18 Dec 2013
It’s a word being used to describe a defense that some people say was responsible for a teen drunk driver getting probation after causing the deaths of four people. The accident took place in June, and the 16-year old driver had a blood alcohol content, according to police, of 0.24. For those of you who may not know, that’s three times the legal limit in Texas. The teenager struck and killed four people in the vicinity of a car that had broken down, some of whom had come out to help. A fifth person was thrown from the teen’s vehicle and suffered severe brain injuries.
The defendant in the case, along with his friends, had stolen beer from a Walmart, then went to his parents’ house to have a party. Afterwards, he and seven of his friends jammed themselves into a pickup truck to go the store. On the way, they encountered the broken down vehicle, and the tragedy followed.
The driver pleaded guilty, and prosecutors sought a 20-year prison sentence. At the punishment hearing, a defense psychologist testified that incarceration should not be imposed, because the teenager suffers from “affluenza” (a term that has been used for decades), a condition allegedly brought on by his parents’ providing him with a life of luxury, and shielding him from problems. Of course, that’s an oversimplification, but the case has led to a media storm, with just about everyone ready to tar and feather Judge Jean Boyd, who decided to reject prison, and to impose a ten-year probation term, along with other conditions, including attendance at a long-term rehabilitation facility.
The most interesting aspect of the case, we think, is not the imposition of the particular sentence. What we find intriguing, as well as disturbing, is the rush to judgment about the judge’s decision. First, we should point out that in rendering the decision, she did not say that she was imposing the probation sentence because of the testimony of the psychologist, or that it had anything to do with “affluenza.” Nevertheless, we see articles with titles specifically stating what the judge’s reasoning was. Second, there are other possible reasons for the sentence, among them the driver’s age (16). Finally, this type of sentence is, in fact, not all that unusual. After all, just last month we blogged (Ten Days in Jail for Intoxication Manslaughter) on the issue of an intoxication manslaughter conviction leading to a ten-day jail sentence.
We are not suggesting that a life of privilege is a defense to a criminal act. But the condemnation of the judge by the media without the benefit of her reasoning is unfortunate.
Law Office of David D. White, PLLC
1205 Rio Grande Street
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 369-3737