"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[fireheart17]

What about people that just seriously can't play nice with others, like serial killers and such? Or just consistent repeat offenders?

I have a feeling (I am not German) that the system sees them as needing "psychiatric rehabilitation".

[Kheldarson]

I guess we (that is, our government) just see prisons not as a place to lock away unwanted people, but rather one that helps them to "get better", to become productive members of society again. And going by this principle - what would be the point to lock up people for extremely long times?

What about people that just seriously can't play nice with others, like serial killers and such? Or just consistent repeat offenders?

[Kelmon]

I don't think you know how much this statement disturbs me. 2-3 years for death by drunk driving? That's viewed by your justice department as a reasonable sentence?

Not sure if you noticed, i'm not a U.S. citizen, i'm German. And yes, prison sentences here are both rare and short, compared to the US. (Prison population of ~65.000, 82 million people living here). The maximum sentence for this particular crime (don't ask me about the legal terms) would be 5 years, a "life sentence" (basically only for premeditated murder) usually means 15 years of prison, then 5 years of parole.

I guess we (that is, our government) just see prisons not as a place to lock away unwanted people, but rather one that helps them to "get better", to become productive members of society again. And going by this principle - what would be the point to lock up people for extremely long times?


Of course you'll be weirded out by our short prison sentences, because you're not used to seeing them "at home". I have the same problem, just in reverse. *A lot* of US sentences seem very cruel to me.

[ebonyknight]

Yeah that's kind of.....what? That can't be right. In Canada you can get a year and a half just for being caught drunk driving, never mind killing anyone. The penalty for killing just one person while drunk driving goes up to a life sentence depending on the circumstances. Its up to 10 years if you injure someone.

Well, we need the room for all those dirty hippy drug-users, you know... >_>

Wow...That's quite the Aunt Sally.

[ebonyknight]

We have more people behind bars than our jails can hold, and it's pretty much accepted as basic fact that the number one indicator that someone will commit a crime is having done time, and for the sake of vengeance, instead of correcting the problem that poor kids get railroaded, people just want to toss more people in jail?

The number one indicator that someone will commit a crime, is they have committed a crime before! Your statement puts the blame on the system, instead of the perpetrator. They continue to commit crimes because of prison? While it is not a majority, there are plenty of offenders that never re offend. Where is the causality for that? You have your cause and effect backward.

The kid was criminally stupid. No question. He should receive some consequences. No question. Putting him in jail will only serve the goal of vengeance, not justice. It won't bring people back, and it will be only a temporary salve to those most affected. It'd not like this kid would end up in a typical prison, anyway; not when ours are run for profit and his parents have money.

Perhaps, he wouldn't have gone to the ****hole that all our working folk kids, have to go to, but it would be a start. Being taken away from his parents to go for a year of rehab (including horse riding, martial arts, cooking classes, etc.) is hardly a punishment. A lot of people would consider it vacation. Yes, that is his 500k rehab program, being paid for by his daddy. Prison, prison population, non-violent offense, etc. is not the issue. Getting lenient sentences and "better" justice because you have money, is. Justice is supposed to be blind, this confirms people sentiments, that it is anything but.

[HYHYBT]

"Facing consequences" is not, and should not be treated as, synonymous with "going to prison."

[Gravekeeper]

Well, we need the room for all those dirty hippy drug-users, you know... >_>

Oh right, weed. I forgot that was worse than homicide. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah that's kind of.....what? That can't be right. In Canada you can get a year and a half just for being caught drunk driving, never mind killing anyone. The penalty for killing just one person while drunk driving goes up to a life sentence depending on the circumstances. Its up to 10 years if you injure someone.

Well, we need the room for all those dirty hippy drug-users, you know... >_>

[Gravekeeper]

I don't think you know how much this statement disturbs me. 2-3 years for death by drunk driving? That's viewed by your justice department as a reasonable sentence?

Yeah that's kind of.....what? That can't be right. In Canada you can get a year and a half just for being caught drunk driving, never mind killing anyone. The penalty for killing just one person while drunk driving goes up to a life sentence depending on the circumstances. Its up to 10 years if you injure someone.

You of course automatically lose your license and some provinces will he mandate you install a breathalyzer ignition in your vehicle ( so you gotta blow to start your car ). You also have to complete rehabilitation programs if you want your license back. But that's after you do the time.

[Gravekeeper]

So, your problem actually isn't that his kid got too lenient a sentence, it's that other - poor - kids got too strict a sentence?

Of course not. Try actually reading what I posted, please. Seeing as you cut off the last sentence in your quote that summarized my problem. So you either didn't read it or you're willfully ignoring it to be inflammatory. I'm hoping its just the former.

We have more people behind bars than our jails can hold, and it's pretty much accepted as basic fact that the number one indicator that someone will commit a crime is having done time, and for the sake of vengeance, instead of correcting the problem that poor kids get railroaded, people just want to toss more people in jail?

