"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[ebonyknight]

How is that germane to this case?

I never said anything about the lawyers. The lawyers on both sides presented fair cases and did what they had to do in the interest of the people and their clients. What I said, was in response to a comment.

This is not a common drunk driving case. This kid killed 4 people outright and injured 7 more, causing one to become a vegetable. Furthermore, the kid has shown NO remorse for what he did, and believed that his wealth would get him out of the jam.

Granted we don't know the background of the kid that killed someone with a punch, but Couch has had an alcohol related run in before. He stole the beer he got drunk on, committed grand theft auto, to steal a ride to get MORE and crashed into those people with THREE time the legal limit of alcohol, in his system. I now here that people in the car pleaded with him to slow down. Yes, people with money can hire better lawyers than the prosecution, but the Judge (who represents the law) is supposed to be above the fray and to treat people fairly and blindly. I just don't think she did in this case. If it was fair in this case, then the other case was treated a little harsh.

11 people killed or injured, is not a typical drunk driving case. As I said before, with drunk driving and other limited crimes, it doesn't matter whether you had intent or not. Legally you can be held responsible. In a typical drunk driving case, particularly in young defendants, remorse is usually expressed. Almost a dozen people killed and injured and there is no remorse on his part.

[HYHYBT]

As far as relatively shorter sentences go, it seems to me the serial killer problem would take care if itself. A serial killer has, by definition, committed multiple murders. Even at "only" 15 years, you quickly reach the expected remaining lifespan.

[Greenday]

actually, by the sounds of it, the rehab facility is closer to a holiday. ( it has activities such as horseriding, martial arts classes and cooking classes.) there is NOTHING is there, as far as I can tell, that is about getting the kid to quit drinking & start behaving properly. It makes me suspect it's more to do with shuffling the kid out of the way until the fuss dies down. If he was put through a PROPER rehab program, aimed at teaching the kid to actually care about the consequences of his actions, and get him to drink less, the there would be less of an issue. Pepe are angry as it looks like the kid more or less got off scot-free, whereas if the kid didn't have rich parents, he would be behind bars. It is the inequality that angers people.

By giving them stuff to do, it keeps people from getting bored. Boredom leads to relapse. Just because they advertise the fun stuff doesn't mean it includes the boring therapy.

[Kelmon]

Do you actually know that the rehab facility is like that? Just because it's a nice place with fun activities doesn't mean they don't do what they're supposed to.

[s_stabeler]

actually, by the sounds of it, the rehab facility is closer to a holiday. ( it has activities such as horseriding, martial arts classes and cooking classes.) there is NOTHING is there, as far as I can tell, that is about getting the kid to quit drinking & start behaving properly. It makes me suspect it's more to do with shuffling the kid out of the way until the fuss dies down. If he was put through a PROPER rehab program, aimed at teaching the kid to actually care about the consequences of his actions, and get him to drink less, the there would be less of an issue. Pepe are angry as it looks like the kid more or less got off scot-free, whereas if the kid didn't have rich parents, he would be behind bars. It is the inequality that angers people.

[Kelmon]

Unfortunately, one could say that the US has two sets of laws. One for the rich folks, and one for the rest of us. Had the perp been poor (of any race), he'd be sitting in a cell right now. Instead, he gets probation and rehab. That's why people are pissed. They see it as yet another rich kid not being held to the same laws as the rest of us--especially when you consider that his defense basically paid off a witness to come up with a bullshit defense.

I'm not denying that there is a bias (i simply don't know), but on some levels there actually is some sense to treating rich people different from the less wealthy.

Look at the case at hand: The family has the ressources to send their son to an expensive, and therefore probably effective treatment facility. Which means there might be a larger likelyhood that the kid will get better and learns his lesson - unlike a kid from a poor family. Additionally, due to the family's ressources, even with a criminal record he's unlikely to have to resort to illegal activities to get by later in life. Unlike a kid from a poor family with a criminal record.


Of course a better way to handle this disparity might not be harsher sentences for poor people, but rather more government support for them. You can fund a lot of rehab and re-integration measures for the ~$20.000 price tag that each year of prison sentence carries has for the state. But i can guess that this would be unpopular, because it's spending money on criminals instead of spending money on prison guards.

