<p>Garland,
There has been, and continues to try to be, a reasoned and interesting dicussion by the parents on this thread. Its when the side issues occur that the thread gets derailed. And agree, it happens predictably. It is unfortunate that its hard to stay with the detail of the case rather than to make unfounded accusations about the parties involved. That does indeed, get very tiresome.</p>
<p>I think side issues happen. I think when they’re blown out of proportion because someone doesn’t like the poster, it gets ugly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering it’s just one of the families involved and the fact religion is likely to have played a substantial role in the forgiveness as Brian Jennings was a pastor, they’re not speaking for other victims’ families. Just one family as clearly stated in the report. </p>
<p>If it did influence the judge’s decision, that influence is disproportionate considering the reported expressed outrage of other victims’ families over the lenient sentence and the impending lawsuits against the family and their company as its vehicles was involved in the accident and it wasn’t stolen. </p>
<p>Especially considering one family of a survivor is having serious concerns about long-term care costs as he’s been paralyzed:</p>
<p>[Family</a> of injured Fort Worth teen sues over crash that killed four | Fort Worth | News f…](<a href=“http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/07/5142669/family-of-injured-teen-files-lawsuit.html]Family”>http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/07/5142669/family-of-injured-teen-files-lawsuit.html)</p>
<p>If the conversations could stay about the issue and discuss the issues, the conversations can be very interesting. The other forum has had a fascinating discussion and even with differences of opinion, the discussion did not sink to making snide insinuations or overgeneralizations.</p>
<p>Interestingly, there has been discussion in the other forum about the possibility that the defense was trying to make a case for this kid not being able to tell right from wrong. I don’t think I agree, but the discussion was interesting. Have tried to share here some aspects of that discussion.</p>
<p>Cobrat, Since unfortunately there is not yet that the members of the other forum can find, a publically available copy of the court transcript, we simply don’t know what was presented and what the judge took into consideration, or how much weight she put into the many factors of this case in making her decision. Conjecture is just that. </p>
<p>The difference between the juvenile and adult system is fascinating, and something that is probably missed by many. Would be interesting to know who made the decision to keep this in the juvenile system, rather than, given the gravity of the case, moving it to the adult system. Reading this <a href=“http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Deitch_Presentation_Juveniles_In_Adult_System_10.05.12.pdf[/url]”>http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Deitch_Presentation_Juveniles_In_Adult_System_10.05.12.pdf</a> if I am understanding it correctly, his case would not have qualified for a Blended (Determinate) Sentencing. Many posters agree that perhaps a combination of treatment and incarceration. But there are likely many facets of the Texas juvenile and adult system to which we are not privvy that factored into the judges decision. Surely she realized the backlash she’d get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My impression was that he was out of control and had no concept of consequences of his negative behaviors because his parents’ wealth and access it provided shielded him from positive influences encouraging greater awareness/self-control and understanding of the consequences for negative behavior. Hence, the “affluenza defense”. </p>
<p>Agree with you here as if he really couldn’t tell the difference between right and wrong and the psychologist realized that, they’d probably try for an “insanity defense”. </p>
<p>I recalled reading that one criterion of whether one can use an insanity defense is if the accused defendant has been found by a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist as being genuinely unable to differentiate between right or wrong. </p>
<p>Granted, it may be a bit oversimplified as there are probably different complex standards depending on jurisdiction and individual case.</p>
<p>Really wish a texas atty could help with this. If I understand pgs 14-15 of this document <a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf</a> about the placement of juveniles in the adult system, it does seem that manslaughter would qualify for certification but not determinate sentencing, which, from this article, indicates " Determinate sentencing is a hybrid
system whereby juveniles who have
been adjudicated of the most serious
offenses are given a sentence which
includes a term of confinement in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
but begins in the juvenile system.
[/quote]
<a href=“http://www.juvenilelaw.org/Education/2012/20120227/JohnsonK.pdf[/url]”>http://www.juvenilelaw.org/Education/2012/20120227/JohnsonK.pdf</a></p>
<p>So, if they couldnt give him a mix of incarceration and rehabilitation, then perhaps putting him in rehab with the stiff conditions of probation such that if he screws up they throw him in prison (which after 18 should mean the adult system) might not be such a bad thing.</p>
<p>My understanding is that if he violates his probation, he would be incarcerated for 10 years. I’m not positive about this point, as there is much misinformation about this case. But if it’s true, and if the posh rehab program actually provides effective treatment, then I could maybe see the logic in the judge’s sentence.</p>
<p>My concern is that if he was a kid in foster care with a long history of being physically, sexually, and mentally abused, the odds are that he would have been tried as an adult and sent to a Texas prison for 10+ years. The odds are even higher for such an outcome if he was African-American, Latino, or Native American.</p>
<p>My experience with the insanity defense is that it tends sometimes to be a defense of last resort. But if a person (eg Hinkley or the woman who drowned her 4 kids) pretty clearly had significant mental health issues then it is a reasonable and appropriate defense. Not sure how that applies in the juvenile system, which probaby varies by state.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4-
Where is that quote from that you posted in post #92? Which case is it referring to when it says that no facility would take the juvenile? It sounds like, if I understand it correctly, that its the other case (The punch kid case) and that the judje tried to keep that kid out of jail and send him to rehab, but coluldnt get a facility to accept him. Is that correct?</p>
