Rich Kid Ethan Couch Gets 10 Years Probation for 4 DUI Kills

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I know this is a few days old, but I didn't see anything posted here.

 

 

"A 16-year-old avoided spending time in prison for killing four people in a car accident in June after the judge bought his lawyers' argument that he was the victim of wealth.

CBSDFW reports that Ethan Couch was sentenced in a Fort Worth, Tex. juvenile court to 10 years probation for the drunk driving crash that ended the lives of youth pastor, Brian Jennings; Hollie and Shelby Boyles; and Breanna Mitchell.

Prosecutors asked that Couch serve 20 years in prison. His blood alcohol level was .24, three times the legal limit for an adult."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/ethan-couch-sentenced_n_4426722.html

 

I gotta say this is f*cking infuriating to me.

 

First off: Ten years? Probation? Bullsh*t. He ended the lives of 4 people and he won't spend a day behind bars.

 

And "affluenza"? They really bought into that nonsense? What has this justice system come to?

Edited December 16, 2013 by whatsstrength

[I cucked Alex Jones]

I wonder what record the sentencing judge had on poor minorities.

 

Edit: And I loved the story when they found this kid in the back of a car with a passed out, naked fourteen year old. You think you could get vigilante justice in Texas of all places.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Nipperkins

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I wonder what record the sentencing judge had on poor minorities.

 

Edit: And I loved the story when they found this kid in the back of a car with a passed out, naked fourteen year old. You think you could get vigilante justice in Texas of all places.

 

The only known cure for criminals with "poor-itis" is life behind bars. If you have "affluenza" you get to go to a retreat to be rehabilitated (pampered).

[rudy]

Isn't ten years probation somewhat of a hard sentence to complete? I'm pretty sure it calls for no drugs or alcohol, given the offense. I ain't gonna characterize the sentence as light, especially for juvenile court.

Then again, I'm f*ckin' pissed. He should have at least been hit with a token trip to juvie or something

[Captain VXR]

Isn't ten years probation somewhat of a hard sentence to complete? I'm pretty sure it calls for no drugs or alcohol, given the offense. I ain't gonna characterize the sentence as light, especially for juvenile court.

Then again, I'm f*ckin' pissed. He should have at least been hit with a token trip to juvie or something

Man I smoke weed and drink alcohol. Ten years without them for killing for people ain't sh*t. That spoiled brat should be punished harsher than most people as he 'has never faced serious discipline' or some sh*t like that. I'm usually one of the compassionate lefty types but this f*cker's pretty much got away with killing four people in Texas of all places.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Isn't ten years probation somewhat of a hard sentence to complete? I'm pretty sure it calls for no drugs or alcohol, given the offense. I ain't gonna characterize the sentence as light, especially for juvenile court.

Then again, I'm f*ckin' pissed. He should have at least been hit with a token trip to juvie or something

Four people are dead because of this motherf*cker, and you think ten years probation is 'hard'? He would have died a painful death for what he did in most places.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Nipperkins

[WBaker]

If you have money you get much lighter sentences. If a 20 year sentence was sought that typically means a plea bargain is available for as little as half the time. With good behavior you can get out in half that. So he could have been out in five years of jail. Ten years probation isn't a bad compromise.

 

What happened is tragic but this kid is no hardened criminal. What is the use of paying to jail him?

[Display_0]

He is a victim of his own stupidity and how he gained that stupidity is entirely irrelevent provided he is not insane.

 

And he isn't.

[Raavi]

When I look at this from an objective stance I read this "16 year old kid went out got drunk, got in a car and killed 4 people". Horrible, but like it or not he isn't even near fully accountable. His brain and more specifically his frontal lobe hasn't fully matured yet, children his age aren't able to oversee the scope nor severity of the consequences of their action.

 

That's why I am of the opinion that it is idiotic and senseless to try kids as adults and that there is the option to sentence them to life without parole, even in the most horrible of cases. Besides lets be honest, what is sending this kid to prison for 20+ years going to do good? Does it bring back the ones that died as a result of his actions? No. Will he learn anything besides how to be a gang member and how to not drop the soap? No. Counselling/reeducation on the other hand will do good. So needless to say I'm very much in favor of counselling-heavy sentences like the one he has gotten.