[protege]

People aren't setting out to hurt people but the crimes they absolutely intend on committing go wrong.

I've mentioned about my grandmother's auto accident here before. She was on her way to a relative's house, when she was rear-ended by some asshole in a gravel truck. Her car got pushed into the path of a logging truck coming the other way Both my grandmother and cousin were left with serious injuries, and had to be flown to the hospital. As if that wasn't enough, the gravel truck then rammed a PennDOT pickup truck, knocking it on its side.

I really don't think the asshole driving the gravel truck set out to hurt anyone. Grandma just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, in the end, after seeing her injuries, watching her go through rehab, my cousin's extensive facial surgery (he got seriously cut with flying glass--the passenger-side windows blew out), plus examining what was left of her car, I can understand the rage that one feels after such an accident. Throw in what we found out later--the gravel truck had no brakes, the driver really shouldn't have been licensed (the way he drove, it was only a matter of time before he either hurt or killed someone), and that got us to see red.

Instead of simply accepting that he nearly killed 2 people, he tried every way he could think of to make it go away. He showed up at the hospital (my aunt told him to GTFO), attempted to dispose of any and all assets (he got caught when things were frozen), going so far as to try and intimidate her via telephone--remember this was in 1994, when not everyone had Caller ID. He was never rude on the phone. In fact, he didn't say a thing--but he did breathe very heavily. Had he not done that shit and actually shown some remorse, my family *might* have forgiven him. Instead, we wanted his head, so we bankrupted the bastard.

To this day, I have no idea what the hell was going through his mind during and immediately after the accident.

People do not like rich, drunk kids killing other people. People to this day after his death think Ted Kennedy was always a horrible person because he was in a similar circumstance.

Unfortunately, one could say that the US has two sets of laws. One for the rich folks, and one for the rest of us. Had the perp been poor (of any race), he'd be sitting in a cell right now. Instead, he gets probation and rehab. That's why people are pissed. They see it as yet another rich kid not being held to the same laws as the rest of us--especially when you consider that his defense basically paid off a witness to come up with a bullshit defense.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I find that sentence ridiculously high, but as someone pointed out - here, you have intent to harm. There is a difference.

I was shocked that hadn't been mentioned yet because that's a big thing in the court system. It's why so often we hear about felonious assault and why murder can be as prevalent as it seems sometimes. People aren't setting out to hurt people but the crimes they absolutely intend on committing go wrong.

Kudos for looking that up. I really didn't have the patience for it but it does somewhat confirm my working theory that yes, this is a common outcome. This one was sensationalized however because of what the psychologist tried to claim in court. People do not like rich, drunk kids killing other people. People to this day after his death think Ted Kennedy was always a horrible person because he was in a similar circumstance.

[Kelmon]

Also the legal term you're looking for is negligent manslaughter ( Don't ask me the German term, I'm reading your criminal code in English >.> ). And while you're correct that its 5 years under German law, when you apply it to this scenario it still gets quite ugly. As this kid would be facing 4 counts of it, plus several more counts of negligence leading to grievous bodily injury. Plus shoplifting / theft and drunk driving. As well as a handful of traffic violations I'm sure.

Under a German court I'm sure this kid would be in prison to be honest.

Well, I wouldn't be too sure. I googled some of the more recent sentences.

In 2010, a 18-year old that killed two girls due to drunk driving got 2 years on probation and lost his license for 2 months.

In 2011, a drunk and drugged 20-year old ran his car into a tree, killing a passenger. He got 2 years on probation, lost his license for 3 years and has to get screened for drugs every 3 months from now on.

In 2012, a 21-year old that ran over (and killed) a man while driving home drunk from a fair got 120 hours of community service.

Again 2012, a 23-year old ran his car into a traffic light, in shock, he flees the scene on foot, leaving his mortally wounded girlfriend (thrown through the windshield) behind next to the burning wreckage. He got 1 year and 11 months on probation, after his attorney pleaded for a prison sentence of 2 years and 6 months, and after having been sentenced just days before the accident to 8 months on probation for assault and battery (he beat down a guy in a disco and he and his mate continued to kick his head after he was out). And previously having been caught by the police while breaking open a stolen safe. Nice guy.

