Affluenza (Page 2)

I'm sure you are more aware of the typical sentence on this sort of thing than I am, but just a local story to share. A kid here did the same thing. Always a straight kid, no record, no driving record, wasn't a drinker. His friends convinced him to try drinking, he had a few then got in the car and drove home. Ran into a ped and killed them. He got 5 years in jail for that.

In the OP case I could understand a 10-15 year probation, but he needs to serve at least 5 in prison IMO. He killed 4 people, that shouldn't be taken lightly.

If this "Affluenza" crap is really a defense, he essentially has free license to continue to drink and drive. If he is rich and the courts have already given him a huge pardon like this how is he to know it is wrong in the future?

You don't think there is?  I would disagree.  If there was no deterrent you'd see this much more than you do.

Sometimes I really wonder what judges are thinking.

1. He was under age to be drinking. Need to hold whoever got himt he alcohol responsible

2. Drunk

3. new driver (16 is still the age they get to drive without an adult here)

4. killed 4 people

Yeah probation seems fair.  NOT

For most of us the possibility of killing someone is deterrent enough. 

For most of us the possibility of killing someone is deterrent enough. 

LB, not sure what your argument is here.  The fact that you are racked with guilt for killing someone while DUI is sufficient punishment and a prison sentence would be going too far?

Two of the principles of sentencing are punishment and deterrence.  In my view, neither were accomplished with probation alone.

I don't happen to believe that sentences are a deterrent to anything.  It's been my expereince that people who commit crimes simply think they will not be caught.  At least that's what they tell me when I'm interviewing them.  In cases like the one we are discussing, deterrent cannot possibly come into play because nobody intended to commit a crime (other than getting behind the wheel drunk, and probation is always thought of as reasonable for first time offenders in that case).  I think prison should be reserved for people who are violent and therefore a danger to society....I have no problem keeping violent people locked up forever, but we don't have room because you want to lock up 16 year old kids who made a stupid mistake, no matter how costly.  There are, of course, other crimes where someone should be considered a danger to society, and this may well be one of them after other alternatives are tried.  But I'm sorry, you will NEVER get me to go along with the idea that a 16 year old boy should be sentenced to prison in a case like this.....there are too many better alternatives.

However, Scott Brown, the boy's lead defense attorney, said the teen could have been freed after two years if he had drawn the 20-year sentence.

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence that could have him under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years," he told the Star-Telegram.

If the teen violates any terms of his probation, he'll be re-sentenced for up to 10 years in prison, according to MyFoxDFW.com. 

"If he messes up, we'll be right there waiting for him," Alpert told the station.

I can see your point. 

Per the news article: 

When you think of 10 years in "the system" vs 2 years, probation does sound better. 

I don't happen to believe that sentences are a deterrent to anything.  It's been my expereince that people who commit crimes simply think they will not be caught.  At least that's what they tell me when I'm interviewing them.  In cases like the one we are discussing, deterrent cannot possibly come into play because nobody intended to commit a crime (other than getting behind the wheel drunk, and probation is always thought of as reasonable for first time offenders in that case).  I think prison should be reserved for people who are violent and therefore a danger to society....I have no problem keeping violent people locked up forever, but we don't have room because you want to lock up 16 year old kids who made a stupid mistake, no matter how costly.  There are, of course, other crimes where someone should be considered a danger to society, and this may well be one of them after other alternatives are tried.  But I'm sorry, you will NEVER get me to go along with the idea that a 16 year old boy should be sentenced to prison in a case like this.....there are too many better alternatives.

I just don't believe that.  You might convince me that probation alone is sufficient if there was only property damage, but you take a life (or 4) while driving drunk, then there has to be consequences.

And the deterrence is not to stop people from intentionally killing others while driving drunk, the deterrence is to stop people from picking up the keys in the first place.

do you know what probation means?

16 year olds cannot always truly understand the consequences of their actions, that is why they are considered children under the law. Sending him to prison will destroy his life, with probation maybe he has a shot at making better decisions in the future.

Its is a kid who made a bad decision, do you want to punish him to get "justice" for yourself, or do you want to teach him to make better decisions.

this is not the kid's first bad decision...he has several prior charges against him.  nobody bothered to teach him after those...

What are the prior charges.....juvenile records are closed everywhere I know of.