"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[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]

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

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

[HYHYBT]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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".

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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)

[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.