My wife shared an interesting news story with me today.  I had not heard about it myself before today.

Back in 2013, Ethan Couch avoided prison in Texas for vehicular manslaughter using the “affluenza” defense.

What Happened?

Although he plead guilty, his attorneys argued that he was a spoiled rich kid whose privilege prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong. Indeed, his family is reported to be worth millions, thanks in part to a booming sheet metal business. It’s their success — and the way they have handled it — that contributed to Couch’s reckless behavior, his attorneys argued.

They recommended a lesser sentence — and won.

Why is it news?

Albeit happened in 2013 and it is old news, recent events have brought the story back to the public attention.  Ethan received a sentence of ten years probation.  He recently disappeared  (as did his mother) and is the target of a nationwide manhunt, hence the resurgence of the news story.

What do I think?

This story got my attention and when that happens, a random post is generated – of course.

By a quirk of Texas law the sentence expires when Ethan turns 19 next year unless a motion to move the case from juvenile to adult court is successful.   An interesting catch here is the motion to elevate the case to the adult cannot be held in Ethan’s absence.   The motion has just been filed so it’s a pretty convenient time for him to disappear.

Interestingly affluenza is a legitimate term first defined in the 2001 book “Affluenza: The All Consuming Epidemic”    Still using this as an excuse to avoid punishment for a capital crime seems pretty far stretched to me.

Drinking, driving, causing death – these all seem like serious offenses and probation without prison time, regardless of your age or how rich your parents are seems like a real miscarriage of justice to me.