Judge Boyd, being judged. (The earlier photo posted was NOT Judge Boyd. I apologize to the judge, readers, and whoever’s photo that was, for the error)
The newsmedia and blogosphere are going bonkers over the sentence given to Ethan Couch, the 16-year-old Texan who pleaded guilty last week to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury. He had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit (Couch had stolen beer from a Walmart), plus traces of Valium in his system, when he lost control of the Ford F-350 pick-up he was driving (over the speed limit) and slammed into four people trying to fix a disabled car on the shoulder. They were killed; two of his seven passengers were critically injured. Prosecutors proposed 20 years in jail as the proper punishment for Couch, but his attorneys tried a novel defense: they had experts testify that their client suffered from “affluenza,” a malady caused by his rich, amoral, neglectful parents, who taught him (the theory goes) that there are no consequences for anything, if one has enough money.
Rejecting the prosecution’s argument, State District Judge Jean Boyd, presiding over the Fort Worth Juvenile Court, shocked everyone by sentencing Couch to only 10 years of probation—no prison time at all. The gist of the media outrage: once again, the life philosophy of Couch’s sociopathic parents is validated. The rich get away with everything: a poor, minority defendant who engaged in the same conduct would have been imprisoned. This is the injustice of the criminal law system in America.
Maybe. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
I think the judge, despite what we are hearing from the media, may have done her job well.
1. I have no idea whether Judge Boyd’s sentence was appropriate or not, and neither do you, nor does any commentator, pundit or radio host that didn’t sit through the trial. If judges made rulings on cases by simply reading summaries of the facts, arguments and testimony—that is, exactly what all of the critics are basing their howls on, if even that—-everyone would agree that the practice was unwise, unfair, and likely to produce bad jurisprudence. The game of second-guessing judges and juries, primed by instant call-in or online polls responded to by casual voters leads to a lynch mob mentality, where people who learn about case results second and third hand inflame everyone they know, and soon a cultural consensus is in place regardless of relevant facts. Should we question verdicts and sentences that seem wrong to us? Absolutely. There are bad verdicts and unjust sentences. I highlighted one recently that I would be stunned if any additional information surfaced that could justify it. Still, even in that case, it could happen. Judge Boyd has more experience and knowledge about this case in her court than any after-the fact kibitzers. She deserves the benefit of the doubt, when there is doubt, and there usually is.
2. Once again, we have an example of a defense being raised in court that many observers find repugnant. At a gut level, the “afflueza” argument seems ridiculous to me, even if, as I strongly doubt, there is such a clinical malady as “affluenza.” A teen misbehaves because he has never had to face the consequences of his own actions, so the judge should once again not hold him responsible for his own actions? Talk about an argument that cuts both ways. Still, if the lawyer believes that such defense is his client’s only chance of avoiding the hoosegow—and what other defense is there for an incident like this?—then he not only should try it, he has an obligation to try it.
3. The media reporting on this case has ranged from misleading to incompetent. Here, for example, is Time:
“The defense saved him from a 20-year sentence; State District Judge Jean Boyd bought it at his sentencing on Tuesday and gave Couch probation instead.”
Here’s an editorial writer for the Dallas News:
“Boyd apparently swallowed whole the defense argument that Couch was just a poor, little rich boy effectively abused by parents who set no boundaries and gave him everything except actual parenting.”
And here is the reliably truth-challenged Daily Kos:
“Texas State District Judge Jean Boyd bought the inane “I’m too rich for consequences” defense and actually sided with the Defense and gave him probation…”
This is the theme in the coverage: most of the cable news shows headlined the story that way: a judge was lenient on a drunk driving killer because he was too rich and privileged. There is no evidence I can find that the “affluenza” defense influenced the judge: she apparently didn’t refer to it in her sentencing. I especially like the Daily Kos author’s “actually sided with the defense” claim; well, yes, any time the judge doesn’t accept the maximum sentence recommended by the prosecution you can say she “sided with the defense.” Nevertheless, there is nothing on the record to indicate that Boyd “bought” the defense’s theory.
