That cite shows that Dan White’s lawyers did not, in fact, offer the “Twinkie Defense”. It is thus not applicable to this case, in which Couch’s lawyer did, in fact, offer the “Affluenza Defense” (and could only obfuscate, but not deny, this fact in his Anderson Cooper interview).
Maybe Couch’s parents could hire the same lawyer to argue that they shouldn’t have to pay because they’re too rich and privileged to be subject to such privation.
Seems a fair inference to me that the judge took a bribe.
Mtgman’s point (and mine) is that the media may have misreported or oversimplified the case and the public is running with this oversimplified version. E.g. the lawyers could’ve mentioned it, but it was not important or just one issue among many for the judge’s decision. Or maybe not, but it wouldn’t be the first time that a news story reaches UL status. None of this mitigates the fact that he may have been sentenced overly lightly.
In White’s case, Twinkies were mentioned but a) not as a causal factor but as possible evidence that White was “off” and not acting normally, and b) not a major part of the case nor the “evidence” that made the sentencing decision. But now all anyone thinks is that his slimy lawyers claimed “Twinkies made him kill” and that sucker jury believed it!
Snopes summed it thusly:
Nope. What’s his crime? Driving drunk, or being in an accident? Because if it’s driving drunk, well, then everybody who drives drunk should get 20 years in prison. (In which case, be prepared to build much much bigger prisons.) If it’s being in an accident, well, most traffic fatalities are caused by by people who are stone-cold sober. What are you going to do with them?
Glad to know you’re a perfect driver. It’s funny, because every other driver I see on the road is not. Including me. Most people are just lucky. Some people are not.
Most DWIs never hit anybody or anything. Yet they’ve done the exact same thing this kid did. They were just lucky.
So again, if driving drunk is his crime, which seems to be what you’re saying, why not throw every DWI in prison for 20 years?
Meanwhile, no one has anything to say about a store that lets some teenagers steal two cases of beer. Why should a stores have no responsibility to keep their stuff secure? Why should they not lose their liquor license? Oh, the store is a victim in this? Give me a break. Business as usual really needs to change.
As I noted in my earlier post, we have it straight from the horse’s, er, mouth. He obfuscated, but couldn’t outright deny that he had posited an “affluenza” defense or claim that it was a trivial sidelight to his case.
Rules against confronting shoplifters are SOP among major retailers, for obvious liability reasons. The wisdom of this policy is another question.
Please, please…the rational, civilized thing to do would be to sue him and his family.
That way, you have more money for munitions, and an escape plan to a country with no extradition treaty.
Yes. The same point was made by this Slate article (recommended). I see that the teen was going 70 in a 40 MPH zone.
I generally don’t have especially punitive tastes insofar as law enforcement is concerned, though I am in favor of roughly even application. I’m skeptical about the utility of given a 16 year old teen 20 years for drunk driving and speeding. Doesn’t mean I like the kid.
The kid’s in a residential treatment facility. How long is that suppose to last? Is it a de facto jail? I’m guessing not, but… Texas.
So what? You think the little shit should get off because driving drunk is common? Fuck that. And I’d be fine with first time DWI’s losing there license and second offence being prison time.
Being in an accident - even a fatal accident - is not automatic proof of wrongdoing. If some dumbass walks out into traffic and gets killed, it is not the fault of the driver that hit him. Similarly, it is possible to to imagine someone under the influence of alcohol getting a DUI despite not doing anything especially unsafe - sleeping inside of a stationary vehicle, for example.
None of this is true here. This little shit was drinking and driving and was speeding, and the evidence proves that this was not some edge case where this was not dangerous behavior.
I’m not sure. There’s no cure for being a cunt.
If this is true, then you seriously need professional help, preferably before something happens to trigger your vigilante desire.
Nah, I’m sure that he could find some guys willing to do it pro bono.
His crime is causing an accident while driving drunk. The law is not a group of Jesuits: both intention and what actually happened are relevant. We punish attempted crimes more lightly than completed crimes. This is the same thing.
From the Slate article:
“Money always seems to keep [the kid] out of trouble,” said Eric Boyles, whose wife and daughter were killed in the crash. “Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail. If [he] had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different.” Or, as Dallas Morning News editorial writer Mike Hashimoto put it Wednesday: “Despite all the death in his wake, Couch didn’t learn a thing he didn’t already know: It’s far better to come from that wealthy place where actions seldom have those nasty old consequences. That’s for other folks.”
The residential treatment facility is a year-long program in California. Cost: $450,000. (His parents paid.)
For ordinary defendants, long-term treatment usually means SAFP, which takes place in prison. I’ve never been, but I can tell you that people who are looking to go there are desperate not to go.
If the outrage is over rich people having it better than the rest of us, I say: duh. They get better houses, better medicine, and they don’t have to make choices like: should I take my kid out of the school where she risks getting beaten up every day, or should I pay the rent. They also get better justice.
If you pay a team of lawyers, along with expert witnesses, psychiatrists, and a team of PIs, you’re likely to do better than if you’re relying on a single court-appointed attorney, who’s getting paid peanuts (literally) for the same work.
There is a solution, but given how much taxpayers hate defendants, lawyers, and taxes, it’s not likely to happen.
Btw, and fwiw, here’s another case that happened here in Austin. She ran over a pedestrian, and left left her lying in the road. She also got ten years pro, and yes, her parents were also rich. She was 25.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/nestande-gets-10-years-probation-for-fatal-wreck/nWXkt/
So he should lose his license right? This was his first time.
So the kid is speeding, and runs into a telephone pole. What should happen to him?
I know its stupid to get in the way of RO but what the hell. You are right people are being outraged over the oversimplification of the story. For one, it’s not the Affluensa Defense. It wasn’t a defense at all. It wasn’t stated that he was not guilty due to being rich. It was used as mitigating factor in sentencing. All sorts of things are brought up as mitigating factors. And they didn’t say he should get off because he was spoiled. The defense and their experts stated that his parents neglected and mentally abused him leaving him with an emotional age of 12. Abuse and neglect are brought up as mitigating factors all the time in cases on all income levels. It’s up to the judge to accept them or not. By all means RO away. But try not to do so in ignorance.
This is why there are two sets of laws against drunk driving injure someone and the stronger set (felony) applies.
Even at the age of 12 I knew you didn’t get drunk and drive.
Oh and if you are stone sober and kill someone with you car there are reckless driving charges that mirror the DUI statutes.