Affluenza

[rstrong]

You may recall the "affluenza" case last year. Texas teenager Ethan Couch, killed four people while drunk driving.

A psychologist called by the defence testified that the teenager had "affluenza" - his upbringing in a wealthy family where he was used to getting what he wanted and getting away with anything, prevented him from grasping the consequences of his actions.

The judge bought it. The teen avoided jail, and was was ordered only to attend rehab centre.

News of the Weird has an update this week:

Ethan Couch, 17, was convicted of DUI manslaughter last year after killing four people, but benefited at sentencing from a counselor's testimony describing him as a victim of "affluenza" -- a condition in which children of wealthy families hopelessly feel "entitlement" and are prone to irresponsibility. In April, the Vernon, Tex., hospital providing Ethan's court-ordered rehabilitation announced that Ethan's "wealthy" parents would nonetheless be billed only for about 6 percent of the cost of treating the "affluenza" -- $1,170 of an anticipated $21,000 monthly tab -- with Texas taxpayers picking up the remainder. [KDFW-TV (Dallas-Fort Worth), 4-11-2014]

[JTA]

You may recall the "affluenza" case last year. Texas teenager Ethan Couch, killed four people while drunk driving.

A psychologist called by the defence testified that the teenager had "affluenza" - his upbringing in a wealthy family where he was used to getting what he wanted and getting away with anything, prevented him from grasping the consequences of his actions.

The judge bought it. The teen avoided jail, and was was ordered only to attend rehab centre.

News of the Weird has an update this week:

Ethan Couch, 17, was convicted of DUI manslaughter last year after killing four people, but benefited at sentencing from a counselor's testimony describing him as a victim of "affluenza" -- a condition in which children of wealthy families hopelessly feel "entitlement" and are prone to irresponsibility. In April, the Vernon, Tex., hospital providing Ethan's court-ordered rehabilitation announced that Ethan's "wealthy" parents would nonetheless be billed only for about 6 percent of the cost of treating the "affluenza" -- $1,170 of an anticipated $21,000 monthly tab -- with Texas taxpayers picking up the remainder. [KDFW-TV (Dallas-Fort Worth), 4-11-2014]

I'm glad that kid is getting the help he needs. Hopefully once he leaves rehab he'll be fully cured of his disease and can lead a long, productive, successful life as a functioning member of society. Getting stricken with such a serious illness at such a young age is always sad news indeed. Let this be a word of warning to those parents out there that are against vaccinations!

[Mr.B]

"The judge bought it. "

Wonder how much the scumbag lawyer got?

[rstrong]

Couch's blood alcohol level was three times the adult legal limit and there were traces of Valium and other drugs in his system.

He and his friends had just robbed a Walmart.

Besides the four people he killed, he also injured two people. One is paralyzed and unable to speak.

[rstrong]

TechDirt: Feds Focus Investigation On Who Leaked Report Implicating Ex-CIA Boss For Intelligence Leak... Rather Than On Initial Leak

We've discussed the whole "high court/low court" concept here a few times before -- in that those who are powerful play by one set of rules, while the rest of us have to play by a very different set of rules. Keep that in mind as you read the following.

[rstrong]

Rolling Stone: How HSBC hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists. And got away with it.

For more than half a decade, a whopping $19 billion in transactions involving Iran went through the American financial system, with the Iranian connection kept hidden in 75 to 90 percent of those transactions
[...]
In one four-year period between 2006 and 2009, an astonishing $200 trillion in wire transfers (including from high-risk countries like Mexico) went through without any monitoring at all. The bank also failed to do due diligence on the purchase of an incredible $9 billion in physical U.S. dollars from Mexico and played a key role in the so-called Black Market Peso Exchange, which allowed drug cartels in both Mexico and Colombia to convert U.S. dollars from drug sales into pesos to be used back home. Drug agents discovered that dealers in Mexico were building special cash boxes to fit the precise dimensions of HSBC teller windows.