The news media is flagrantly endorsing the false rationale of post hoc ergo propter hoc—“after this, therefore because of this.” For all anyone knows, the judge would have handed down the same sentence without that defense and its supporting testimony.
4. Boyd’s actual sentence was carefully thought out, and she did not suggest that he was not responsible for his actions or their results. She ordered the 16-year-old to receive therapy at a long-term, in-patient facility. His parents were ordered to pay the $450,000-a-year cost for his treatment, which could last several years. Prior to treatment, Couch will stay in Tarrant County juvenile detention until the juvenile probation department prepares a report about possible treatment programs. If the teen violates the terms of his probation at any point, he could be sentenced to prison for 10 years.
In making her order, Judge Boyd told the victims’ families that no sentence would lessen their pain. Directing her remarks to Couch, she made it clear that he, not his parents, is responsible for his actions.That doesn’t sound to me like an endorsement of “affluenza.” Boyd explained that she is familiar with the programs available in the Texas juvenile justice system , and that teens often fail to get the kind of intensive therapy in a state-run program that they would receive at the California facility where she was sending him. This is a sentence crafted to reform and treat a child whose life might still be salvaged.
5. Not that the national media was paying attention, since it wanted to sensationalize the story, but Scott Brown, one of Couch’s attorneys, pointed out that his client could have been freed in only two years if Judge Boyd had sentenced him to 20 years. “She fashioned a sentence that could have him under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years,” Brown said. Judges understand the realities of the justice system: whatever the perception, it can be argued that she gave Couch a tougher sentence than what was requested by the prosecution, as well as one that sought to achieve positive results beyond simple retribution.
6. Doesn’t a judge have an obligation to send a powerful message to other teens, by harshly sentencing Couch to long, hard time? That’s a legitimate view of judicial ethics, but not the only one. Boyd, like many judges, may believe that her obligation is to regard each case as unique, and to sentence defendants according to what she believes is in the best interest of society regarding that particular case, not the generic category of cases. Her judicial duty is to balance a multitude of interests. The desire of the families of the victims to see Couch suffer is not one of the interests that deserve to be taken into consideration, not are the sensibilities of armchair judges in the media. There will be consequences of Ethan’s actions that will restrict and govern his life for a long time. In 2o years, Texas may have created a productive and responsible member of society, rather than a 36 year-old ex-con. If so, justice will have prevailed.
7. Boyd is an elected judge, and one who is not running for re-election. Would she have made the same decision about how to handle Couch’s case if she had to face the voters once more? Whether her sentence was right or wrong, I hope she possesses sufficient integrity and courage that the answer to that question is yes.
[She’s late, but esteemed blogger/law professor Ann Althouse comes to many of the same conclusions in her post, here.]
Ethics Alarms 
I hear about this case, and am of two minds…
On the one hand, the “affluenza” argument makes me want to set entire nations on fire to appease my rage. If someone can be “not responsible” for their actions because they had a horrible life of poverty growing up, and someone else isn’t responsible because they had it too easy, then we can officially be held responsible for nothing.
On the other hand, the first I heard of this case involved a statement from some cock-monger from MADD, about how “apparently there aren’t any consequences for anything any more” (if you read that in a smarmy, “I-know-more-than-you-why-don’t-you-let-me-decide-everything-for-you” voice, you were pretty close). I wanted to find the guy and set him on fire. Then I wanted to burn the ashes. Then I wanted to invent a machine to burn those ashes. MADD has long since become nothing but proto-facists who use emotional appeals (and a failed grasp of statistics that would make Ralph Nader proud) to blackmail lawmakers into adopting harsher and harsher penalties for a crime and getting them to stack them and make the penalties retroactive.
I hate every single side of this fucking bitch-fest.
I’m falling in love with Meat Shield. Not necessarily because of his opinions, some of which I share and some not so much. I love his use of language. Simple, yet complex.
I am a profane loom, weaving a vulgar tapestry…
Thank you. I need support for my simultaneous belief in civility as a core value and my acceptance of AMS’s dextrous turn of obscenities as legitimate discourse.
