, and 10 years of probation is a LONG time, I really doubt he isn't going to screw up on the terms of his probation somehow, especially if part of the terms is no drugs or alcohol (which with this case is pretty much a given).

Since we don't know the terms of his probation we won't know for certain how lenient this actually is. After all, if he's on probation for 10 years, and if the terms are easy to screw up he'll go to jail, or prison, and when he gets out he'll be on probation again, and possibly screw that up as well, and go back to prison.

 

[EternallyBored]

10 years probation seems like a light sentence, and really it is, but it leaves the window open for bad things to happen to him in the future.

This kid wasn't being tried as an adult, there was no way he was going to get the 20 year maximum. The article said that if he got any jail time it would have been 2 years at minimum (basically until he turned 18). On the other hand, if he screws up his probation in the future, he will go to prison as an adult, and 10 years of probation is a LONG time, I really doubt he isn't going to screw up on the terms of his probation somehow, especially if part of the terms is no drugs or alcohol (which with this case is pretty much a given).

Since we don't know the terms of his probation we won't know for certain how lenient this actually is. After all, if he's on probation for 10 years, and if the terms are easy to screw up he'll go to jail, or prison, and when he gets out he'll be on probation again, and possibly screw that up as well, and go back to prison.

That's probably why the judge agreed to this sentence, a 10 year probation allows them to have a period where they can catch and punish him as an adult, given the way juvenile probation contracts are often set up, him being caught drinking at all until he's 26 could land him in jail, and they only have to wait 2 years before any violations are automatically kicked to the adult court. If they jailed him as a minor, his record would automatically be wiped clean at 21, now, if he commits anything before his probation is up after he turns 18, that becomes a permanent mark on his record that employers and the public will be able to see.

The divide between juvenile and adult courts is one of the few places where it is legal to try someone for double jeopardy. In cases of probation, it is entirely legal and possible for him to be tried for the same crime in both the juvenile and adult systems. It's totally screwed up and unnecessarily convoluted, but I wouldn't write off this kid's punishment just yet, once he turns 18, his probation officer will be examining every action he takes with a fine-toothed comb, just looking for an excuse to throw him into the adult system to be re-sentenced.

 

[Ryotknife]

Wait... you can get pissed and kill four people in a car accident and only get probation?

That's... that's a thing? Like, an actual thing-thing?

I mean, I can understand the thought behind not throwing a kid in jail for an accident, but isn't drink driving an offense on it's own? Plus manslaighter on top of that. Would have thought that would add up to more than a probation, however long.

Blaming "affluenza" is its own kind of weird. If I'm ever on trial in the US I'm going to try and blame it on be being penniless.

Drunk driving for minors is a slap on the wrist, really.

http://www.txdot.gov/driver/sober-safe/underage-drinking.html

Spoiler

If you are under 21, it is illegal for you to drive with any detectable amount of alcohol in your system. The first time you are stopped for drinking and driving, you could face the following penalties:
?Up to a $500 fine,
?A 60-day driver license suspension
?20 to 40 hours of community service

?Mandatory alcohol-awareness classes

If you're 17 or older and are pulled over for drinking and driving with a blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or greater, you could face:
?Up to a $2,000 fine
?Three to 180 days in jail

?A driver license suspension for 90 days to a year

Get caught drinking and driving a second or third time, and the penalties increase. That's called zero tolerance. It means zero alcohol. And that's the law in Texas.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

That's probably why the judge agreed to this sentence, a 10 year probation allows them to have a period where they can catch and punish him as an adult, given the way juvenile probation contracts are often set up, him being caught drinking at all until he's 26 could land him in jail, and they only have to wait 2 years before any violations are automatically kicked to the adult court. If they jailed him as a minor, his record would automatically be wiped clean at 21, now, if he commits anything before his probation is up after he turns 18, that becomes a permanent mark on his record that employers and the public will be able to see.

Yup, that's another big thing. Since he's a minor right now what he's done is going to be sealed from the public, so future employers won't know that he killed 4 people when he was 16. If he screws up his probation after he's 18 though, and gets landed in prison it'll be on his record forever, and employers will know that he's a felon. And again, 10 years is a long time, I'm almost certain he'll screw up at some point, and living with a felony on your record makes life REALLY difficult.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Fun fact: Freudian excuses aren't as great an excuse in real life as they are in fiction.

He killed four people. Four.. People. 10 years of probation isn't nearly enough.

This is my line of thinking too...four people were killed by this guy and his excuses is just so lame it's insulting. If he had grown up poor or, middle class and tried that same defense he would have been laughed out of the courtroom and, into a jail-cell.

 

[DataSnake]

His defense basically amounted to "screw the rules, I have money".

And it worked.

The fuck is wrong with people these days?

 

[WeepingAngels]

Being white and wealthy in America will get you that privilege. I'm surprised that people are surprised.

Don't do this shit. You know this shit isn't common. Also I think people who bring race into things that aren't about race are the ones stirring the racial pot (which they claim others are doing)