Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Kill 4 People, Want To Escape Jail Claim Affluenza

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ethan-couch-texas-quadruple-murderer--or-a-victim-of-affluenza-9004308.html

A wealthy Texan teenager who mowed down and killed four pedestrians while driving drunk has been sentenced to 10 years’ probation at a private rehab centre, rather than 20 years in jail as prosecutors had demanded.

Critics of the lenient sentence are outraged not so much by the sentence itself, as by the defence’s apparently successful argument that 16-year-old Ethan Couch was a victim of “affluenza” – meaning his family is so wealthy, and he so entitled, that he believed his actions would have no consequences.

Psychologist Dr G Dick Miller testified that Couch, from Keller in Texas, had been raised in a household by indulgent parents who never established boundaries for his behaviour, giving him “freedoms no young person should have”. Dr Miller pointed to Couch’s parents’ decision not to punish him after he was found by police in a parked pick-up truck with an unconscious, undressed 14-year-old girl a year before the fatal accident.

Dr Miller recommended the boy undergo years of therapy away from his parents, as opposed to a prison sentence. Judge Jean Boyd, who presided over the case, agreed and ordered Couch to enrol in a private, $450,000-a-year rehabilitation centre in Newport Beach, California, for which his father will foot the bill. Speaking to the Associated Press, Florida psychologist Dr Gary Buffone described the defence’s claim of affluenza as “laughable”. He said, “Not only haven’t the parents set any consequences, but it’s being reinforced by the judge’s actions.”

Perhaps black teens being charged for crimes need to cite povfluenza and that they just need extensive counselling to make up for suffering endemic poverty.

Similar it appears that the police didn't seek to prosecute him either being with a naked girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill with a car in this country and you don't even need a lame excuse to get off with a small fine and maybe a few points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, its like the 'sexsomniac' cases where a woman is raped but the guy is apparently innocent because he did it in his sleep or something. To me that makes it worse, not reason to be let off. That he isnt in control of his actions means he doesnt have self awareness and is just an animal, with zero chance of reform. We execute animals, so not sure why we actually give mentally deficient humans preferential treatment. At least a clever killer like The unabomber might do something useful in the future. A retard. Well, theyre just a retard. If they are incapable of comprehending their actions, its not like they'll ever be useful.

I suspect its just so shrinks can make more money via the taxpayer. A bit like how now everyone who is a bit socially awkward now has 'aspergers' and must be referred to a govt shrink to seek help for something for which there is no 'cure' as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit strange though, isnt it?

He believed his actions would have no consequences...

...so the court validated his belief by ensuring his actions had no consequences (for him, at least)

Id say he was right. May as well carry on acting as if there are no consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case reminds me of the one involving Hulk Hogans son, too. Although he did receive a lengthy prison sentence, all of almost 6 months.

To be fair iirc he was wearing a seatbelt. His victim decided not to - the result.

Please don't do that. Some things can't be unseen. I'd like a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill with a car in this country and you don't even need a lame excuse to get off with a small fine and maybe a few points.

Actually, it's the opposite.

Kill someone with a car in this country, due to a totally unexpected accident, even if you are careful and a skilled driver, and the way the law is written, you are automatically guilty of "causing death by careless driving", except in very unusual circumstances.

In such a case, you'd be lucky to get away with a suspended sentence. There was a well publicised case last year, where a surgeon hired a car with friends. A tyre blew out, causing the car to hit the curb and swerve into oncoming traffic. The collision was at low speed, but the passenger in the other car was not wearing a seatbelt and had placed an unsecured mobility scooter in the back of the car. During the crash, she was crushed to death by the scooter.

Even though the court heard that the surgeon driving, was a skilled and careful driver, had been driving well below the speed limit at a speed appropriate to the conditions and had taken appropriate rest breaks, and that the coroner had said that if the mobility scooter had been properly secured, there would have been no injuries; the result was a 2 year suspended sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's the opposite.

Kill someone with a car in this country, due to a totally unexpected accident, even if you are careful and a skilled driver, and the way the law is written, you are automatically guilty of "causing death by careless driving", except in very unusual circumstances.

In such a case, you'd be lucky to get away with a suspended sentence. There was a well publicised case last year, where a surgeon hired a car with friends. A tyre blew out, causing the car to hit the curb and swerve into oncoming traffic. The collision was at low speed, but the passenger in the other car was not wearing a seatbelt and had placed an unsecured mobility scooter in the back of the car. During the crash, she was crushed to death by the scooter.

