Affluenza
Ethan Couch got away with a sentence of ten years probation with time in a rehab center when he killed four people and injured nine while he was drunk driving. There are multiple laws he was breaking that night, without even considering the fact that he killed four people so I thought that he would be going away to prison for a long time.
However, his defense attorney was able to get him a much shorter and lesser sentence by arguing that because of his childhood, he was not aware that what he did was wrong and he had never suffered consequences. His parents are very rich and they spoiled Ethan by getting him a huge car and more importantly by letting him live alone in a mansion, a few streets away from their house. Living alone at this house he could throw parties whenever he wanted and basically do as he pleased. During their deposition, his parents, especially his mom Tanya, tried to say that she didn't know that he drank alcohol but a few months prior to the crash, he was caught relieving himself in public, while he was drunk. The cops came and then Tanya came and got Ethan out of the situation with no punishment, which this shows how the crash was not his first-time drunk driving and he also had not been punished for it yet.
Through arguing affluenza, Ethan got a lesser sentence but I think that this works in the opposite way it should because this was a chance for him to finally get punished for his actions and to have to face consequences but once again, his parents paid their way out of it. I think it is insane that they were able to get him out of murder charges by using his parent's money as an excuse because this just teaches him that even the justice system can't touch him and he can just keep doing anything he wants.
This case was extremely confusing me for me too, there was clear evidence that Ethan killed those people and in the past, has been involved in illegal activity (underage drinking, drinking under the influence, etc.). I think a big part of this case that was not mentioned in the documentary is race. One can only wonder how this would have played out if he was black and it is sad to say that the justice system can be very racist. You would think the justice system is fair, unbiased, and obviously fights for justice, but cases like this shows the failures of the justice system and how white privilege and wealth continue to influence verdicts.
ReplyDeleteI agree that finding the easy way out has simply gotten out of hand, it gives these privileged people the "Ok" to continue their wrongdoings. This would have been a great wake up call to both Ethan and the public who can relate to the same situation as him, to show that in fact there is consequences. At the age of 16 he should have known better, and should not have put the blame on not knowing right or wrong, with his experience in the world he should have simple knowledge of not drinking and driving. I am sure it was exposed to him at some point of his teenage years, whether it was in the news, social media, etc.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Ethan Couch should have faced much harsher consequences for his actions, and I found the success of the Affluenza Defense very frustrating. When looking at the other case studies, the outcome of this particular case was even more upsetting. Although he knew he would not be disciplined if his actions resulted very badly from his parents' lack of reactions to his prior wrongdoings, Ethan Couch knew he was driving drunk, and his friends even tried to convince him to stop. Yet, Ethan Couch was only given a sentence of 10 years probation and time in a rehab facility, even though he killed four people and injured nine. Meanwhile, in the case of Lionel Tate, who was only 12 years old, there was less evidence to prove that Tate had premeditated the murder, yet he was tried as an adult and was still found guilty of first degree murder and initially sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The jury bought the argument that Couch did not know right from wrong because of his wealth and its influence on his upbringing, yet the jury in Tate's case decided that Tate must have known right from wrong, even though he was younger and also had an upbringing in which his mother always took his side. In the case of Pamela Smart, there was also less evidence proving she must have been the one who planned the murder (it was essentially Bill Flynn's word against hers being used as the most important piece of evidence), and she was also sentenced to life in prison.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the argument that the lawyer of ethan couch made was quite obscene. However we saw in the series of documenteries that we watched surrounding "strange defenses", that these arguments are not as uncommon as you might think. Aditionally, given the fact that the Couch's were quite wealthy, they probably bought the best lawyer they could. Given the quality of the lawyer, im sure he did an amazing job arguing the case. We have seen on multiple occasions how being rich is very helpful in the legal system. The prime example would be OJ Simpson robbing the jury system with a not guilty verdict. I find it extremely fascinating how much a good lawyer can do for you. coming up with a excuse is nowhere near as important as arguing for it is. While the affluenza excuse was silly, I'm sure their high flying lawyer made it believable.
ReplyDelete