 

It's just very unfortunate that this has to happen under the guise of "Affluenza", which is nowhere near legitimate. Not fully matured frontal lobe on the other hand is.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Raavi

[LubeMan]

This just goes to show that wealthy people get different rules. It's a slap in the face for anyone who's not wealthy and lets us know where we stand. Did you see the pictures of the resort where he's being rehabilitated? One person he killed was a pastor, and another was a little girl. Also completely paralyzed a kid riding with him. If that would have been me, I'd be in prison for 20 years. But, because this kid comes from wealth, he gets a slap on the wrist.

 

This is why our system is broken and can never be fixed. There's the rules that the rich live by, and then there's the rules everyone else has to live by.

 

And Raavi: What about the rules? What about law? What about justice? Isn't the justice system supposed to punish people who break society's laws?

 

I don't care about frontal lobes. This comes down to wealth and not-wealth. Just look at the financial collapse, who was responsible, how much they made, and who actually went to jail for all of that. People of wealth don't have to play by the rules. And neither do their children obviously.

Edited December 16, 2013 by LubeMan

[Creed Bratton]

When I look at this from an objective stance I read this "16 year old kid went out got drunk, got in a car and killed 4 people". Horrible, but like it or not he isn't even near fully accountable. His brain and more specifically his frontal lobe hasn't fully matured yet, children his age aren't able to oversee the scope nor severity of the consequences of their action.

 

That's why I am of the opinion that it is idiotic and senseless to try kids as adults and that there is the option to sentence them to life without parole, even in the most horrible of cases. Besides lets be honest, what is sending this kid to prison for 20+ years going to do good? Does it bring back the ones that died as a result of his actions? No. Will he learn anything besides how to be a gang member and how to not drop the soap? No. Counselling/reeducation on the other hand will do good. So needless to say I'm very much in favor of counselling-heavy sentences like the one he has gotten.

 

It's just very unfortunate that this has to happen under the guise of "Affluenza", which is nowhere near legitimate. Not fully matured frontal lobe on the other hand is.

How aware teenagers are of their actions and consequences should be judged on an individual basis. Apparently, the 14 year old black kid who punched a man who then died after hitting his head on the ground was mature enough to get 10 years in prison (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524108/Judge-let-spoiled-rich-teen-killed-DUI-previously-boy-aged-fourteen-prison-TEN-YEARS.html).

 

I agree that he shouldn't get 20 years. No one in that situation should. But he got away with no consequences. And that's bullsh*t. That's privileged treatment in a nutshell.

 

But if a poor kid did something like that, and if he was black on top of being poor, he would get a hefty prison sentence. In most scenarios it's not even about how privileged white rich people are. Law actually applies to them. It applies the way it should apply to everyone else. The context of the situation and the motive as well as the benefits of the punishment for the offender and the society as a whole are being taken into consideration. The problem is that the law doesn't apply to the poor and the minorities. They're being abused by the legal system.

Edited December 16, 2013 by The Yokel

[make total destroy]

Ah, the beauty of the bourgeois "justice system." I could only imagine the kind of sentence they'd give a working-class black kid for the same offense.

[Raavi]

And Raavi: What about the rules? What about law? What about justice? Isn't the justice system supposed to punish people who break society's laws?

 

I don't care about frontal lobes. This comes down to wealth and not-wealth. Just look at the financial collapse, who was responsible, how much they made, and who actually went to jail for all of that. People of wealth don't have to play by the rules. And neither do their children obviously.

 

Every sentence is a punishment; a fine is a punishment, probation is a punishment, forced counselling is a punishment etc. etc. However punishment doesn't always have to go hand in hand with a prison sentence, if anything it should be a last resort. Rehabilitation should be the main focus, as it is in most countries with low recidivism rates. Whilst on paper it might also be an integral part of the the US correction system, in reality it really isn't, the recidivism rate is unparalleled.

 

I do care about frontal lobes, as should the Justice system, as that's pure science and science is a pillar of modern society. Unlike that imbecilic "Affluenza" defence, the judge should've laughed them out of the room. But I concur with both you and The Yokel that it is ridiculous that the more affluent relish much more judicial leniency. Justice should rule regardless of gender, (race)* and socio-economic status, it should rule solely on the facts available. However today that is not much more than a utopian notion.

 

*Excluding cases pertaining racism and/or discrimination

[LubeMan]

Unlike that imbecilic "Affluenza" defence, the judge should've laughed them out of the room. But I concur with both you and The Yokel that it is ridiculous that the more affluent relish much more judicial leniency. Justice should rule regardless of gender, (race)* and socio-economic status, it should rule solely on the facts available. However today that is not much more than a utopian notion.

