"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[s_stabeler]

Personally if you kill someone(s) while intoxicated the default should be at least life without parole or death. There's no excuse for driving while intoxicated, none!!!

no. Life w/o parole should be confined to the irredeemable. I would say 5 years jail, PLUS 5 years probation afterwards PLUS bye-bye license until the probation is over. (so 10 years) oh, and that is for a first offence. second offense, and the penalty is doubled ( 10 years jail, 10 years probation. 20 years with no license) third offence? life with parole & license gone for life.

[Andara Bledin]

I'd much prefer to see some sort of punishment for his parents. They created the situation that led to the deaths of 4 people, they should have some liability for that fact.

If a few more parents were held responsible for churning out little shits (as provable that they are to blame, so a bit of a hurdle, but already cleared in this case), maybe a few of them would make an effort to not do so.

[Gravekeeper]

Of course he was a little shit. He'd been taught from day one that he could do whatever the fuck he wanted to and nothing bad would happen to him. He would have had to have been an extraordinary individual to have such an upbringing and manage to form a decent sense of morality.

But my point is there are lots of kids in the same position of being raised by terrible parenting where the only difference between them and this kid is money. Those kids go straight to jail. Those kids sometimes have even worse parents than this kid. They still go straight to jail because no money is involved. So ultimately this case just proves what this kid was raised to believe.

Its also an unsettling precedent for other rich dicks and their children.

I mean, this kid seems like kid of a sociopath. No matter how you're raised, you still have some measure of natural empathy. But he's avoiding jail time based on the testimony of one consulting psychologist called as a witness. The kid didn't get a full psych evaluation or anything.

On a side note, the psychologist in question's RateMD rating has plunged pretty god damn quick after this case. ;p

I'd much prefer to see some sort of punishment for his parents. They created the situation that led to the deaths of 4 people, they should have some liability for that fact.

They're going to be sued into the ground. Their company is being sued too since the kid was driving a company vehicle.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'd much prefer to see some sort of punishment for his parents.

Oh I'm sure that will take care of itself. They won't go to jail, but the defense used by the child might very well bury the parents in a tort case. The defense essentially made the negligence case for anyone who thought about bring lawsuit against them. They should be safe in the sense that the child stole the car, but a jury actually bought that they were THAT negligent as to wrap the knuckles of the child, there was probably some fairly egregious lapses in parenting that were highlighted at trial.

The family might find itself wiped out. 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.

[lordlundar]

I'd much prefer to see some sort of punishment for his parents. They created the situation that led to the deaths of 4 people, they should have some liability for that fact.

That's extremely likely. The defense used the claim that he was raised to not respect others which shunts civil liability onto the parents for poor child raising skills.

[Canarr]

But my point is there are lots of kids in the same position of being raised by terrible parenting where the only difference between them and this kid is money. Those kids go straight to jail. Those kids sometimes have even worse parents than this kid. They still go straight to jail because no money is involved.

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?

[ebonyknight]

For those who don't think the kid should have gotten more than probation, let me ask you this way: Exactly what punishment do you believe a 16 year old, who probably has very little experience in drinking, making decisions while drinking, and driving in general, that made a bad decision in what will be one of the first drunk experiences he ever has in his life? This isn't the type of person who should obviously know better all around. I'm sure had you asked him days before the accident he'd say he knows driving drunk is bad. Everyone will say that. But this is not someone experienced enough in life to make an informed decision.

As such, I don't blame the judge for not ruining the kid's entire future.

And yet this same judge, a few months earlier sentenced a 14 year old to 10 years at a juvenile facility for punching another person. The person was knocked out and fell, and cracked his head open on the sidewalk, later dying.

This kid didn't have money (I won't even bother listing the race of the kid, as I think we all know), didn't he have a future that shouldn't have been ruined? Rich kid kills 4 outright, another kid gets 10 years by the same judge for killing one.

She looks like a young judge too. Too bad her career is probably going to get ruined over this too. Perhaps we should be lenient with her too. Hell, let's just be lenient all around as everyone has a potentially bright future....

[Greenday]

And yet this same judge, a few months earlier sentenced a 14 year old to 10 years at a juvenile facility for punching another person. The person was knocked out and fell, and cracked his head open on the sidewalk, later dying.

This kid didn't have money (I won't even bother listing the race of the kid, as I think we all know), didn't he have a future that shouldn't have been ruined? Rich kid kills 4 outright, another kid gets 10 years by the same judge for killing one.

She looks like a young judge too. Too bad her career is probably going to get ruined over this too. Perhaps we should be lenient with her too. Hell, let's just be lenient all around as everyone has a potentially bright future....

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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.