I’m thinking of having t-shirts made…
No. Only knit sweaters, the kind a Grandmother would make, would be appropriate to bear the obscenities you’d produce. I think the subtle humor in it would be perfect.
What needs burning is the hateful attitude you espouse.
That you fail to grasp the ironic hypocrisy in your words would surprise me, if I wasn’t certain that you were a complete and utter fucking moron.
Well done Jack, I would point out your Philly judge post especially in regards to your first point but……well I just did.
This 16 year old may be a lost cause and I haven’t done any research but thinking back to when I was 16 this could have happened to me. He didn’t do it out of malice and I am hopeful that the judge saw something in this kid that made her think he was worth rehabilitating. Good post.
4 people DEAD, is what it takes to decide if a young rich boy can be rehabed?! I guess that’s yalls opinion. 10 yrs in the pen would would rehab him much faster in my opinion! teach kids that decisions = consequences.
Or better yet stand him in front of a drunk out of his mind non caring Affluenziac, or whatever made up word these idiots come up with, driving a one ton hunk of gas guzzling metal and see how he fares…or better still…how his parents feel at his loss for some unjustified excuse of a made up word that allows his callous killer to walk.with a pat on his silver spooned ass .
I love comments that indicate either that the commenter didn’t read the post, didn’t understand it, or just willfully ignored it! Which could it be in this case? I’m guessing the first…
Toss up between options 2 and 3…
You’re an idiot. As discussed by Jack above, we have no evidence that “affluenza” was part of the Judge’s consideration of this decision or sentencing.
However, your own hatred is pretty evident. It’s clouding any ability for you to be objective.
I didn’t think this was going to be one of those posts that would bring in all the ethically challenged Huffpo commenters. Holy hell. Good thing it is almost the weekend so I can sit down with a beer a read through the carnage of internet educated ethics experts.
Jack I was hoping to bait you into examining the post I mentioned and your stance in point one but we can save that for another day as I see you have your hands full.
Bull. Crap. This idiot should be hanged, and his parents should be flogged.
Thank you for your reasoned response.
I read with outrage and horror the initial stories being posted about this case on social media, but the more I thought about it, the more questions I had. Thankfully, some of those questions have now been answered.
I worry that this type of defense might be used (and misused) again and again in the future. But I also see a grain of wisdom in the judge’s ruling – the fact that she seems to recognize that “simple” incarceration in this case may not, in fact, be an appropriate answer. And that, in fact, her ruling may drive the point home, to both Couch AND his parents, in ways that will truly ring louder than the sound of barred doors closing on him – namely, in terms of cold, hard cash.
Ethan Couch is now going to cost his parents close to one-half million dollars per year for his inpatient treatment – more than he would were he at home under the most lavish of circumstances. Further, the civil suits that are pending (as I understand it) will end up costing them millions more, in terms of both damages and court costs. Something tells me that, by the time this story officially “ends”, they are not going to be the affluent one-percent-ers they have been for so long.
And if, in the end, Couch winds up making any kind of worthwhile contribution to humanity as a result of all of this – something that I am almost certain would not be the case should the judge have given him the harshest available sentencing – then, in fact, the sentencing will have done what it was supposed to do. Only time will tell.
In the meantime, one thing to me is absolutely certain – this is not anything that he will EVER be able to walk away from unscathed. Think about it for a minute – in spite of his money, is there a single decent school which will EVER open its doors to him? Even if his family, and their money, can secure some sort of future for him, will he ever be able to escape the fact that his name, his face, and his crime are now so well known? I think not. One thing that money CANNOT buy, in this day and age, is anonymity. That, for Ethan Couch, is gone for good.
Some thoughts. 1) for most 1%’s I know, a half million dollar expense is nothing, so don’t assume that this has any significant impact on the family’s financial situation. 2) The family will easily be able to afford the best legal defense teams to fight against any civil lawsuits. If the people suing ever see any money it will be decades from now and will be pennies on the dollar. 3) They are sending their kid to a country club, relaxing on the beach, working on his tan around the pool and being served gourmet meals. Read the website. This is rehab for the rich. 4) Sociopaths have no remorse. Maybe this kid regrets what he did, maybe he couldn’t care less. What has been reported about him so far, he clearly has exhibited no remorse. 5) money can absolutely buy him a name change and the college of his choice.
