So I was reading about the kid in Texas with affluenza and I was appalled and confused and thought maybe one of the SD legal folks could clear it up (Hello Bricker?).
So according to Fort Worth Star-Telegram (article here), this rich kid lost control of his pickup while speeding and killed 4 people, and serious and permanently injured some others. He had an alchohol leve 3 times the legal amount and had traces of valium in his bloodstream. According to the article, he pled guilty to 4 counts of intoxication manslaughter and 2 counts of intoxication assault. According the theTexas Penal Code, intoxication manslaughter is a second degree felony. Again, according the punishment section of the penal code:
How did the kid get less than 2 years? The prosecutors were asking for 20. How can this punishment (10 years probation) be legal? Is this an activist judge?
The defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but that sentence was suspended and he was placed on 10 years probation. If he violates his probation and is revoked, he goes to prison for up to 10 years. He can make a plea agreement for less time or the judge can choose to give him less time, but he’s looking at 10 years. Given his circumstances it’s unlikely he’d get less than the full 10 years.
The real kicker in this case is the “affluenza” bit. Poor little rich kid never learned about consequence so we’ll cut him a break and go easy this time. Funny, pooritis has never gotten me out of much trouble.
I’m no expert on Texas law but that most likely means that any mandatory sentences go out the window. In this state the juvenile court is part of family court not criminal. In most states juvenile justice is much more geared towards rehabilitation and away from punishment.
It’s been mislabeled in the press and misrepresented. I guess RO sells. For one thing it was not a defense. It was not argued that he was not guilty because he was rich. It was put forth as a mitigating factor in sentencing. And try reading the article. His lawyers didn’t say he was rich therefore pity him. They basically said he was from a neglectful and mentally abusive family situation. Not because of the wealth of his parents but because of their actions. Something that is brought up during sentencing often. I’m not saying you should agree, just be informed about what you are disagreeing with.
Good point. Courts are generally allowed to use information from a wide variety of sources to determine the appropriate sentences, factors that would not be relevant or even admissible as evidence for or against guilt. Guilt is determined based on narrow rules of evidence. If the defendant is found guilty, the court is then allowed to consider to what extent the defendant was a stupid kid who got in over his head or a person down on their luck who played a little fast and loose to meet this month’s rent and to what extent they were a cold, calculating, and merciless predator who wanted more more more now now now and is arguably very dangerous to society. Mental illness that does not rise to the level of Insanity can be considered at sentencing (Insanity itself is generally a defense to the underlying charge that shows the defendant to be innocent), perhaps acknowledging that, say, bipolar disorder may have contributed to the offense and weakened the offender’s self control and thus a combination of a few weeks of jail time and a few years of therapy might do better to prevent a reoffense than a few years of jail.
E.g.
If you shoot someone while you are legally insane, you are not guilty.
If you shoot someone out of fear and despair over an abusive relationship that you felt you couldn’t escape, you are guilty but the court is likely to go easy on you e.g. by giving a lesser sentence, allowing early parole, etc.
If you shoot someone because you are a heartless predator, you are guilty and also likely going to get reamed by the sentencing court.
Are offenders who violate probation normally forced to serve the full sentence? Or do judges temper that with the severity of the violation? (“You stole a DVD, but that’s not too bad, so you serve 1 year, and then have 9 probation”) Or will this offender be spending the next 10 years walking on eggshells?
I honestly don’t know how this works.
Since Texas law apparently allows litigants to contribute* to their judge’s re-election campaign, I wonder if we’ll find a “donation” to her campaign fund somewhere in this mess? It will be interesting to watch.
*from this article. Not sure what the actual rules are.
Two questions:
One: What are the administrative penalties such as being DWI and driving without a license how long will he lose his license for?
Two: If the problem is that the kid was so entitled, how does giving him a lenient sentence (no time in prison) help? What is the judge’s logic in perseverating the problem?
Part of the probation was that he will be sent to a mental health facility for treatment using the families money. One that is much more expensive and effective than anything that the state could do. The argument of the defense was that due to the neglect of his parents he had an emotional age of 12. Sending him to prison would do nothing to cure that and would lead to continuing problems. They argued the way to ensure that nothing like this happens again is through treatment. Now I don’t agree. The severity requires punishment in my opinion. But as I said above, juvenile courts tend to emphasize rehabilitation over punishment much more than adult courts.
There are also factors here that may have a multiplier effect that makes things worse for him.
First, this has been a PR disaster for the kid and his family. Whenever he or they are Googled, this case will come up. The father’s business may suffer as potential clients decide to take their business elsewhere and the boy’s future educational and employment opportunities may well be limited by the notoriety of the case. Popular memory may fade but Google is forever.
Second, there will be civil litigation that may bankrupt the parents and the father’s business. Insurance would likely not cover claims because of the DUI, which would make the parents and company liable. (The boy was driving a truck belonging to his father’s company, which would have been covered by a commercial auto policy.) And because part of the defense was that the boy was essentially spoiled by his parents, there is disposable cash available for legal judgments. A smart personal injury lawyer would make sure that the parents don’t start disappearing assets to make themselves judgement-proof. Either they have money or they don’t, and since there was an admission that they do, they’re over a barrel, so to speak.
Finally, probation isn’t exactly a walk in the park. There are conditions he will have to meet to stay out of prison. He may, for example, have to attend AA and/or NA meetings and counseling, be subject to drug and alcohol testing, and hold a job or attend school full-time, among other terms. The probation officer can verify that he is meeting all of the required conditions, and if he’s not, he goes to prison. If he’s cooperative, the probation officer may be relatively lenient; otherwise, the PO can crawl up the kid’s ass and stay there. (And may, because probation was already considered to be lenient to begin with; the PO may be under pressure to keep the kid on the straight and narrow.)
He’s going to a rehab camp in California, if I read it right. How does that work with probation? Does the probation office in his county contract with the county probation office in CA where he will be, to have a CA probation officer mind him?
Do we have any reason to believe this isn’t just another hot coffee case? I’ve never read one of these outrageous legal / lawsuit cases that turned out to be faithfully reported. Do I have any reason to think this is different?
Has anyone who is arguing that probation is warranted here, considered a shoe a different foot?
Sixteen year old black kid from the projects (with similar issues with the law this rich kid had) hops in his mom’s '87 Honda Civic, goes out, steals two cases of beer, get’s shitfaced, plows into four pedestrians, killing them. You think he gets probation? No effing way. In fact, we’d never had even heard of his case as he’d been shipped off to juvie before the bodies were cold.
Justice is suppose to be blind. How much money this kid’s parents have should in no way be a mitigating factor in anything. If it did … then how much money a kid’s parents don’t have should be taken into account as well. Guess what — it doesn’t.
This was discussed, or at least mentioned, over in the nearby Pit thread. A black columnist, Stephen A. Crockett Jr., suggested that, where rich white kids may suffer from affluenza, all the poor black kids instead suffer from Negrobetes with exactly the results that Jack Batty suggests.
I think I’m board with that - to an extent. I’ve been giving it some thought, and I’m more irritated that the poor kids don’t get the breaks than I am the rich kids *do *get the breaks.
It’s not like I want this spoiled little shit to have his life completely fucked (on the off chance that he can become a productive human being), but neither do I want the kid from the projects to get his life ruined either.
