I'm curious. Are they actually saying that this boy committed this offence as a result of being wealthy? To be honest, the death of 4 people, however abhorrant, doesn't fit the definition of murder, but rather, both vehicular & negligent homicide. Even were he an adult, the death penalty doesn't apply here, & never does in a minor's case. But probation & counselling? That's absurd! & how did being wealthy play into it @ all. I've known plenty of exceedingly wealthy folk (a Catholic university; I was on scholarship, but others...), many grossly immature, but none that would condone this! Seriously, they're blaming it on his wealth, & giving him a break for that?! That's insane! Or am I misunderstanding this?