You bitch a lot about the rich…
Your obsession is almost Freudian…
1) thanks for not being able to refute a single comment I made. 2) I am a 1%er, surrounded by many 1%er’s and have a pretty good idea of what money can buy. 3) Not a single bitch about the rich being rich, your obsession with trying to imply there is, is laughable.
1) Your comments are nonsense on their face.
2) Spiffy. Doesn’t make you an authority.
3) Ablative never accused you of bitching about the rich being rich. Just constantly bitching about the rich.
Those civil lawsuits will not happen because the family will just pay large settlements up front. Why does everyone keep calling this kid a sociopath? Is there evidence of that?
“You know all sixteen year-olds profile as sociopaths.”—Agent Hotchner, Criminal Minds. (CBS)
Because they’ve come to their conclusions based on emotion and will pile on everything possible on this kid now to keep maintaining their myth about him.
He may be a sociopath, but I guarantee none of the people making that accusation here know this.
There’s nothing like a multi-million dollar settlement to cure affluenza.
Twenty four years ago I was on the jury in a murder trial. After the trial I read the daily newspaper reports about the trial. On one day there was no report at all, on other days the reporter had written about one or two of the ‘more interesting’ witness cross-examinations and totally ignored everything else. On example was where she wrote the whole article about two witnesses who were in the cells with the defendant and totally ignored everything else that happened that day, whereas everyone on the jury thought these two witnesses were totally unreliable, and we wondered why the prosecution even bothered with them.
So since then I’ve given very little credence to any news reports on trials.
Fortunately we have precedence in a previous ruling from the same judge. A poor, 14 year old, African American was also found guilty of manslaughter for hitting a man who then fell and suffered a head injury that lead to his death. That kid was sentenced to 10 years in prison and will be transferred to an adult facility when he turns 18. To not see the disparity seems like willful ignorance.
One involves willful assault and violence, the other recklessness. I agree that the disparity in the sentences, based on what we know, or what you have recalled, seems disproportionate, but they are different kinds of crimes, and the difference, violence, is material.
Drunk driving is no accident. Don’t you know that? Drunk driving is pretty much willfull assault. PEOPLE KNOW they’re 99% more likely to hurt someone while impaired, yet still drink and drive. You must have written this article while high on narcotics.
Your statement is so absurd I’m not even going to rebut it. 99%. Sure. Anything you say.
I’ll be on in a bit. You won’t have to fight the inevitable onslaught alone.
Hurry.
I want to jump in on this but I just don’t have time right now.
Jack, please tell me that there is only one or two people who are only cycling through screen names. These people couldn’t have read and comprehended the post, they can’t be that stupid.
You would hope that…
But I suspect that you would be quite wrong.
Then your issue isn’t with the outcome of this trial. Your issue is with how the community has chosen to treat crimes committed while intoxicated and/or how the community has chosen to treat crimes committed by juveniles. Your argument would best be addressed at that — that you believe that our laws governing crimes while intoxicated should be treated exactly the same as if intoxication should no matter. That’s an argument that can be made and one that I’m undecided on as well.
But as it stands, our laws do give different consideration for crimes while intoxicated, mitigated further by crimes by juveniles.
Jesus fuck, the MADD Defense League is fucking out in force. They must have bought the same program the Ron Paul supporters use, and then descend upon whoever dares to violate the orthodoxy…
Says the person who apparently sees nothing wrong with driving drunk and killing people.
He’s never made that assertion. Quit arguing strawmen.
Our court system is out of touch with reality and common fairness . I wonder if her children , if she has any , are allowed to run rampant yelling that they’ll get their friends off because their mother is Judge Jean Boyd . What a thing to be proud of ! I love my children Dearly but I would not allow them to be so callous in the way that they approach their daily comings and goings . As parents in this day and age we owe it to them and society to raise them with a little do unto others attitude instead of your special cause we got money . Forgive us All our short comings ,especially you Judge Jean Boyd . My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones or are dealing with a cripple now,,,I’m truly sorry.. Bless You and may your paths get easier to travel from this point on.. I pray that we start doing some real soul searching because of this .
