In recent light of the verdict for Ethan Couch, a 16 year old who killed 4 people while driving intoxicated, he has been deemed to be afflicted with "Affluenza" and was found a victim and only received 10 years probation.

 

Affluenza is defined as: a psychological malaise supposedly affecting wealthy young people, symptoms of which include a lack of motivation, feelings of guilt, and a sense of isolation.

 

Is there any reliable or viable scientific research that would support the view that people who suffer from affluenza are victims in most cases, esp. manslaughter?

 

CNN:

"To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

Edited December 14, 201312 yr by Stetson

I'm not a mental health physician, but it sounds bogus to me with regard to a criminal defense. I have no doubt that being spoiled rotten skews your perception and sense of responsibility, but I don't get how they justify probation, which just reinforces the problem! He drove drunk and killed four people. He should be in jail. His parents can spring for a shrink to deal with the shock of having to deal with consequences for once.

defense attorney Scott Brown said, “There is nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering for any of those families.”

I'm not sure I believe that. In any case, the judge has made things worse for them.

Here's what those people said

"As for the victims families they were hoping for closure. “Today could have been a good start at that, unfortunately the wounds that it opened only makes the healing process that much greater and more difficult,”

And, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/ethan-couch-sentenced_n_4426722.html

 

"Psychologist G. Dick Miller testified for the defense that Couch suffered from "affluenza," a condition in which "his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences,"

 

Well, it's high time they learned.

defense attorney Scott Brown said, “There is nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering for any of those families.”

 

 

Which is not the point, IMO. The defendant was guilty and the justice system should either punish or rehabilitate him, depending on the prevailing view of the function of the system. Neither happened. Society must be protected, and the circumstances indicate that the defendant will do something thoughtless and careless again. To me, every bit of the "defense" screams "lock this a-hole up" as the proper remedy

Just a thought: if the kid is doing the wrong thing, because of the influence of his parents, shouldn't he be separated from them to stop that influence making him worse?

 

Even the "defence" indicates the need for a custodial sentence.

Sounds like a case of money and politics made that court decision.