This year, a 21-year old ran over a woman on a bike, killing her. He got 2 years on probation.


Oh, and i'm not saying that i find all of these sentences completely reasonable, especially looking at those from 2012. Many people found those outrageous.

And as someone mentioned, the same judge sentenced another juvenile offender to 10 years for unintentionally killing someone with a punch. But that kid was poor and black. This one is white and rich.

I find that sentence ridiculously high, but as someone pointed out - here, you have intent to harm. There is a difference.

[fireheart17]

But going back to the case at hand: I'd also be very interested what sentences other young people in similar situations have gotten. Is it really a case of that kid getting a unusually lenient sentence (Because of money, skin color, parents, judge, random chance,...)? Or can we find other examples of this, too?

I do believe the George Zimmerman case had shades of the racial argument thrown around (the argument goes that if Zimmerman had been black and the kid white, he would've been chucked into prison. Black-on-black? Same deal most likely. White-on-white? Same deal but lower sentence. Please do not hijack this thread with the debate, I'm using it as an example)

Down here in Aussieland, there are two groups that have been known to get harsher sentences for ANYTHING compared to their "non" counterparts. Those two groups? People under the age of 25 and ATSI folks (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander).

Here's the breakdown:

People under 25: the two most common arguments put forth here relate to anything driving and anything involving violence and/or sex. Driving in particular rates a special mention in my state as it's common knowledge that "P" plates around here mean "pick on me please" particularly for men or anyone driving certain "hoon" cars*. (Holden Commodores and Mitsubishis tend to be the common ones)

In terms of sex/violence based offences, alcohol is USUALLY involved. The response? Tighten the restrictions even further (same deal for driving) and make lives harder for people under 25. End result? Rates just shoot higher. They're not going to stop simply because you make it harder for them, it's just going to make it easier for you to come down hard on them.

ATSI: They tend to be on both ends of the spectrum-victim and aggressor. Higher rates of EVERYTHING: homicide, violence, sexual abuse and so on. There are numerous reasons for this and these are being addressed, but the numbers are still greater.
What DOESN'T help however, is the assumption that ALL ATSI folks (regardless of how much ACTUAL Aboriginal blood they have) are either criminals or criminals-in-training...in certain Aboriginal communities, alcohol and petrol are tightly controlled to address SOME of the violence and sexual abuse issues, but the rest comes down to the history and the culture...which is not excused, but at least has a cause.

(By culture...google "Stolen Generation." As a result, child abuse tends to go under-reported in some Aboriginal communities out of fear that their kid will be taken away, the social worker will be racist or the kids will be taken away for something that's beyond their control)

[Gravekeeper]

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.

That's it in a nutshell. Germany has a lower tolerance for blood alcohol content levels than other countries, but conversely if you lose your license due to it, you can't get your license back without passing a psychological assessment.

Conversely, Canada uses a 3 strike rule. Long as you don't hurt anyone that is. The minimum sentences are: 1st offense you lose your license for a year and get fined. 2nd, lose your license for 2 years, 30 days in jail. 3rd, 3 months in jail lose your license for 3 years.

The reason that US sentences seem cruel is due to mandatory sentencing laws that dictate a hefty minimum sentence length regardless of the circumstances of the crime. Specifically, their drug crime laws, which compromise a good portion if not the majority of their incarcerated population. Add in privately run for profit prisons and you've got yourself a party.

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.

15 years is just the minimum served before being eligible for parole under German law for premeditated murder. ( Looks like the average is 18 year or so. But they can keep you in there if you're a danger or it was particularly heinous of a crime. ). Canada likewise has a minimum. I'm not sure about the US.

Also the legal term you're looking for is negligent manslaughter ( Don't ask me the German term, I'm reading your criminal code in English >.> ). And while you're correct that its 5 years under German law, when you apply it to this scenario it still gets quite ugly. As this kid would be facing 4 counts of it, plus several more counts of negligence leading to grievous bodily injury. Plus shoplifting / theft and drunk driving. As well as a handful of traffic violations I'm sure.