 

 

*Excluding cases pertaining racism and/or discrimination

 

I can agree with this. Thoughtful post, too. Thanks.

 

[mr quick]

This is outrageous! He ended 4 lives, and gets virtually no punishment?

[lil weasel]

If a 'rich' kid does something there is the possibility of redemption.

If a 'poor' kid does it you have something else, the 'poor' kids would look at any leniency as a weakness in the ruling class. Look at how proud these kids are of their 'jail time'. It's an award, a badge to be worn proudly in the 'hood'. if he was a poor kid he'd most likely tattoo four tear drops on his cheek as a notice to all, "I done in four."

With no real worry of Execution, why should anyone who fears death have a care? And, even if there were to be executions, most (I suspect) wouldn't give it a thought other than, "They aren't gonna catch me."

The fear of punishment for any sort of a crime has long disappeared from the poor classes, nothing to lose has that effect.

Now, with the rich they might have a lot to lose, so they work it out to not do that. When one makes an error of judgment the rest rally round and make it all better.

[LubeMan]

If a 'rich' kid does something there is the possibility of redemption.

If a 'poor' kid does it you have something else, the 'poor' kids would look at any leniency as a weakness in the ruling class. Look at how proud these kids are of their 'jail time'. It's an award, a badge to be worn proudly in the 'hood'. if he was a poor kid he'd most likely tattoo four tear drops on his cheek as a notice to all, "I done in four."

With no real worry of Execution, why should anyone who fears death have a care? And, even if there were to be executions, most (I suspect) wouldn't give it a thought other than, "They aren't gonna catch me."

The fear of punishment for any sort of a crime has long disappeared from the poor classes, nothing to lose has that effect.

Now, with the rich they might have a lot to lose, so they work it out to not do that. When one makes an error of judgment the rest rally round and make it all better.

 

I hope you're trolling.

[Crazyeighties]

It's Pretty f*cked up this little prick should be locked up. I don't give two sh*ts if he is rich.

[FAH-Q]

Kids are growing up way too fast these days. I wasn't even drinking at 16.

[biggsull]

Never been one to support giving adult punishments to people who are in the youth justice system, especially when they are say 12 y/o and younger.. I seem to recall a 9y.o being discussed as if he should be tried as an adult and wanting to throw up in my mouth.

 

That said, 16 is obviously a bit closer to adulthood and he was driving, this guys an absolute piece of sh*t and was convicted of manslaughter.. given 1 year in a vacation center with horses and archery and such, pretty much a resort youd love to spend a year in. The 10 years seems to be a new development since the public outrage, I would however like to see at least 2 years and a day in a juvenile detention center with razor wire, gruel and attack dogs

 

Story pretty much goes hes charged with manslaughter but his money both lessened the punishment and got him a special resort facility that isnt even a detention center.

[Frank Brown]

The kid should have gotten life in jail. No exceptions. If I did something like that, I'd be thrown in prison in a heart beat with the key thrown away. The judge should be taken off of the bench. Sixteen is too old to be doing sh*t like that and "getting away" with it.

[Killerdude]

In my country 16 is the age where you become fully responsible for anything and everything stupid you do.

 

You get a record wipe at 18.

[Mr. House]

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

[Frank Brown]

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

[Mr. House]

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

I mean legalistically, which given that generally people are given lighter sentences for being f*cked up is not the case.

[Raavi]

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

 

Science disagrees. At that age, at your age even, the brain hasn't fully matured yet. Which is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.

[Mr. House]

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

 

Science disagrees. At that age, at your age even, the brain hasn't fully matured yet. Which is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.

 

Unless that kid is black of course.

[Raavi]

 

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

 

Science disagrees. At that age, at your age even, the brain hasn't fully matured yet. Which is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.

 

Unless that kid is black of course.

 

 

Like I said:

 

 

Justice should rule regardless of gender, (race)* and socio-economic status, it should rule solely on the facts available. However today that is not much more than a utopian notion.

 

*Excluding cases pertaining racism and/or discrimination

 

[make total destroy]

 

[Frank Brown]

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

 

Science disagrees. At that age, at your age even, the brain hasn't fully matured yet. Which is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.

 

 

His brain hasn't matured enough for him to take responsibility for killing 4 people?

 

I like you, Raavi, but that to me is bullsh*t. I've known since I was 13 that drunk driving and drinking in general is dangerous, you're also taught when you go for your permit/license that it's harmful.