Even though the court heard that the surgeon driving, was a skilled and careful driver, had been driving well below the speed limit at a speed appropriate to the conditions and had taken appropriate rest breaks, and that the coroner had said that if the mobility scooter had been properly secured, there would have been no injuries; the result was a 2 year suspended sentence.

that sounds improbable...linky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google directs you to irro!

http://www.housepric...howtopic=185712

so, it was not even true:

Dr Kendrick admitted causing the death of the holidaymaker, and injuring her husband and three of his own colleagues, as they drove to a medical course.

The orthopaedic surgeon - described as 'an exceptional' talent - lost control of his rented people carrier and smashed into the Johnstons' oncoming vehicle.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246256/Benjamin-Kendrick-Surgeon-killed-30-stone-woman-crash-refusing-pay-300-000-damages-victims-size-reduced-life-expectancy.html#ixzz2nX0MibC8

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's the opposite.

Kill someone with a car in this country, due to a totally unexpected accident, even if you are careful and a skilled driver, and the way the law is written, you are automatically guilty of "causing death by careless driving", except in very unusual circumstances.

Absolute rubbish! The vast, vast majority of killings on the road result in either no prosecution or a small fine. Besides, for you to "automatically guilty" killing someone in that manner would have to be a strict liability offence - which it ain't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, it was not even true:

Dr Kendrick admitted causing the death of the holidaymaker, and injuring her husband and three of his own colleagues, as they drove to a medical course.

Admitting guilt means nothing. It's all about whether the law is written such that you can realistically make a defence. In the case of death by careless driving, the only realistic defences are proving that you were careful, or that the other party caused the accident. It's also about what you have to lose; if you plead guilty from the start, then this can significantly lessen the sentence, which for many people may be highly desirable.

In this type of case, if the CPS decide to prosecute, there is very little chance of being able to defend yourself, unless you can prove that the other party substantially contributed to the accident (e.g. an HGV driver did successfully defend against a death by careless driving conviction, after killing a cyclist because witnesses stated that the cyclist came up the inside as he was turning left, after the lorry had already indicated left and was stopped waiting at traffic lights, and at the time the lights went gree the cyclist was in his blind spot. Without the witness statements, he is likely to have been convicted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admitting guilt means nothing. It's all about whether the law is written such that you can realistically make a defence. In the case of death by careless driving, the only realistic defences are proving that you were careful, or that the other party caused the accident. It's also about what you have to lose; if you plead guilty from the start, then this can significantly lessen the sentence, which for many people may be highly desirable.

In this type of case, if the CPS decide to prosecute, there is very little chance of being able to defend yourself, unless you can prove that the other party substantially contributed to the accident (e.g. an HGV driver did successfully defend against a death by careless driving conviction, after killing a cyclist because witnesses stated that the cyclist came up the inside as he was turning left, after the lorry had already indicated left and was stopped waiting at traffic lights, and at the time the lights went gree the cyclist was in his blind spot. Without the witness statements, he is likely to have been convicted).

Seems rather bizarre that the legal principle is innocent until proven guilty yet from your description with careless driving you are guilty until you prove your innocence! Seems more like the Chinese legal system than the UK's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admitting guilt means nothing. It's all about whether the law is written such that you can realistically make a defence. In the case of death by careless driving, the only realistic defences are proving that you were careful, or that the other party caused the accident. It's also about what you have to lose; if you plead guilty from the start, then this can significantly lessen the sentence, which for many people may be highly desirable.

In this type of case, if the CPS decide to prosecute, there is very little chance of being able to defend yourself, unless you can prove that the other party substantially contributed to the accident (e.g. an HGV driver did successfully defend against a death by careless driving conviction, after killing a cyclist because witnesses stated that the cyclist came up the inside as he was turning left, after the lorry had already indicated left and was stopped waiting at traffic lights, and at the time the lights went gree the cyclist was in his blind spot. Without the witness statements, he is likely to have been convicted).

In the surgeon case you refer to, I thought he hit the side of the road leading to the blow out, hence the guilty plea. Not the way you described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put some figures in play:

2011 - 1901 people killed by people driving (a fraction of the 203,950 killed or injured in total)

2011 - 484 convictions "causing death" convictions

Driving has to be appalling and there has to be high standard of evidence before the CPS even consider a prosecution; so most killings go unprosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   204 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.