Sorry it's the mobile link.

I'm still like... what?

This is the most openly biased article I've ever seen. I can't take it seriously.

I find this CNN article to be more palatable

just for the record, the judge has come out and said that her reason behind the ruling was because she feels like yes he is guilty, but he also needs extensive therapy which she feels like he wouldn't adequately get in prison. also, and this is just my opinion, probation for TEN years is going to come back and bite you in the ass unless you're like a model citizen. especially if this kid is only 16 and he's not even 18 and really partying yet or in college, all it takes is one misstep and then he has serious probation violation + whatever charges he gets at the time. i would actually be surprised if this sentence didn't end up fucking him over more in the long run than just getting prison time now.

[edit] this is a status one of my friends on fb just made:

It might fuck him over right up until mommy and daddy shell out the cash again and he gets off with barely anything for killing FOUR INNOCENT PEOPLE

i'm not defending what happened or saying that the judge was right, trust me i know exactly the kind of money he comes from, i live like 20 mins away from him haha. the kids over there are fucking crazy. i was just saying (and lets be honest, we all know he probably hasn't learned his lesson by now, even if he feels guilty at all)

Putting a child in prison for 20 years is a terrible idea, unless they're completely beyond help or an immediate threat.

Though I would only hope that any other 16 year old in the same position would be given the same sentence. Anyone can use a shitty upbringing as a defence, and it kind of gets into a grey area or parental/environmental responsibility vs personal responsibility. If his wealthy upbringing is to blame, so too is the poverty of other criminal youths.

^^

And there lies the problem. If you do it for one, you have to do it for all. This case just opened a HUGE can of worms for people not being held responsible for their actions.

Sorry, but this kid should be in jail. He may only be 16, but he killed 4 people. FOUR. Doing illegal things. No amount of counseling is going to help him. And If mommy and daddy really are that well off, then this probation is a joke too. They'll just pull the same defense of "oh well he hasn't had enough counseling" or "his parents are still this or that so he still can't be held responsible". Money really can buy you everything.

It doesn't lessen the fact of having killed four people, he has to live with that the rest of his life but sticking him in prison so young wouldn't do him any good, as the judge said. He needs help now, while he's still young and can learn from those mistakes instead of being locked up, soured against society and become a repeat offender.

Now if more kids were given that same option, we might be in better shape as a whole.

It doesn't lessen the fact of having killed four people, he has to live with that the rest of his life but sticking him in prison so young wouldn't do him any good, as the judge said. He needs help now, while he's still young and can learn from those mistakes instead of being locked up, soured against society and become a repeat offender.

Now if more kids were given that same option, we might be in better shape as a whole.

I agree with and 's sentiments. Killing innocent people is arguably the worst thing one can do with their life and by no means are his actions excusable. I don't believe, however, that locking him away to become a drain on society's resources, addresses the issue. To address it, one has to first ask what is Justice? For me, it is attempting to solve an issue in society.

From the responses I've seen to this story so far there's been a lot of Draconian sentiments. He must be imprisoned because he did something wrong. While this sentiment is correct, there's a lot of issues with the prison system as it stands now and it doesn't necessarily prevent him from becoming more of a threat to society later down the line. He killed four people. How many more will fall victim to his reckless abandon?

Rehabilitation centers for troubled youth exist. Of course the quality of these places varies depending on how they're funded and how they operate. And like any change on a personal level, rehabilitation only works so much as someone is willing to work towards it. If his parents are wealthy enough to fund his probation and (hopefully) care about the future of their son, all the better for society.

Unfortunately this doesn't address so many other troubled youth with less affluent backgrounds, which is another source of sentiments of injustice on this topic, because the opportunity that he's been given wouldn't be present to anyone else of a middle-lower class background, which is all the more reason why this ruling is so fascinating in the various issues it raises as well as possible future implications.

Now does this mean that rehabilitation centers run by the state will receive better funding for those less fortunate? Or will this ruling be excluded to solely those affluent few?

I don't know. We'd have to see where future rulings go from here.

Okay, but does this work in reverse however? i.e Poor youth who are disillusioned by poverty, do they get the same treatment in the future? Do PoC in general get this kind of treatment?

That's my issue with the whole thing.

Six years ago I was struck by a drunk driver, and while I was insanely lucky to survive, and even come away with fairly 'minor' injuries for the type of accident. (My hip and shoulder were dislocated, along with my knee, ankle and back being sorely injured) This accident altered my life drastically. At just 23 years old I cannot work a full time job that requires standing, as the pain in my hip becomes too much, my hip and shoulder also ache when the weather changes, or gets cold and sometimes that pain can be quite bad.

There is an emotional side of me, that because of my experience, would just love to see this boy get tossed in jail for 20 years. However, I realize tossing a boy this young into prison for 20 years would not do him, or anyone, any good. In prison he would be surrounded by hardened criminals, most willing and eager to teach him how to do worse crimes. One of my friend's father was prison guard for 8 years in the States before he and his family moved up here, to Canada. He would often tell stories of how prison isn't actually that bad for prisoners, most prisons are severely understaffed guard-wise, and the guards they do have are often extremely under equipped. I think most people would be horrified to learn what prisoners get away with while in prison, riots are common and a guard suddenly getting pulled into a cell and beaten or shanked with a home made knife is also horrifyingly common.

This stupid kid would go to prison and learn how to be a REAL criminal. As it stands now, with a lot of therapy, separation from his parents, and having to live the next ten years as a perfect citizen maybe this stupid boy will come to fully appreciate what he did, and maybe if we're lucky, he'll become a better person for it; hopefully one who will tell others of his failure and try to make the world better in the future.

Honestly, I don't think teenagers should be allowed to drive (and where I live, fourteen-year-olds can legally drive, which, really... who thought that was a good idea?); the brains of teenagers aren't fully developed and they're far more prone to making stupid decisions like this, and unfortunately it doesn't just affect them. I swear I hear [x] teenagers killed because their also teenaged driver was [preoccupied with talking/texting/driving under the influence] on the local news every goddamned week.

However, wealthy or not, he was drunk when he caused the accident, which might suggest that he does in fact have some issues that need sorting out. And as said, prison time would just fuck him up more; the US prison system is a mess and rarely solves anything.

That is not the problem, if the judge and prosecutor had just gone "He needs therapy" no one would would really argue that. However the same judge sentenced a young black kid who punched someone, who then hit their head and died, to prison.

What's makes one deserving of counseling than the other?

I was not aware of that piece of information nor did I suggest that one is more deserving of counselling than another; please don't twist my words, especially when you haven't even sourced what you're referring to nor mentioned it prior to my post. I can't read minds.

I hope everyone defending Ethan Couch realizes that the "rehab center" that he's being "treated" for "affluenza" at is basically a 5-star resort. Where he gets "educated and punished" looks like where I take my vacations. He's 16, not 6.

See for yourself.

He got off because he's a rich white boy. Normal folk aren't extended these kinds of privileges at all.

Chill, I wasn't accusing you, just filling you in on other details, my question at the end was a general one, a question to just keep in mind is all.

Exactly.

No worries, I don't get worked up by things on Subeta. ;) Next time, though, if you're asking a general question, you probably shouldn't direct it at a specific person as it does come off as accusatory.

I think it's pretty despicable that Judge Jean Boyd sentenced the black teenager 10 years for a single punch but gave the white teenager what amounts to a vacation in the guise of rehabilitation for the 4 deaths, victim with the lifetime of paralysis, and the others in the accident who were injured.