Completely agree. People chose to drink. People chose to drive drunk. The first DUI conviction should be treated as attempted manslaughter and the person should see a 100k fine and serious jail time,
Recklessness – or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others – is an act of violence against society, not just an individual. Spin it any way you want, but this is a travesty – clear case of bought-and-paid-for justice. Rehab is a refuge for many wealthy criminals – it shifts the blame for their actions to external factors, once again absolving the culprit from responsibility. Does it matter to you that the teen admitted guilt, but expressed no remorse?
Bought and paid for? How, and prove it. I see no evidence here of that, not at all. OJ? Sure. I think this case would have been decided the same way regardless of the lawyer. “Affluenza” was a sideshow.
What is material is the fact that people died in both cases. What is material is that in one case a person was killed and a 14 year old black kid went to prison. A 16 year old white kid kills 4 people and gets to go to a country club, no consequences and hanging out on the beach enjoying the good life.
Intent is also material. You, just like William Stryker up there, shouldn’t be taking issue with the outcome of this case. You need to take up issue with the Community’s decision that intent as well as condition of the criminal make a difference in determining guilt. As a community we have decided that things like negligence or intoxication as well as juvenility matter in deciding cases.
If you don’t think intoxication matters or if you think it ought to mitigate punishments to be harsher, that’s fine. Make that argument then. In this case, the laws were used the way the laws were created.
1) The black kid didn’t intend to kill the person he punched (one time). So a difference in “intent” should not have resulted in the wide disparity of sentencing. 2) “negligence” – Couch chose to drive drunk, under the influence of drugs and 30 miles per hour over the legal speed limit. Those things should have mitigated any “negligence” claims. 3) I do agree we as a community should punish drunk driving much more severely.
I am moving today, so I have to keep this light…
You have anti-knowledge when it comes to the law – not merely no clue, but anti-knowledge.
“Intent”, as used in the law, does not mean what you think it means.
There was no intent to cause harm while driving drunk, but there was at least the intent to cause some harm with the punch.
How is it that you are able to type words, but unable to even remotely grasp this concept?
I’m not going to miss you when you are gone.
I agree with your point on how intent is currently used from a legal standpoint. My statement is that driving drunk should be viewed legally as an intent to harm. A drunk person cannot drive a 3000 lb hunk of steel 70 miles per hour in a safe manner. People make a choice to drink, people make a choice to drive drunk. By choosing to drive drunk, they are intentionally acting in an unsafe manner to every single person on the road. Not calling driving drunk an intentional act of violence gives the drunk a pass on dangerous behavior and should not be tolerated by society.
You can’t decide to redefine intent to include recklessness without unexpected consequences in legal definitions.
Your best argument is merely that certain forms of recklessness, this case–intoxication, should be viewed by the community as an aggravating condition that worsens the penalty.
But in no way does recklessness or saying “he intended to be reckless” equate to intent.
What is material is that one was intentional violence and battery and the other was negligent and reckless.
Driving drunk should be considered “intentional violence” and should be considered attempted manslaughter. It is unfortunate that so many people think that drunk driving is not a crime.
Who thinks it’s not a crime? Do you think all other obviously reckless conduct should also be viewed as intentional murder when a death results?
1) I think sending someone that drives drunk and kills 4 people to a country club sends a message that there are no consequences for the “crime” 2) it would depend on what “all other reckless conduct” covered.
Then your beef isn’t with the sentence by our beef is with the statutes or laws governing how intoxication is handled.
My “beef” is with both.
Do you ever hold anyone responsible for anything. All of your responses seem to say no.
It’s a ridiculous question. Read the blog. There are about 4,000 posts that answer your query.
Yeah, well you’re a racist and a hyper-rightwing partisan, because like 100 of those posts are about holding Obama accountable. So NYAH!
