"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[Kheldarson]

Are you using laws meant for adults and trying to apply them to minors? Really?

Isn't 16 around the age where most attorneys begin to have discretion as to whether or not a youth is adult enough to understand their crimes fully? And I'd say he understood his crime, since he was, you know, fleeing the scene.

[Greenday]

So the state of Texas has deemed that such crimes warrant 2-20 years in the pen. This kid got 0 jail time, but ten years probation, which if he violates could land him in jail for 10 years....half the time that some other people could be sentenced to for the same crime. Anyone wanna bet that there are a few people in Texas prisons doing time for DUI vehicular manslaughter?

But back to appropriate...if Texas feels 2-20 years is the appropriate sentence for such a crime, I can't say I disagree. That being said, this kid did NOT get what Texas feels is an appropriate sentence, now did he?

Are you using laws meant for adults and trying to apply them to minors? Really?

[ebonyknight]

Fun fact which all of you screaming for prison keep ignoring: If he doesn't straighten out, he will be going to prison.

What part of ten years of probation isn't sinking in?

I don't want to wait for him to kill more people! What part of that isn't sinking in? Considering he doesn't think he did anything wrong, why are you so optimistic, he will straighten out?

He's already committed enough crimes in this one incident for several people. He wasn't just jaywalking.....

[Jester]

The question of what an "appropriate" sentence in this would be.

Well, let's take a look at the sentencing guidelines in the state of Texas, where this incident took place.

According to the Time Magazine article about this case,

Texas sentencing guidelines for crimes like this call for fines of up to $10,000 and between 2 and 20 years in the state penitentiary. But instead Couch got 10 years of probation and zero time. If he slips up he could go to jail for 10 years, according to a statement from the Tarrant County District Attorney.

So the state of Texas has deemed that such crimes warrant 2-20 years in the pen. This kid got 0 jail time, but ten years probation, which if he violates could land him in jail for 10 years....half the time that some other people could be sentenced to for the same crime. Anyone wanna bet that there are a few people in Texas prisons doing time for DUI vehicular manslaughter?

But back to appropriate...if Texas feels 2-20 years is the appropriate sentence for such a crime, I can't say I disagree. That being said, this kid did NOT get what Texas feels is an appropriate sentence, now did he?

Do the families of the victims feel he got an appropriate sentence? Let's check in with one of them, shall we?

Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter Holly and Shelby in the crash said it was Couch’s wealth that kept him from a harsher sentence.

“Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail,” he told the Star-Telegram after the sentencing. “If [he] had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different.”

And Mr. Boyles is absolutely correct. Had this been some other Texas teen without the money that this kid's family has, you can bet that they would not have gotten probation, but would, in fact, be handed a sentence of, oh, I dunno, let's say 2-20 years in prison? And when you take into account some of the circumstances around this particular crime, such as multiple fatalities, multiple injuries, and the fact taht this was not the kid's first incident with alcohol, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the sentence would be closer to 20 years than to 2.

Unless, of course, the kid is fortunate enough to come from a wealthy family.

"...with liberty and justice for all."

Riiiiiiiiight.....

[Gravekeeper]

Look, ideally prison would be the halfway point between the two extremes. Half punishment, half rehabilitation. But the US prison system is this horrific makeshift monster of state, federal and private institutions.

That said, rehab is fine if we're talking about someone whose turned to crime due to poverty, substance abuse, alcoholism, whatever. Provided their crimes are the type where the damage can be easily measured in dollars.

But once you start killing people its a different ball game. You're causing irreparable damage to society now. Rehabilitation is a secondary concern after locking your stupid ass up. Furthermore, in this case in particular, rehabilitation requires the patient to meet the rehab half way. There has to be remorse or guilt or empathy to start with. Of which this kid has displayed none. His only concern has been evading the consequences.

He has the body count of a car bomb and it doesn't seem to bother him much. That's more prison psych ward than rehab center.

[Jester]

The previous comment was something I remembered from Jello Biafra's version of the Pledge of Allegiance. And considering the topic here, I thought the entire Pledge might be appropriate. So here it is, in all its glory and cynicism.


I pledge defiance to the flag of the United Snakes of Captivity

And to the Republic for which it stands, I dip it in kerosene, and stick it up the ass of you know who...and light it!

One nation, under God--or else!

One nation, under psychopath Pentagon gangsters, whose idea of democracy is concentration camps for the people who go and use the drugs that the government supplies themselves...

One nation, under Wall Street: If the cops and the President are all criminals, I might as well be one too...

One Nation of tabloid robots who actually believe what they see on tv, but when ask about it say “I don’t care.”

One nation, drowning in its own garbage...

Indivisible from the from the fall of Rome

With liberty and justice for all who can afford it...


This is from 1989, and seems just as appropriate today as it did then. Perhaps even more appropriate in today's world, actually.

[Jester]

"...with liberty, and justice, for all....who can afford it."