HSBC offered to pay five weeks' profits in fines and to defer their executive bonuses to escape criminal charges. The Department of Justice approved the settlement.

It'd be interesting, for instance, to ask the residents of Tenaha, Texas what they think about the HSBC settlement. That's the town where local police routinely pulled over (mostly black) motorists and, whenever they found cash, offered motorists a choice: They could either allow police to seize the money, or face drug and money laundering charges.

There was a recent case where a family hotel was seized - just because a criminal happened to stay there once.

In any case, the HSBC case was minor, in the grand scheme of things...

A little over a week later, Breuer was back in front of the press, giving a cushy deal to another huge international firm, the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the so-called LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-rate­ rigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillions ("trillions," with a "t") of dollars in financial products. While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company.

Anyone who says that crime doesn't pay obviously isn't taking economies of scale into account.

The "Department of Justice" is perhaps more adequately described as "The Department of Making Sure Everyone Knows Their Place."

[bannination]

"The judge bought it. "

Wonder how much the scumbag lawyer got?

Blame the laws, not the lawyers. Sorta.... maybe...

[O Really]

"The judge bought it. "

Wonder how much the scumbag lawyer got?

Yes, Mr.B, I understand that to you "scumbag lawyer" is redundant, or maybe it's just one word, but do you know which party in a criminal case the defense attorney represents? Do you know s/he has a legal obligation to present the best defense possible, and can be personally sued and/or lose their license if they don't? And do you really believe accused citizens are not entitled to a competent defense, or that those in the defense business are somehow in cahoots with their criminal clients?

If I had been the judge, I wouldn't have bought the affluenza argument, but would have appreciated the creativity. So my response would have been more like, "nice try, but your client's going to recover quickly from that in jail.

[O Really]

I agree re defense attorneys in general but scumbag lawyers choose to creatively represent uber-rich killers rather than, say, the more honorable work of helping communities navigate labor law with integrity.

So one is a scum bag if s/he has clients who can pay their bills? Is it less scum-baggy to represent an impoverished killer? You do realize the bills paid by the uber-rich clients help fund the pro bono work, right?

[rstrong]

in 2009 Google CEO Eric Schmidt says privacy isn't important, and if you want to keep something private, "maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" (in other words, "innocent people have nothing to hide.")

That's three years after, to underscore a point about how much personal information is available, a CNET report published some personal information about Google's CEO Eric Schmidt - his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations - all obtained through Google searches.

The result: Google blacklisted all CNET reporters.

The affluent are exempted from the end of privacy.

[neoplacebo]

I could never mount an affluenza defense; there's just no evidence of it whatsoever. It would be complete and total bullshit from start to finish, just as in the cited case.

[O Really]

Exactly what is it you find wrong with this defense, other than it's totally bogus, of course. Offering alternative scenario or cause is standard defense strategy. Sometimes it gets a bit far-fetched. Suppose Reagan Wynn had come up with some other reason as to why the brat didn't know right from wrong. What if his story had been that somebody spiked the brat's lemonade. If defense can't say "he didn't do it," then it's their job to say why he did it so as to ameliorate the severity. Remember my favorite "opps" defense when the guy shot the ginsengl gatherer? Couldn't deny it, but he could say he "thought he was a deer." A deer, seriously? "Well, he was wearing a tan coat and bending over..." Anything to avoid having to admit that his client looked through his scope and pulled the trigger at something looking not at all like a deer.

But who would have thought the "affluenza" story would fly? I'll bet Wynn didn't really think so. I'll bet his co-counsel said something like, "dude!" But what would have had Wynn to do? Toss his admittedly worthless client under the bus? He didn't get to be Texas defense lawyer of the year and chairman of the Texas Criminal Lawyer Association by doing that.

No, I don't know what he personally did pro bono, if anything. But the principle is still the same. Nobody keeps their toys paid for (or their kids fed) doing only free work. Somebody has to pay the bills.

