By: Molly Weisner
The criminal justice system is widely regarded as fairly black and white in America. For example, a drunk driver who kills eight people will be undoubtedly pressed with manslaughter charges. However, one especially notable case uncovered gray areas among the definitive cause-and-effect transgressions with the law. Even more unnerving is that these “gray areas” of the law are covertly intertwined with social status, specifically race and income. From this, society has deemed it necessary to name this shady and unjust area of legal loopholes: “affluenza.”
On December 13, 2013, sixteen-year old Ethan Couch was driving 70 miles per hour in a 40 mile zone while heavily intoxicated. His blood alcohol content was 0.24, three times the legal limit. Couch lost control of his father’s Ford F-350 and killed four people while seriously injuring two others.Couch was immediately charged with four accounts of intoxicated manslaughter and two accounts of intoxicated assault leading to serious bodily injuries. Couch pleaded innocent to try to escape a sentence of 20 years in prison. The courts ruled in his favor, dismissing the prison sentence and settling on just ten years of probation with the understanding that Couch’s parents would pay for him to attend a $450,000 alcohol rehab center in Newport Beach, California. The defense’s testimony had to be nothing short of an absolute legal gimmick for a jury to brush away blatant murder.
Couch’s defense team recruited the help of a psychologist who validated Couch’s innocence plea under the premise of “affluenza.” Affluenza, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is the “unhealthy and unwelcome psychological and social effects of affluence,” such as “feelings of guilt, lack of motivation, and social isolation experienced by wealthy people.” The psychologist, Dr. G Dick Miller, testified that a more appropriate sentence for Ethan would be two years of rehab and total isolation from his parents. Miller painted Couch as the victim of an unfortunate “accident” that rendered him unable to discern right from wrong because he had been given “freedoms no young person should have.” Even so, if any responsibility should be diverted from Couch, it should be placed on his parents. It so happened that Couch’s parents took no disciplinary action with their son when police found 15-year-old Ethan in the back of a pickup truck with an indecently dressed and unconscious 14-year-old girl just a year earlier. As ridiculous as it sounds, it seems Ethan Couch had been “off the hook” his whole life.
So what did Ethan ultimately learn from his experience? Surely not responsibility for his actions, integrity, or honor. The only thing Couch learned was that it is far better to live well off and in a world where money is just compensation for human life, than to be fairly punished for reckless behavior. Truthfully, the concept of affluenza is simply an underhanded attempt at dodging responsibility. It has not been formally recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a real disorder, but is has been recognized as a social laughing stock, making people wonder how such a “disease” can be accepted. If a psychological disorder did affect Couch’s decision making, it is far more likely to be due to generic wealth or alcoholism, neither of which would never completely waive a prison sentence anyway. Couch pleaded innocent due to a life of guilt-free immunity from responsibility, and, ironically, the jury fell softhearted to that same pathetic excuse. This case sets a precedent for similar future cases, and could result in affluenza’s recognition as a legal term.
How far can wealth and race take you? What if Ethan Couch was African American or Asian? What does this say about the American justice system and society as a whole? The Ethan Couch trial opens a Pandora’s box of new technicalities that make true justice only more complicated.
コメント