Is the writer of this article a relative of either the Judge or the defendant? Because if you are not, you are insane. The prosecution asked for 20 years and this judge gave a rich drunk, whose defense was he was rich, FOR KILLING 4 PEOPLE a few months at sleep away camp! Show me a story where a poor teen has killed 4 people by driving drunk and he gets sent to sleep away camp after his public defendant claims his being poor lead to his believing his life wasn’t worth a fuck so he got drunk and killed four people.
Pathetic.
Yes, we know the basis for the indignation—it was stated up front in the post. You haven’t made an argument, or added anything but repetition.
Jack Marshall, you’re stupid. I’d laugh if a drunk driver hit you one day. Oh, it wasn’t out of malice. It was just an accident. No harm, no foul.
Carefully reasoned, trenchant argument there, Richard, with rapier wit as well.
His argument was the mark of an emotionalist. He assumes you’d change your mind if it happened to you. Like irresponsible Anti-gun people who only became anti-gun because they got shot and no other reason, or pro-abortion people who suddenly became that way because they are suddenly facing an unwanted pregnancy.
He probably assumes this because there’s a good likelihood he thinks this way. Up above he reveals he doesn’t like the judge’s ruling because he doesn’t like the basis of the laws.
Would he rather that judges rule by whim? That’s the danger of emotionalism.
Maybe then you would understand the impact of having a family member murdered so casually and the murderer not being charged. If that happened maybe then you would actually have some empathy for the victims and the victim families.
I am going to use the small words for which I am renounced on this blog…
Go. Fuck. Yourself. You. Worthless. Shit.
You and the rest of your knee jerk reactionaries that have befouled this blog apparently have no desire to read other posts. If you did, you might not say such painfully fucktarded things.
Tell everyone in your Facebook group to fuck off, would you?
Jesus Jack, where the hell did this get posted to earn us the influx of idiots?
Google searches my friend.
I’m partially to blame, you fuckwit… :p I post the blogs of Jack (hey, I like that!) which interest me on Facebook.
Any publicity is good publicity
You can fuck yourself as well. Your pathetic exercise in defending drunk drivers and murderers reeks of old white privileged white man elitism. Newsflash, it is not your god given right to drive drunk and murder innocent people. And when you do, I sincerely hope you lose everything you own, your family (if they can tolerate you now) leaves you and you rot in the prison you so richly deserve.
A really dumb, ignorant and dishonest comment, Jake 1) Nobody, not a single individual in the thread, defends drunk drivers 2) Nobody has suggested that there is a right to drive drunk 3) vehicular homicide is not murder 4) Hateful wishes ad hominem are disfavored here.
You are running out of chances to demonstrate that you have the minimum reading skills, objectivity and intelligence to post here.
1) You are defending the sentencing of a drunk driver that killed four people and was sentenced to a year in a country club, with days spent eating gourmet meals and hanging out on the beach. That by definition sends the message to kids and society that driving drunk is not a big deal and will be treated by society with a slap on the wrist. 2) If there are no consequences for drunk driving, or the penalty for driving drunk is a country club sentence then you are in fact trivializing drunk driving to a point that children and adults have a right to drive drunk. 3) it is unfortunate that driving drunk and under the influence of drugs is not considered a felony so that they could have charged couch with murder. Couch intentionally chose to get drunk, couch intentionally chose to drive drunk, he intentionally chose to drive under the influence of drugs, he intentionally chose to drive 70 in a 40. Hopefully, the law will be changed to recognize drunk driving as attempted murder and killing someone while drunk driving is in fact intentional murder. 4) Hateful name calling and insulting is OK – see “Go. Fuck. Yourself. You. Worthless. Shit” – but “hateful wishes” aren’t. Got it.
1. Good. Glad you got it. AMS earned his dispensation from the usual civility rules applied here. I can see why this might be confusing. It sometimes confuses me.
2. He’s a juvenile. The system hold juveniles to a lower standard of accountability, and that is appropriate.
3. I said that the sentence may be defensible and valid. I didn’t say, and have never said, that I agreed with it. and I’m pretty sick of lazy readers who keep writing that I did.