Under a German court I'm sure this kid would be in prison to be honest.

But going back to the case at hand: I'd also be very interested what sentences other young people in similar situations have gotten. Is it really a case of that kid getting a unusually lenient sentence (Because of money, skin color, parents, judge, random chance,...)? Or can we find other examples of this, too?

I can't think of another example of something like this with this absurd of a defense. They basically found the one psychologist who would say what they wanted in exchange for a paycheque to serve was a witness. The psychology affliction he claimed the kid suffers from is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. Every other psychologist that has weighed in so far has said its total bullshit.

And as someone mentioned, the same judge sentenced another juvenile offender to 10 years for unintentionally killing someone with a punch. But that kid was poor and black. This one is white and rich.

[Kelmon]

I agree. With modern mass media, the public will only notice the amount of certain (scandalous) cases, not the amount per population. Which might cause more unhappiness with the status quo in countries with a higher population.

Yet...I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in Germany, the way our judicial system should be run is simply not a contested topic among our political parties. We don't have a "lock them all up!" and a "free them all!" party. And politicians seem to be wary to make any "grand" promises of change in any sector. So even if there are a lot of high-profile cases (say, repeat offender rapists), it will never noticeably impact elections.

But ultimately, what makes peoples (dis-)satisfaction with certain aspects of their government can probably not be boiled down to any single cause.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

To be fair, the US was like that at one time as well. The phenomenon that eventually led it go going the other way was a series of scandals involving light sentences resulting in later rape and murder. Much like this case, those cases were sensationalized. And much like this case, people then demanded longer, mandatory sentences and less parole.

We tend to jump between extremes, but a big part of that is probably the overall size of the country and the ability of the media to magnify local cases into national ones. Four similar ones occurring in a few years of each other is usually enough to swing national elections in locations that would be analogous (in terms of distance) to London, Munich, Athens, and Warsaw. I doubt Germany, the UK, Greece, and Poland would change towards more law and order based on one incident a year, but the national identity here causes those four sensational cases to really carry impact. And that is problematic when you think of just how localized our court system really is.

[Kelmon]

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

We have a provision in out law to keep certain murderes, rapists and the like in prison for virtually forever, or at least as long as they are deemed no longer a danger to the population. ("Sicherheitsverwahrung" - Preventive detention). For obvious reasons, this is not done very often, and has certain special requirements.

Otherwise - if we're talking "petty crime" repeat offenders - no, we don't see a need to throw someone into prison for forever because he keeps stealing wallets. A judge will probably increase the sentence of a repeat offender gradually to a certain (for you, I guess low) maximum sentence.


But going back to the case at hand: I'd also be very interested what sentences other young people in similar situations have gotten. Is it really a case of that kid getting a unusually lenient sentence (Because of money, skin color, parents, judge, random chance,...)? Or can we find other examples of this, too?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

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 ... Justice is supposed to be blind, this confirms people sentiments, that it is anything but.

How is that germane to this case? The system is only fair because both sides are allowed to present their case to the best of their ability. That's as fair as you can make it. Yes, in a capitalist society, rich people will have better lawyers (unless you have the ACLU for some reason or you're part of someone's pro bono work.) That's a justice problem but it isn't solvable from within the justice system. Even the term "affluenza" was a term used by the kid's expert witness, a psychologist. In a legal case, that's going to qualify as evidence that needs to be considered or refuted. It wasn't, the prosecution lost at least in terms of sentencing and here we are.

And the kid's lawyers were smart to waive a jury trial and go for a judge. It worked and I'll bet they had statistics that the fact he was a rich kid given the nature of the crime he would be far too likely to be caught up in a jury's sense of moral outrage. When I see what tends to be decidedly one sided coverage and inflammatory at that, it tends to bear out the correctness of that decision.

Here's the thing I'd like to see a graph on: what is the sentencing distribution of people convicted of this crime. Telling me what the sentence could be (which a lot of coverage tends to be focused on) is not the same as telling me what sentences are the most common. I think you'd still have the outrage, but it would far less. Locking this single kid away was never going to "fix" the system for anyone.