Normally I would agree with you, but this case is a terrible point for the US justice system to start giving a damn about that now. This kid's problem isn't that he isn't aware of consequences, its that he thinks he can get out of them. The outcome of this case has done very little to dissuade him of that notion.

There are many teens with a similar belief, some for different reasons, some with the same reasons but without big family money. They don't get to rack up a casualty count on par with a minor terrorist attack then waltz off to a half mil rehab resort.

Rehabilitation is all fine and dandy, but then at what point do you draw the line in terms of how much damage the crime inflicted? At some point you have to go "Okay, you need to face consequences". If he had accidentally injured or killed one person, alright. But he killed 4 people, put one friend in a coma and left another friend brain damaged and paralyzed for life. While driving drunk off of beer he stole. Apparently he was well aware he was doing something wrong, he just thought he could get out of the consequences based on who he was.

Prior to this he got caught by the police in a parked truck with an unconscious 14 year old girl he'd undressed. If he and his buddies had gang raped 4 minors instead of killing 4 people, would you say a rehab resort is fine?

[Rapscallion]

I have no idea what a usual sentence for such an act is in the US, or in that state in particular. Going by our legal system, a 2-3 year sentence would be common for this if you're an adult, which i feel is reasonable.

I don't think you know how much this statement disturbs me. 2-3 years for death by drunk driving? That's viewed by your justice department as a reasonable sentence?

Fuck.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

You said it before I could. It shouldn't matter if the kid comes from money or not, if you kill people whether or not you had the intention of doing so or not your ass should get thrown in jail. He decided to booze up and get behind the wheel, and the result of his actions should land him behind bars instead of just getting probation.

We have more people behind bars than our jails can hold, and it's pretty much accepted as basic fact that the number one indicator that someone will commit a crime is having done time, and for the sake of vengeance, instead of correcting the problem that poor kids get railroaded, people just want to toss more people in jail?

The kid was criminally stupid. No question. He should receive some consequences. No question. Putting him in jail will only serve the goal of vengeance, not justice. It won't bring people back, and it will be only a temporary salve to those most affected. It'd not like this kid would end up in a typical prison, anyway; not when ours are run for profit and his parents have money.

[Sarah Valentine]

Dude, he *stole* the beer they were drinking and had 3 times the legal limit in his system plus valium.

This was not his first experience with alcohol. He has a history of being a total little shit.

So, he stole alcohol from Walmart, took it home and got liquored up to three times the legal limit. Decided to go joyriding for more beer. Likely stole his father's truck ( The truck is a company vehicle from his father's company. ), loaded it up with 7 buddies and than hit a stranded motorist at 70 mph killing her and the 3 people that had stopped to help her. Plus injuring everyone involved that lived. Paralyzing one friend for life and leaving him with brain damage and putting another into a vegetative state.

If all of the factors here were the same, parents not teaching responsibility, letting him get away with everything, etc. But the family was NOT rich. This kid would be behind bars. End of story.

You said it before I could. It shouldn't matter if the kid comes from money or not, if you kill people whether or not you had the intention of doing so or not your ass should get thrown in jail. He decided to booze up and get behind the wheel, and the result of his actions should land him behind bars instead of just getting probation.

[ebonyknight]

So someone who intentionally aimed to hurt someone got jail time while someone who did not got parole?

Mens rea plays a large part in this.

Sorry, mens rea (if it even applies) cuts both ways. In the same way you insist he had no intent to kill anyone (guilty purpose), is the same as the kid who punched someone. Just because he didn't intend to kill anyone is no excuse. Do you even agree that actus rea is there? For this type of crime, that is typically all you need.

In most states, drunk driving is strict liability (not requiring mens rea, at all. Only actus rea). Unless you can tell me that Texas or Couch's local jurisdiction doesn't follow drunk driving strict liability, I am not sure how you can even say that.

He did have guilty purpose, fulfilling mens rea, if you want to go that far. This country goes to great pains to advertise that "specifically" drinking and driving is a crime and reckless. We see ads, commercials and even scholastic education to that effect. There is NO way, short of living in a monastery, that he couldn't know that he had guilty purpose. Maybe his private school doesn't advertise it or teach, but there is no way you can tell me he doesn't watch TV.

The very fact that he thinks the law doesn't apply to him is the issue. He was heard at the scene saying to one of his friends, while encouraging them to run, “I'm Ethan Couch, I'll get you out of this.” If he thought he had done no wrong, why run? What was there to "get you out of"?

As far as I am concerned, this is another case of judicial activism. I won't even speculate what her motives are. Unless her jurisdiction doesn't have drunk driving strict liability, or she is somehow empowered to waive that, there is no reason he shouldn't have gotten a harsher sentence.

[s_stabeler]

So someone who intentionally aimed to hurt someone got jail time while someone who did not got parole?

Mens rea plays a large part in this.

Yes, Mens Rea applies, but use some common sense. a single punch rarely even causes injury. While the rich kid at the very least did not care. (compare it to someone shooting wildly- they may not intend to kill somebody, but they are acting recklessly enough that them killing somebody is more or less a foregone conclusion)