Affluenza : The ailement that is a result of excessive privilege in bids for leniency

Affluenza is a non medical term, an imaginary illness, that is used to describe the high economic status and privilege of an individual, and used for reasoning as to why right from wrong is not able to be comprehended. In many cases that consist of a minor as the perpetrator, the argument that the child is less culpable because their parents did not set limits is always brought up, but never framed with a superficial term like Affluenza. In Ethan Couch's case controversy has risen from the defense strategy used in his case which included testimony from a psychologist stating that the 16 year old suffered from this diagnosis. Allegedly his parents had taught him that his wealth meant that he never had to face consequences, no matter what the situation. Was this really an excuse for this specific wrongdoing? With a restricted license, aka a permit, intoxication behind the wheel of a drivers seat is the number one reinforced thing and a known fact that it is never to be done, especially with the alcohol content of .24% which is three times the legal limit for drivers in Texas. Therefore, a matter of "Not knowing right from wrong " is not acceptable in this case at all, the consequences of drunk driving is common sense as it is ethically wrong. The outcomes of it are portrayed and emphasized all over the media, which he had to have come across with 16 years of life on earth he definitely knew that getting into the drivers seat while drunk was illegal, and his privileged lifestyle should not have been used as an excuse to get him out of well deserved consequences. No justice was served to the families of the victims, after taking the lives of four people 10 years probation was given as leniency due to his "Illness". Was this in fact the right choice? Is Affluenza a valid argument? If the time served for man slaughter was served justice would have been  served rather than probation, which was the easy way out.