<p>And to those who think this thread “supports” the judge, its not about that at all-- its about understanding the facts of the case to understand the decision the judge made. Its better to reserve judgement until the facts are clearer.</p>
<p>This is a quote from an article in the Dallas Morning News:</p>
<p>[Outrage</a> over Ethan Couch verdict still runs hot, but at whom? | Dallas Morning News](<a href=“http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/12/outrage-over-ethan-couch-verdict-still-runs-hot-but-at-whom.html/]Outrage”>http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/12/outrage-over-ethan-couch-verdict-still-runs-hot-but-at-whom.html/)</p>
<p>Because of determinate sentencing, Couch would have gone to juvy lockup only until his 19th birthday. At that point, he received a hearing, at which a different judge would decide whether he should serve the rest of his term in adult prison or go free on parole. This is slightly different than the way Couch’s lawyers and Boyd’s other defenders portray the options.</p>
<p>Any thoughts, especially from a Texas-based attorney?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This interests me. It got me thinking about whether the forgiveness or lack thereof of a victim’s family should be a determining factor in the sentencing of a criminal. To me, it is a kind of vigilante justice in reverse. If that makes any sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those tables on page 14-15 just have the category “homicide”, where manslaughter is included along with murder and other illegal homicides. “Homicide” is in both tables.</p>
<p>Thanks UCB- Actually look at table 4 on the next page (pg 16) which seems to clarify it-- but has homicide on the determinate side. AAGGH. Confusing. Unfortunately my computer is misbehaving and I cant seem to copy the part that is perplexing. Is on the page entitled “executive summary: purpose of report” describing the certification of violent youth as adults vs a determinant sentence in the youth system. Its confusing</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-who-gave-rich-drunk-teen-plush-probation-for-reckless-crash-that-killed-4-sent-14-y-o-black-boy-to-prison-for-punching-death-in-2012-110746/[/url]”>Judge Who Gave Rich Drunk Teen Plush Probation for Reckless Crash that Killed 4, Sent 14-Y-O Black Boy to Prison for Punching Death in 2012 | U.S. News;
<p>Yes, that was regarding the 14 y/o AA youth who killed his victim with one fatal punch. The quote came from the mother of the dead victim, who felt that the judge was looking for a way to send the boy away for rehabilitation vs. incarceration and that only by “luck” did it go the other way as no facility would take him. Doesn’t sound at all like a judge who was gung ho to imprison one perpetrator because he was poor and black vs. going easy on another because he was wealthy and white. She may well have felt that way, but I’ve seen no evidence to prove that assertion yet.</p>
<p>In the media and comments sections of news reports, it’s not often mentioned that these two cases are NOT comparable. Like it or not, our justice system weighs intent very seriously in deciding things like sentencing. While the 14 y/o may not have intended to kill his victim, there was clear violent intent, while Ethan Couch acted with gross negligence and no violent intent. That must be considered. People are acting like these are two identical situations when they are clearly not.</p>
<p>Good point, nrdsb4.</p>
<p>UCB, I am not able to copy/paste for some reason, but pg 7 of this site I linked earlier does as you say show that youth homicide perpetrators can be either certified as an adult or kept in the youth system (determinant) <a href=“http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Deitch_Presentation_Juveniles_In_Adult_System_10.05.12.pdf[/url]”>http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/Deitch_Presentation_Juveniles_In_Adult_System_10.05.12.pdf</a></p>
<p>Nrdsb4,
This is purely speculative, not knowing anything about that adolescent or his history, but it might be that if the state was having to foot the bill for the treatment that they didnt have enough to cover more than a brief stay, and many programs will not take a referral if they dont feel they will be able to have the kid in treatment long enough to do much good. If he was on Medicaid, many of these treatment facilities are not able to accept Medicaid, especially out of state Medicaid. In the case of Couch, there was no question that there were sufficient funds, even as a “full pay” client, that he would be able to stay for the duration of his recommended treatment.</p>
<p>When I first read about this case, I kept thinking “Onion”. But then I was one of those who initially thought the OJ verdict (the first one - the big one) was unquestionably totally inappropriate. After read more details of it years later I tended to agree with Dershowitz, that given the facts of the case and the letter of the law, that the verdict was correct even though I still think he did it.</p>
<p>Moving forward, perhaps the lawmakers should think of having a system that allows both - the ten year non-punishment starts with time in prison, or something that would have permitted him to be tried in a manner that the minute he turns 18 he doesn’t get out with no strings attached, so the judge wasn’t forced to pick between 2 years in jail and no control afterwards vs ten years of attending a spa, but with no punishment.</p>
<p>This is really nothing new…</p>
<p>TED KENNEDY</p>
<p>The Chappaquiddick incident occurred on July 18, 1969, in which Mary Jo Kopechne, a female passenger of U.S. Senator Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy, was killed when he accidentally drove his car off a bridge and into a tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts. Kennedy swam free and left the scene, not reporting the accident within nine hours, but Kopechne died in the vehicle. In the early hours of July 19, Kopechne’s body and the car were recovered. Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury and received a two-month suspended jail sentence. The incident became a national scandal, and may have influenced Kennedy’s decision not to campaign for President of the United States in 1972 and 1976.</p>
<p>Couch chose to drink and drive on several occasions, despite being underage.
That is equivalent to playing Russian Roulette, imo, and pointing the gun at someone else’s head.
Only he had it pointed at the heads of FOUR people.</p>
<p>He may or not be worthy of rehabilitation, but he knows he did wrong, unless he is a complete psychopath, and rehabilitation cannot occur until you first have made amends/ admitted your action, and made restitution, yourself.
Since he does not have the money himself to pay funeral costs etc, he must make it right the only way he can, by being deprived of his freedom.</p>