Greetings,
Hopefully by now, we have all been paying enough attention to take note of a new criminal defense that was allowed by one Judge Boyd down in Texas. Referred to as Affluenza it is a "condition" (a term I use loosely) that denotes, because a person is raised by parents who are extremely well-off financially that said person has not come to understand that their actions have consequences or essentially, wealth buys privilege.
Allow me to begin with a little bit of background information. The child in question (whose name I will not reveal for obvious reasons,) one night had opted to steal alcohol from a local beverage store with a few of his friends and spend the evening drinking and partying. The teenager decided to drive his father's F-350, after drinking doing seventy mph in a forty mph zone. At some point during the teenagers excursion he collided with a broken down vehicle on the side of the road killing four individuals and injuring eleven others. When the teenager had his blood-alcohol content tested about three hours later it returned the result of a .24 which is three times the legal limit and suggests that his level of intoxication was perhaps upwards of a .30 upon the time of the collision.
Now, here is a little background on his home situation as I am too believe. The teenager was doing well in school, maintaining what I assume to be merit roll. They claimed him to be no less than a B-average student. It was stated that the juvenile did participate in some level of extracurricular activities although I was unable to find anything specific. There was no mention of employment or any active involvement in the community. They claim his home life to be relatively normal. His parents are married and have a good deal of wealth. There were no signs of alcohol or other drug abuse within the immediate family. There were no reports of domestic violence or any extreme issues in the home.
With that being said, it was up to the Judge to make the decision as to whether or not a defense of "Mental Disease or Defect" is an adequate defense given the facts of the case. Now, keep in mind that despite what the romanticized legal shows on the television may have us believe only a minuscule number of cases are allowed to even raise the defense in trial and a minuscule number of those cases are even won on those grounds. Malingering, or people trying to fake as though they have a mental condition is more common than people actually arguing the defense in court. And as anyone with any education in psychology can tell you, very few people can malinger well enough to effectively convince a psychologist.
Anyway, Judge Boyd in all his/her (I can't remember the judge's gender x.x sorry,) decides that this is okay. The lawyers make their arguments; the state portrays an irresponsible teenager that had stolen the lives of 4 people while the defense tries to show that if the juvenile was not so rich that he may have understood that what he was doing is wrong. As it were, the juvenile walks away without a day of jail time. He receives ten years probation and is required to spend if I remember correctly, one year in a rehabilitation facility that his parents are paying for at a grand total of $450,000 a year.
The question I pose to you all is, how do we feel about this? Thoughts, comments, concerns, questions; anything and everything is welcome assuming it is all civil and reasonable.
Hopefully by now, we have all been paying enough attention to take note of a new criminal defense that was allowed by one Judge Boyd down in Texas. Referred to as Affluenza it is a "condition" (a term I use loosely) that denotes, because a person is raised by parents who are extremely well-off financially that said person has not come to understand that their actions have consequences or essentially, wealth buys privilege.
Allow me to begin with a little bit of background information. The child in question (whose name I will not reveal for obvious reasons,) one night had opted to steal alcohol from a local beverage store with a few of his friends and spend the evening drinking and partying. The teenager decided to drive his father's F-350, after drinking doing seventy mph in a forty mph zone. At some point during the teenagers excursion he collided with a broken down vehicle on the side of the road killing four individuals and injuring eleven others. When the teenager had his blood-alcohol content tested about three hours later it returned the result of a .24 which is three times the legal limit and suggests that his level of intoxication was perhaps upwards of a .30 upon the time of the collision.
Now, here is a little background on his home situation as I am too believe. The teenager was doing well in school, maintaining what I assume to be merit roll. They claimed him to be no less than a B-average student. It was stated that the juvenile did participate in some level of extracurricular activities although I was unable to find anything specific. There was no mention of employment or any active involvement in the community. They claim his home life to be relatively normal. His parents are married and have a good deal of wealth. There were no signs of alcohol or other drug abuse within the immediate family. There were no reports of domestic violence or any extreme issues in the home.
With that being said, it was up to the Judge to make the decision as to whether or not a defense of "Mental Disease or Defect" is an adequate defense given the facts of the case. Now, keep in mind that despite what the romanticized legal shows on the television may have us believe only a minuscule number of cases are allowed to even raise the defense in trial and a minuscule number of those cases are even won on those grounds. Malingering, or people trying to fake as though they have a mental condition is more common than people actually arguing the defense in court. And as anyone with any education in psychology can tell you, very few people can malinger well enough to effectively convince a psychologist.
Anyway, Judge Boyd in all his/her (I can't remember the judge's gender x.x sorry,) decides that this is okay. The lawyers make their arguments; the state portrays an irresponsible teenager that had stolen the lives of 4 people while the defense tries to show that if the juvenile was not so rich that he may have understood that what he was doing is wrong. As it were, the juvenile walks away without a day of jail time. He receives ten years probation and is required to spend if I remember correctly, one year in a rehabilitation facility that his parents are paying for at a grand total of $450,000 a year.
The question I pose to you all is, how do we feel about this? Thoughts, comments, concerns, questions; anything and everything is welcome assuming it is all civil and reasonable.