So - if the bratty kid had been injured and come to your facility, would you really let him die just because he's a bottom feeder? Or would you give him your best shot even knowing what slime he is? Would saving his life make you a scum bag?

[Bungalow Bill]

I don't really blame the lawyer that much. He took a shot and put
it out there. It was the fault of the dumbass judge for buying it.

[neoplacebo]

Yeah, I have nothing but awe for the kids attorney, as I fully understand the concept of doing your best for your client. It's just the concept of "affluenza" that kicks my bucket over.

[O Really]

Yes, but that was just a successful tag-line gimmick. Like "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit." How many people remember that line and don't remember any other facts of OJ's case? Suppose instead of coming up with the term "affluenza," defense had made the case that the kid had been raised in virtual isolation, provided with everything he needed or wanted, and not allowed to interact with outsiders. That he had been mansion-schooled with only his parent's belief system, and had not been taught not to run over people while he was drunk. A cult-like life, so to speak. Not that all that's true, but if it were, would people be a little less prone to ridicule? If the women held captive in Cleveland had been a bit anti-social when they got out, would everybody demand they go back into captivity?

I'm not defending the kid nor his parents, and I would have sent him to jail as much for being an unrepentant prick as anything else, but really, "affluenza" was just a catchy way to say the kid was a product of his environment - an argument we all buy everyday when applied to other more likable or believable people.

[rstrong]

Suppose instead of coming up with the term "affluenza," defense had made the case that the kid had been raised in virtual isolation, provided with everything he needed or wanted, and not allowed to interact with outsiders.

It wouldn't have worked. He was driving a pickup truck full of friends - two in the back, both injured, one now paralyzed and unable to speak. As a team effort they had just robbed a Walmart. There wasn't a hint of isolation.

[Mr.B]

"Yes, Mr.B, I understand that to you "scumbag lawyer" is redundant, or maybe it's just one word, but do you know which party in a criminal case the defense attorney represents? Do you know s/he has a legal obligation to present the best defense possible, and can be personally sued and/or lose their license if they don't? And do you really believe accused citizens are not entitled to a competent defense, or that those in the defense business are somehow in cahoots with their criminal clients?"

"If I had been the judge, I wouldn't have bought the affluenza argument, but would have appreciated the creativity. So my response would have been more like, "nice try, but your client's going to recover quickly from that in jail."

That comment was not intended to slur your profession, rather the defense lawyer in question. Yes. I'm aware the attorney has to present the best defense possible, but when a lawyer knows his client is scum, he doesn't have to take the case (as with this particular one). He only saw $$$$ and possibly more of it if his client was absolved of his crime.

"I'm not defending the kid nor his parents, and I would have sent him to jail as much for being an unrepentant prick as anything else, but really, "affluenza" was just a catchy way to say the kid was a product of his environment - an argument we all buy everyday when applied to other more likable or believable people."

"I don't really blame the lawyer that much. He took a shot and put it out there. It was the fault of the dumbass judge for buying it."

And the dumbass jury who swallowed that bull hook, line, and sinker. I would have to say that the wind was blowing the $$$$ around in all directions that day.

[O Really]

Scum aren't entitled to a defense? And if you were representing scum, wouldn't you want to get paid a lot for it? Could one be a defense lawyer and not ever have a scummy client?

This kid is no scummier than any number of other underage kids that get drunk, drive crazy, and get somebody killed. Except that he's not in the least a sympathetic character and is easy to dislike.

[Bungalow Bill]

I still have figured out if it was a jury trial or not. If it was, he must have been
found guilty and the judge was the one who determined he would get ten
years of probation and no jail time, so it's the judge who is at fault. There
are still some civil suits out there too.

[O Really]

He pled guilty to four counts of intoxication manslaughter. Wynn, his lawyer, tossed up the, ummmm, "defense" to get him less or no actual jail time. Judge bought it.