[Andara Bledin]

and a poor person wouldn't get that chance to avoid prison. Again, I have very little problem with the principle of sending someone to rehab instead of prison. I DO have a problem when the option is only offered to the rich. Otherwise, it's one law for the rich, one for the poor. THAT is what pisses people off.

It's not that it's only offered to the rich. You're missing what I said about the mechanism.

If a poor person gets a really good PD who actually does his homework and fights for his client (I know, mostly dreaming here), it's conceivable that he could get the same sort of sentence. But it's only available if the defense fights for it, and most PDs are so overburdened that they don't have the time to even meet their clients, much less craft any sort of defense for them.

My brother got taken in because he was on probation, and he was following it to the letter (hey, look, poor people can get probation, too), but a 'friend' of his left a baggie of something in his glove box, despite knowing that brother was on probation. At his arraignment, the PD showed up late and had to look through his stack of cases and confirm with my brother which one was his. He would have gone to prison over the charge if it weren't for the fact that the now-ex-friend's mother hired a real lawyer to represent him, and he got the entire case dropped due to there no longer being any evidence left after it was tested to confirm what it was. The PD could have argued the same thing, but there was just no way he would have had time to even find that out, much less craft a defense around it.

The issue isn't that rich people get lighter sentences because they can afford a real defense, but that poor people are assigned defense counsel that is so overburdened and so short of time, that they don't actually get any counsel at all.

[s_stabeler]

I just said it three posts before yours: If he doesn't straighten out, he will be going to prison.

This isn't some binary situation where prison is magically not going to happen "because rich and white." All he's gotten is a chance to avoid prison. If he treats this like he has the rest of his life, then off to prison he will go.

and a poor person wouldn't get that chance to avoid prison. Again, I have very little problem with the principle of sending someone to rehab instead of prison. I DO have a problem when the option is only offered to the rich. Otherwise, it's one law for the rich, one for the poor. THAT is what pisses people off.

[Hyena Dandy]

If the general sentence in those was five years, give the kid five years. I have no issue with that.

An appropriate sentence is more important than a consistent one. If the sentence for shoplifting was death, he shoplifted, but thanks to money and a good lawyer, he was able to get rehab and probation, would we be saying that he should have been killed? Or would we be saying to change the death sentence?

[Andara Bledin]

Jail would've been better, or a really hard rehab clinic (not a freakin' resort spa!).

I just said it three posts before yours: If he doesn't straighten out, he will be going to prison.

This isn't some binary situation where prison is magically not going to happen "because rich and white." All he's gotten is a chance to avoid prison. If he treats this like he has the rest of his life, then off to prison he will go.

[Jester]

I disagree, HD. This particular case is merely an obvious symptom of the larger problem. What is the appropriate sentence here is actually almost moot. It is merely an exemplar of how fucked up the American "justice" system is.

But if you insist on me tackling this case, I would say take a look at other similar cases, where someone was killed due to negligent vehicular homicide where alcohol was involved. If the general sentence in those was five years, give the kid five years. I have no issue with that.

Frankly, I have no issue with any harsh sentence handed down to this spoiled little fuck. If that sounds cynical and jaded to you, it's because it is.

[Hyena Dandy]

But let's be REALLY clear here. If some poor kid, or me, or you, or someone else without money, had a prior history of incidents involving alcohol, and went out and got hammered and caused injuries and death even remotely like this kid did, that person would be in jail, and would be sentenced to prison. Period.

Yes, but whether the kid's sentence in this case is appropriate is actually an incredibly important aspect of the conversation. Yes, there's inequality. But in what way is it injust? Is it bad that the rich people get off more often, or is it bad that the poor people get put in prison more? Should we be pissed off that he DIDN'T go to prison, or should we be pissed off about the people who do?

There's injustice. But it's either benefiting those with money, or punishing those without it. What the right sentence is is as important to the discussion as the fact that he got a lenient one.

[XCashier]

Honestly if the kid had been that smart, he'd have taken the hit for the family and copped to responsibility. If they're that wealthy he'd come out of jail in better financial position in 10 years than he probably will be 10 years from now.

The kid's not even close to being smart enough to think that far ahead, let alone have the empathy to understand what would happen to his parents. He knows what he wants, he's got money and to hell with everyone else (including those who are the source of his money!). No brains, no sympathy for others, arrogant, leads a charmed life...it's going to take a miracle to redeem this little shit. Jail would've been better, or a really hard rehab clinic (not a freakin' resort spa!).

My heart aches for the families of the victims. I hope they can find peace.

[Andara Bledin]

The issue is that the "defense" for poor people is often an overworked, underinformed public defender who may or may not even know what your charges are before sitting down next to you and sure as hell hasn't had the time to actually come up with any sort of defense or even gone over the case with the defendant.

The money is only slightly relevant: It's merely the agency by which people get defense lawyers who have the ability to actually talk with their clients, and the financial incentive to do their damnedest to get a verdict on their side. Poor people only ever get this when they know someone who is willing to bankroll their defense or their case is high profile enough that some group (ACLU, EFF, etc) gets in on it.