O Really wrote: "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.
Did you even read the details of the case, Mr.B? The term "affluenza" was first mentioned by the defense expert witness, a shrink, to describe the condition he thought affected the brat. It described a condition resulting from his environment and upbringing. It was not used by the shrink as a "real" illness.
I would agree that, with some limitations you can indeed buy your way in or out of anything. Ask Art Pope and Rick Scott, for example. I agree also that it's deplorable, but not exactly a new phenomenon.
O Really wrote: "Did you even read the details of the case, Mr.B? The term "affluenza" was first mentioned by the defense expert witness, a shrink, to describe the condition he thought affected the brat. It described a condition resulting from his environment and upbringing. It was not used by the shrink as a "real" illness."
Yes, I did...thus:
-- 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)
I took the title of "counselor" to mean the defense lawyer...is that not correct? Otherwise, there is no mention of an "expert witness".
O Really wrote: "Did you even read the details of the case, Mr.B? The term "affluenza" was first mentioned by the defense expert witness, a shrink, to describe the condition he thought affected the brat. It described a condition resulting from his environment and upbringing. It was not used by the shrink as a "real" illness."
Yes, I did...thus:
-- 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)
I took the title of "counselor" to mean the defense lawyer...is that not correct? Otherwise, there is no mention of an "expert witness".
A lawyer can't testify on behalf of his own client. Getting an article or vid from TV news isn't exactly reading the details of the case.
So I've read through this thread, along with some other articles, and it seems to me that people are mostly mad that the brat's family could afford the top criminal defense lawyer in Texas, and that somehow that makes the sentence handed down by the judge more awful. So what did they get for their $5-or 600 or so hourly fee to Reagan Wynn? They got a guilty plea on the most serious charges, and for an additional $1,500 or so they got a psychologist to offer a rationale on why the kid was a brat. Some have conjectured that perhaps the judge was paid off. Seriously? Anybody think Wynn (look him up) is going to risk his career for this brat, or that this was even a major income case for his firm? So name something that can't be made better or done better with more money, other than something like enjoying nature, but even there, more money can improve the view. What if a Department of Family Services shrink had testified for free and invented the "affluenza" description, and the brat was represented by a first year public defender and ended up with the same result?
> They got a guilty plea on the most serious charges
Not "guilty", but "guilty with explanation."
Most any criminal - bank robbers, murderers, vandals, con artists etc. - is essentially found guilty of being a sociopath. Doing whatever they want without regard to the harm it does to others.
This teen pleaded "guilty with explanation" with the explanation being that because he's rich, he's *expected* to be a sociopath. And that should exempt him from punishment.
Had it worked with a public defender, the conclusion would be the same: The rich get exemptions from punishment where anyone else would get serious jail time.
Vrede wrote:
I'm also mad that the judge accepted the "affluenza" excuse apparently based at least in part on the family's ability to pay for rehab - unequal justice.
I'm really mad that it turns out that the family only has to pay "$1,170 of an anticipated $21,000 monthly tab -- with Texas taxpayers picking up the remainder." Imagine how many non-murdering people could be treated for real mental illnesses with that money.
I'd agree with those two, particularly the last one. But my problem with those is how they should but don't work together. One could look at requiring the family to pay for an incarcerated re-hab as a fine. Or, one could consider that the state should mainly pay for it's own sentence. But tagging the family and then waiving their costs is, to me, the worst of the whole story.
Doesn't surprise me in the least; Mom's missing too. This tells the whole story. His parents didn't really give a damn that 4 people died because of their son's actions; they're used to their money buying their way out of troubles. Rather than have the kid pay for his undisciplined lifestyle, she's only compounding his problems by helping him run away from them. For certain, they're not on the North American continent; probably he's being set up somewhere in a lowly 4,000 s.f. beach cottage somewhere on the Mediterranean.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Let's agree that the parents and the rest of his "village" did a piss-poor job of raising their kid. Let's agree that the parents themselves are probably also assholes. But past that, would you let your own kid get sent to jail if you could afford to keep him out by packing him off permanently to wherever? I wouldn't.
Whether they can afford more or not they only had to pay "$1,170 of an anticipated $21,000 monthly tab -- with Texas taxpayers picking up the remainder."
