"But it's not my fault"
Yes it's new rallying cry of modern society, everything we do just has to be someone else's fault. Forget personal responsibility we are all blameless, so go out into the world and be an ass because you know what, it's not your fault.
Attorneys for Texas teen Ethan Couch claimed that his "affluenza" meant he was blameless for driving drunk and causing a crash that left four people dead in June.
Simply put, Couch, 16, claims that his condition stemmed from having wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for him.
Judge Jean Boyd sentenced him Tuesday to 10 years of probation but no jail time, saying she would work to find him a long-term treatment facility.
But Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter in the crash, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," "There are absolutely no consequences for what occurred that day. The primary message has to absolutely be that money and privilege can't buy justice in this country."
Is "affluenza" real? Or is it a way for coddled children and adolescents to evade consequences for their actions?
Not surprisingly, "affluenza" does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the "psychiatric Bible."
But the term highlights the issue of parents, particularly upper-middle-class ones, who not only refuse to discipline their children but may protest the efforts of others -- school officials, law enforcement and the courts -- who attempt to do so, said Suniya Luthar, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University.
"There are families where very, very few limits are set at a time when they should be," she said. By age 16, she noted, it's too late: "The horse is out of the barn."
The diagnosis for youths in such situations would be impulse control problems, said Atlanta psychologist Mary Gresham -- and impulse control problems are seen across all socioeconomic levels in families where limits aren't set.
Yes by all means let's eliminate responsibility from the equation.
This out of control behavior has nothing to do with affluence per se, it has to do with parents who are too wrapped up in their own lives to pay attention to their kids. It cuts across income levels, but the irony of blaming it on affluence makes for a better criminal defense. The other problem here was a judge that doesn't understand how to do her job.
Last edited by CapnMunchh; 12/13/2013 9:44am at .
To borrow from the Ghetto Boys of rap fame "when the **** jumps off what the hell ya gon do damn it feels good to be rich and white".
Nope, not a new rallying cry at all.
Twinkies (coined by the media)
People have always tried to blame something else for their own ignorance.
Last edited by It is Fake; 12/13/2013 11:31pm at .
Hey man. I sleep walk. That could so be legitimate. Why you got to lump that in with the Twinkie defense?
Originally Posted by It is Fake
Well, there are two themes in his post. Death/murder and using an outside influence to claim it isn't "your" fault. Hasn't worked since the 80s.
Originally Posted by dflanmod
Thanks for the link. That was an interesting read. My response was meant to be snarky. I actually wholeheartedly side with the op on the issue of societies dismissal of personal responsibility for ones actions.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
I just threw out the sleep walking thing because I do in fact sleep walk and have actually wondered if it ever has actually been used as a legitimate mitigating factor (I tend to call BS on most stories I'm just not a beleiver). I myself could have gotten shot as a teenager while sleepwalking and attempting to get into a neighbors house while I was asleep.
There definitely are kids with no mental disorders other than shitty parenting who need treatment more than they need punishment when they do very bad things. I've worked with some of them. I don't know anything about this kid, so I can't assume he is one of those cases, but it does at least seem plausible to me that the judge is making the appropriate call here, provided (a) the kid really is getting treatment, (b) the kid is away from his parents, and (c) fiery hell is waiting to rain down on him if he so much as looks at a car or a drink.
Yes, there are such kids, but the kid's needs aren't the only consideration when it comes to sentencing. His actions caused death -- destroyed a family. I think it would have been more appropriate if he had served at least a year or two in a youth correctional institution. Maybe better for him too.
Originally Posted by OwlMatt
Sentencing has to take into account society's needs to deter behavior. I'd say this amounts to letting a reckless homicide slide, and does not serve as a strong enough deterrent. The need for a victim or a victim's family to feel that the injury inflicted has been vindicated is also a legitimate concern in sentencing, and that didn't happen here.
Edit -- I'd have sentenced him to serve 4 years -- one for each life he's responsible for taking.
Last edited by CapnMunchh; 12/14/2013 12:47pm at .
Cherry picking question: does the judge really have the responsibility (or the power, for that matter) to make the victims' families "feel that the injury inflicted has been vindicated"?
Originally Posted by CapnMunchh
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO