Affluenza

[neoplacebo]

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.

Truly a case of how "even a blind squirrell gets a nut now and then" when all factors are in "judicious" synchronization and enough fiscal clarity is applied.

[O Really]

I've said a couple of times that if I had been the judge, I'd have sent him to jail. And I would have, but not for the 20 years a lot of people want. The penalty for a traffic accident - even one caused by drunk driving - shouldn't equate to an intentional murder, or even an unintentional murder during an assault. But this kid probably isn't going to change with "counseling" no matter how talented or expensive the counselor. He needs exposure to something to make him appreciate what he's got and to lose some self-centricity.

[neoplacebo]

I've said a couple of times that if I had been the judge, I'd have sent him to jail. And I would have, but not for the 20 years a lot of people want. The penalty for a traffic accident - even one caused by drunk driving - shouldn't equate to an intentional murder, or even an unintentional murder during an assault. But this kid probably isn't going to change with "counseling" no matter how talented or expensive the counselor. He needs exposure to something to make him appreciate what he's got and to lose some self-centricity.

Yeah, if I were the judge, I'd give him ten to twenty five, and see how he does after five years of that; maybe parole.....hard to say.

[rstrong]

The difference is that "affluenza" is a claim that a lack of deprivation is a disease.
[...]
Healthcare is different. First, what I do is grounded in science.

I used to think that the "addiction is a disease" claim was pure BS. But now there's solid evidence that some people are genetically far more prone to addiction and alcoholism.

OK, I still think it's BS, but the purity of the BS has been strongly diluted.

Even if you call "affluenza" a real thing - an overly strong sense of entitlement mixed with an overly weak sense of consequences - jail certainly sounds like a treatment.

[rstrong]

I've said a couple of times that if I had been the judge, I'd have sent him to jail. And I would have, but not for the 20 years a lot of people want. The penalty for a traffic accident - even one caused by drunk driving - shouldn't equate to an intentional murder, or even an unintentional murder during an assault.

Not on a first offence it shouldn't. Not in this case.

But so many drunk drivers are repeat offenders. It's common to hear that the drunk in a drunk driving tragedy had drunken driving accidents before.

That first offence should be a wake-up call. Jail if you killed or injured someone, but not for 20 years. No driving for a decade.

But if you do it again, you get put away for a long time. For public safety, not so you'll "learn your lesson." Because that obviously won't happen.

[Mr.B]

"Scum aren't entitled to a defense?"
That question certainly is debatable!

"And if you were representing scum, wouldn't you want to get paid a lot for it?"
I wouldn't have taken the case....I still have what used to be known as a conscience.

"Could one be a defense lawyer and not ever have a scummy client?"
"One" could, but not me.

"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."
'ceptin this case, this one has Daddy's $$$$ to get him out of hot water. The lawyer's defense claim and Daddy's money is in itself a clear cut case of "Affluenza". I'm surprised that the judge couldn't see through that. (unless.....$$$$ )

[O Really]

"Scum aren't entitled to a defense?"
That question certainly is debatable!

Ummmm, no, it's not debatable. At least not in the United States. Most would consider that a good thing.

[Bungalow Bill]

Everybody deserves a defense, no matter how bad they are.

I would have given the poor little rich kid about eight years in
the clink. That would likely cure him of affluenza, at least
temporarily.

[bannination]

"Scum aren't entitled to a defense?"
That question certainly is debatable!

Ummmm, no, it's not debatable. At least not in the United States. Most would consider that a good thing.

Looks like Mr. B. would prefer our cops be the judge, jury, and executioners.

[O Really]

Not applicable here, since he pled guilty, but another thing to consider is that just because somebody is a scumbag doesn't mean they actually are guilty as charged. In fact, it's likely that research would show that scum bags are more likely to be falsely accused than are "nice" people. "Usual suspects" sort of thing.

[Mr.B]

"Looks like Mr. B. would prefer our cops be the judge, jury, and executioners."

Nope....we don't need any "Judge Dredds".

"Not applicable here, since he pled guilty, but another thing to consider is that just because somebody is a scumbag doesn't mean they actually are guilty as charged. In fact, it's likely that research would show that scum bags are more likely to be falsely accused than are "nice" people. "Usual suspects" sort of thing."

My definition of a scumbag, (for you air-heads ) is the example of this kid....one caught in the act.
(Y'all are just messin' with me, aren't you?)

[rstrong]

My definition of a scumbag, (for you air-heads ) is the example of this kid....one caught in the act.
(Y'all are just messin' with me, aren't you?)

Both your country and mine have a history of people spending a decade or more in jail before being declared innocent. Convicted after being railroaded by police and the courts because they "knew" he was guilty. Railroaded because it was "obvious" that he was guilty, regardless of the evidence.

You don't hand someone the death penalty unless it's pretty damned obvious that he's guilty. And yet there are vast numbers of people declared innocent after years on death row, often because they finally won their battle to get DNA evidence tested. The consistent theme is that when their trial is reviewed, they didn't get a fair one.

Everyone is entitled to a proper trial, regardless of how obvious it seems that they're guilty.

[rstrong]

I did not know that.

[rstrong]

Or as long as they modify a statement about the weather. Everyone around here who steps outside in -38 weather - even the nuns - will utter a quick "fuckitscoldout."

[Mr.B]

"Just so I'm clear......"

Weird comparisons.

I'd say you're mostly cloudy with a chance of.........

[Mr.B]

"....the vulgar term for a used condom ("scumbag")...."

I see what you mean now, but I've never heard a condom called that before. :-0?>

[Mr.B]

scumbag: an offensive or despicable person; in this case the teen who cares only for himself.
In the lawyer's case, one who puts money before pride or truth.

[O Really]

Money before pride or truth? He pled his client guilty, Mr.B. Guilty. His "affluenza" story was to provide some reason or cause of the kids actions - and one not without some truth to it, once the laughter over the, ummm "creative" title died down. The kid appears to be a self-centered brat, who has never been held accountable for anything. You want to argue that his home environment didn't contribute to that?

[Mr.B]

"What scum is commonly bagged other than semen, Mr.B?"

Couldn't tell you...I don't take a shower with a raincoat on.

[Mr.B]

"Money before pride or truth? He pled his client guilty, Mr.B. Guilty. His "affluenza" story was to provide some reason or cause of the kids actions - and one not without some truth to it, once the laughter over the, ummm "creative" title died down. The kid appears to be a self-centered brat, who has never been held accountable for anything. You want to argue that his home environment didn't contribute to that?"

O.K....so he pled guilty: truth
affluenza: lie

Sure, the kid's home environment contributed to his lifestyle. He was raised to believe that as long as you have money, you can buy your way in or out of anything.... with no regard to anyone else.

You know what the sad part is? That way of thinking is correct in today's society.