Well, DUCK, I'm with you on this.
The defense deferred the blame on the parents, I don't agree with that and think any 16 year old who is not mentally handicapped knows that there are consequences to their actions. He was consuming alcohol underage, under the influence behind the wheel, driving recklessly by being almost double the speed limit, and 4 counts of vehicular homicide. More than probation is called for here. Put him in jail for 20 with a parole option after 7 granted he attends therapy sessions while behind bars and continues for a few years while on probation following a parole. A person with such a warped sense of reality is just a danger to society until he can realize the consequences, if that really is the case.
I truly believe that are just deflecting the blame to the parents to protect him from prison, and as such will not learn responsibility of his actions since mom and dad's money is bailing him out.
Kids do incredibly stupid things because they have an immortality complex usually since they haven't been directly affected by their own mortality in a lot of cases. This should not absolve them from the consequences. I also doubt this will be a one the occurrence but that matter is purely conjecture either way. All I'm really trying to get at is that money protected this kid when it shouldn't have been able to.
A teenager is brought up believing he can get away with criminal behavior with minimal consequences because he's rich. He kills 4 people and injures several more. His punishment is probation and counseling instead of a significant amount of time behind bars.
He nowbelievesknows he can get away with criminal behavior with minimal consequences.
Where's the justice?
Are the parents going to go to prison instead?
Where's the justice?
Are the parents going to go to prison instead?
Is there any true justice to be had in this case?
No, I'm saying that only rich parents apparently have an excuse to be bad parents and have that exist trickle to their children.
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of poor scientists and starving professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
Q. But what about Brittany Spears, surely she is just a dumb blonde who got lucky. How can you say that she is better than anyone else?
A. Brittany Spears spent years of her life training to become a singer and had the wherewithal to get herself to the top. She made the right connections and had the drive to succeed, unlike you.
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's [successful] self
Q. But poor people don't really have the opportunity to make it. When you are born into poverty it's hard to get out of poverty.
A. That excuse may have worked in the middle ages, but these days there are endless opportunities available. One does not even need to go to college to educate themselves in a field. With the internet and free public libraries it is possible to self educate yourself in fields like technology, law, or business. There are countless self-educated techs and businessmen out there. Abraham Lincoln passed the Bar Exam without ever setting a foot into Law School, after all.
It is also possible to start a business these days without a heavy investment in capital. Internet businesses are regularly run out of bedrooms.
Q. But how can poor people get themselves out of poverty when they are holding a full time job?
A. If you are working from 8 to 5 and turn on the TV when you get home then you obviously do not have a drive to succeed. It's your fault that you are poor, clearly.
Q. Are rich people better than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I disagree. There are plenty of poor scientists and starving professionals out in the world.
A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
Q. But what about Brittany Spears, surely she is just a dumb blonde who got lucky. How can you say that she is better than anyone else?
A. Brittany Spears spent years of her life training to become a singer and had the wherewithal to get herself to the top. She made the right connections and had the drive to succeed, unlike you.
Q. What about all of the people who were just born into money. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a poor person.
A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born into wealth are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's [successful] self
Q. But poor people don't really have the opportunity to make it. When you are born into poverty it's hard to get out of poverty.
A. That excuse may have worked in the middle ages, but these days there are endless opportunities available. One does not even need to go to college to educate themselves in a field. With the internet and free public libraries it is possible to self educate yourself in fields like technology, law, or business. There are countless self-educated techs and businessmen out there. Abraham Lincoln passed the Bar Exam without ever setting a foot into Law School, after all.
It is also possible to start a business these days without a heavy investment in capital. Internet businesses are regularly run out of bedrooms.
Q. But how can poor people get themselves out of poverty when they are holding a full time job?
A. If you are working from 8 to 5 and turn on the TV when you get home then you obviously do not have a drive to succeed. It's your fault that you are poor, clearly.
I think the punishment is just.
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.
To the people saying he got off easy:
It is not the law's job to get revenge for the victims, but justice for the kid. Stop thinking about all the dead people and think about the decisions the kid made. He took drugs, drank, and drove. I'm sure more than half of America has done all three of those things (not necessarily simultaneously). The point is, he did nothing malicious. Sure, he made a colossal mistake, but he has to live with that. If it were me, the guilt, regret, shame, and emotional stress would be worse than any punishment a judge could come up with.
I think the punishment is just.
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.
And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.
I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.
A lot of people regret their actions later. Should saying "I'm sorry" lessen sentences?
An 18 year old that has sex with a 16 year old faces a worse fate than this kid. They have to be a registered sex offender for their lives and must tell people the live next to of this fact. That seems a little it off, no?
I'm not calling for the kid to be tortured, but to actually face consequences that match up to the severity of his crime. Teens are tried as adults all the time, case in point is the teen in Massachusetts whom is being tried as an adult for killing his teacher. I'm not saying he should have gotten the 20 years in jail that he could face, but surely some time behind bars is deserved for this. The juvenile system could provide the same type of therapy that he is going to be receiving at this other facility. One way or another, this teen is a criminal and should be treated as such.
The underaged sex is relevant for comparison. It wouldn't have to be rape, it could be completely consensual and the 18 year old could face sex offender labels for the rest of their lives.