So, the question is whether it's good parenting to make others pay for their failings.
O Really wrote:Let's agree that the parents and the rest of his "village" did a piss-poor job of raising their kid. Let's agree that the parents themselves are probably also assholes. But past that, would you let your own kid get sent to jail if you could afford to keep him out by packing him off permanently to wherever? I wouldn't.
That's a good question with no clear-cut answer. I'm willing to bet that's why Mom took off with him; she knows she's the irresponsible asshole and she doesn't want to face the truth; or the consequences of being a worthless parent.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
To a toddler, a grown man's penis should be considered a deadly weapon. "He wouldn't fare well in prison" probably means the bastard would be gang-raped; which would be too good a punishment for him. I still feel that money was passing hands somewhere.
As for ol Willie, "The jury recommended Ward be sentenced as a habitual criminal. Ward has previous felony convictions for burglary, attempted robbery, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident and possession of cocaine, and four misdemeanor convictions, including two thefts." none of which are vile and heinous as sexually assaulting a child. Money talks.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Bottom line, though, is that the two cases aren't related, nor were the sentences based on the same circumstances or law. I'm not defending the sentence for DuPont, nor denying that some first-year public defender probably wouldn't have gotten the same result, but the cases really are different. For starters, Willie didn't get "50 years for stealing ribs." He was convicted of armed robbery, which happened to be ribs. It could have been money or jewelry, but it was ribs. Secondly, his sentence based on "habitual criminal", similar to the "three strikes" laws in some places, leave little leeway for judges. There's lots of built-in injustice in those laws, and they result in a lot of ridiculous sentences. So I'm quite happy to argue that neither sentence fits the crime, and that laws that led to those sentences should be changed, but it really isn't a Willie vs. DuPont issue.
O Really wrote:Bottom line, though, is that the two cases aren't related, nor were the sentences based on the same circumstances or law. I'm not defending the sentence for DuPont, nor denying that some first-year public defender probably wouldn't have gotten the same result, but the cases really are different. For starters, Willie didn't get "50 years for stealing ribs." He was convicted of armed robbery, which happened to be ribs. It could have been money or jewelry, but it was ribs. Secondly, his sentence based on "habitual criminal", similar to the "three strikes" laws in some places, leave little leeway for judges. There's lots of built-in injustice in those laws, and they result in a lot of ridiculous sentences. So I'm quite happy to argue that neither sentence fits the crime, and that laws that led to those sentences should be changed, but it really isn't a Willie vs. DuPont issue.
True that. I think comparing of the cases had to do where the crimes occurred. (the copy & pasted photo was lifted from a con website) DuPont lived in Delaware, a mostly liberal, mostly wealthy state; Willie lived in Texas, a mostly Conservative poor-to-wealthy state. In essence, DuPont got a slap on the wrist for raping a baby, Willie, a habitual offender, got the book thrown at him. Laws are tough on habituals, but obviously not tough enough on trashy, child raping pedophiles, despite first offense pleas.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
The real answer is in the last paragraph of the CNN article: Plea deal.
"In this particular case, the facts and circumstances made it unlikely that a conviction could be secured at trial. ...This resolution protected the victim and imposed conditions that would make it less likely the defendant could harm others."
So if it's the difference in the sentence handed down, or the pervert walking free, which would you take now?
Seth Milner wrote:...
True that. I think comparing of the cases had to do where the crimes occurred. (the copy & pasted photo was lifted from a con website) DuPont lived in Delaware, a mostly liberal, mostly wealthy state; Willie lived in Texas, a mostly Conservative poor-to-wealthy state. In essence, DuPont got a slap on the wrist for raping a baby, Willie, a habitual offender, got the book thrown at him. Laws are tough on habituals, but obviously not tough enough on trashy, child raping pedophiles, despite first offense pleas.
Or, one could argue the white guy got off easy, the black guy gets hard time. But that argument wouldn't be found on the "con website" probably.
O Really wrote:
Or, one could argue the white guy got off easy, the black guy gets hard time. But that argument wouldn't be found on the "con website" probably.
The post dealt mainly with the lopsided sentences handed down for each case. Race didn't appear to be a factor.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