The defense deferred the blame on the parents, I don't agree with that and think any 16 year old who is not mentally handicapped knows that there are consequences to their actions. He was consuming alcohol underage, under the influence behind the wheel, driving recklessly by being almost double the speed limit, and 4 counts of vehicular homicide. More than probation is called for here. Put him in jail for 20 with a parole option after 7 granted he attends therapy sessions while behind bars and continues for a few years while on probation following a parole. A person with such a warped sense of reality is just a danger to society until he can realize the consequences, if that really is the case.Yeah, all I want is revenge for the victims ::)
I truly believe that are just deflecting the blame to the parents to protect him from prison, and as such will not learn responsibility of his actions since mom and dad's money is bailing him out.
Nobody reply to Yaakov.
Anyway, focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution is all well and good, but that's not what this case is about. The kid wasn't given a slap on the wrist because the judge suddenly realized that putting him in jail wouldn't help turn his life around and would only most likely produce a repeat offender; he got a slap on the wrist because he's rich. That's the main issue here.
Nobody reply to Yaakov.
Anyway, focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution is all well and good, but that's not what this case is about. The kid wasn't given a slap on the wrist because the judge suddenly realized that putting him in jail wouldn't help turn his life around and would only most likely produce a repeat offender; he got a slap on the wrist because he's rich. That's the main issue here.
So what, we're just supposed to talk about what happened? How is this really a conversation if we don't bring up the question of what punishment he should have gotten?
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.
And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.
I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.
You have failed to explain how the punishment is inappropriate.
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.
And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.
I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.
You have failed to explain how the punishment is inappropriate.
It's inappropriate for the victims who have lost their lives, it's inappropriate for the justice system being perceived as a deterrent and it's inappropriate for the kid because he's getting away with it (which is apparently adding to his abuse); I'm not convinced he has learnt his lesson.
I'm convinced this kid will probably commit another crime.
I think the punishment is just.
I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.
There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.
And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.
I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.
You have failed to explain how the punishment is inappropriate.
It's inappropriate for the victims who have lost their lives, it's inappropriate for the justice system being perceived as a deterrent and it's inappropriate for the kid because he's getting away with it (which is apparently adding to his abuse); I'm not convinced he has learnt his lesson.
I'm convinced this kid will probably commit another crime.
Fortunately your belief has little to do with the facts of the matter. We do not practice retributive biblical justice anymore, especially not on minors, thankfully. The sentence is not for the victims, that is what civil suits are for. Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.
Are you saying that we should do away with prisons and only place criminals into therapy programs?
I'm standing my ground in the belief that such a light sentence only reinforces the issue that caused this situation to begin with, the belief that those with money are special and their wealth will protect them from punishments.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/12/3053821/teen-killed-sentenced-probation-testimony-suffers-affluenza/
The same judge sentenced a 19 year old to 8 years for intoxicated manslaughter when his passenger was killed. Tell me again how money didn't play a role?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/12/3053821/teen-killed-sentenced-probation-testimony-suffers-affluenza/
The same judge sentenced a 19 year old to 8 years for intoxicated manslaughter when his passenger was killed. Tell me again how money didn't play a role?
Is comparing this kid's case to the case of an adult really the same thing?
Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.Then lock him away for a couple years so the streets will be safer (best interest for society) and let him get the cold hard reality/slap in the face that he can't buy his way out of trouble when he does stupid stuff (rehabilitate the convict)
what happens if he violates probation?Given his current sentence as an indicator, probably a 'stern word or two' from the authorities.
There are a grand total of 3 years difference and the circumstances between the two are vastly different. For one, the 19 year old killed his passenger, it can be assumed the passenger willingly and knowingly put himself into harms way by getting in the vehicle. These 4 victims did nothing to contribute to their own deaths. It's also been mentioned that this teen has an intellectual age of 18 and an emotional age of 13. He knows there are consequences to his actions (knowledge of an 18 year old) and refuses to care about them (attitude of a 13 year old).
Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.Then lock him away for a couple years so the streets will be safer (best interest for society) and let him get the cold hard reality/slap in the face that he can't buy his way out of trouble when he does stupid stuff (rehabilitate the convict)
The same psychologist which gave him the afluenza defense is the one which gave those developmental ages.There are a grand total of 3 years difference and the circumstances between the two are vastly different. For one, the 19 year old killed his passenger, it can be assumed the passenger willingly and knowingly put himself into harms way by getting in the vehicle. These 4 victims did nothing to contribute to their own deaths. It's also been mentioned that this teen has an intellectual age of 18 and an emotional age of 13. He knows there are consequences to his actions (knowledge of an 18 year old) and refuses to care about them (attitude of a 13 year old).
3 years at that age can be a significant jump. I know I was quite a lot more mature at 19 than I was at 16 than I was at 13. It's also dangerous to start making judgments based on some factoid being bandied about regarding his developmental stage. I would want to see a lot more context behind a pronouncement like that.
It's all the more reason to keep him out of society (perhaps a mental institution) because he needs more rehabilitation to make him safe within it.
He should be 'locked up' longer not given a lite sentence.
This kid has got away with it and I'm willing to bet this kid will commit another crime.
By the way, under the 20 year sentence he would have been eligible for parole after 2 years. If he would have only served the 2 years and the parole board felt he was eligible (so long as they weren't bought and their review was legitimate) the 2 years served would have been a long enough in my eyes.