4. I would not object to making drunk driving a felony, and thus treating any accidental deaths as felony murders. Judges are bound to follow the laws as they are, not as you would like them to be.
5. Defending the sentence is not the same as defending what Couch did. A basic distinction you have repeatedly blurred.
6. I dealt with the message issue, which is secondary to finding the right sentence in each individual case.
pertinent for you
The basis for the indignation is the lack of any consequence for killing four people. You can whitewash the sentencing any way you want, which is clearly your intent, but the fact remains four people were killed, families were destroyed and the kid gets to spend a year on the beach eating gourmet meals. And you think that is just fine and dandy. Since you are clearly fine with kids killing with no consequences, based on your statements, is it because the kid is white or rich or does he have to be both?
Warning: Don’t put words in my mouth.
1. I didn’t intend to whitewash the sentence, nor did I.
2. I didn’t say that I think the sentence is fine and dandy.
2) And that is what KILLS ME about the rabid naysayers on here!
All you said is for people to look at this case objectively and suddenly you are an Ethan Couch supporter.
Knee Jerk reactionism never breeds discussion.
A little more digging would find that this “intensive rehab treatment facility” is a private house near Newport Beach, Ca. While it would be unfair to call it a “Country Club”, it has comparable facilities.
All tax deductible and costs covered by medical insurance too.
There are several catering to the market. One has this review:
“Definitely a good place for relaxation, i rate this place 5 star”.
A typical description:
“With this in mind, we have developed a program in which teens are involved in a number of experiential therapies such as Art Therapy, Mixed Martial Arts, Yoga and Meditation, and most notably, Equine Assisted Therapy.”
Other such centres offer surfing, kayaking, bike riding, and of course “excellent meals served by gourmet chefs”. The “Hotel California By The Sea” is just one of the many rehab treatment facilities near Newport Beach with a superb reputation for comfort and relaxation.
I did find out which one. I decided it would be unethical to state it. The family chose it, and I can see why.
“With reimbursement by their health insurance plan of course.”
That is very, very unlikely. Insurance plans do not, generally, pay for rehab, or if they do, vert few of them. That’s why most hospitals have cut way back on them. I have some experience with this issue.
Oh in general they don’t.
I think you’ll find that the super-platinum executive plus plan (with oakleaf cluster, swords and diamonds) might just do though.
Of course the premiums are likely to be a little high. They have to be for places that offer:
Multiple 1×1 Sessions per Day
Daily Process Groups
Behavioral Therapy
Psychological Testing
Cognitive Assessment
Trauma and Grief Therapy
Beach Therapy
Ocean Therapy (Executive Yacht)
Bay Cruise Therapy (Executive Duffy Boat)
Mood Management…
I have no idea what a “Duffy Boat” is, but I’m sure there’s an appropriate billing code for that.
No restriction on pre-existing conditions too, now.
I’ll bet you anything you like that these parents do not have such a policy, if one exists.
Before taking such bets – I need facts.What I have are some details which I can be certain enough to bet on, some which I’m pretty confident about (I only bet on certainties though), some which are speculation based on past cases but without, you know, actual evidence.
Without knowing where the family’s domicile is for insurance purposes, the exact plan they’re on or may take out any time before their son goes to the “therapy centre” (remember – no exclusion for pre-existing conditions) there’s no way I can have enough information to take a bet, either way.
I have ascertained with sufficient certainty that some such centres are on various company’s networks, and at least some of the treatment is covered.
e.g
Sober Living by the Sea
2811 Villa Way
Newport Beach, California 92663
Finances
Sliding Scale: No
Accepted Insurance Plans:
Aetna
BlueCross and/or BlueShield
Health Net
United
AmeriHealth
Cigna
MHN
ValueOptions
Verify your health insurance coverage when you arrange your first visit .
—
Morningside Recovery
3421 Via Oporto
Suite 200
Newport Beach, California 92663
Finances
Sliding Scale: Yes
Accepted Payment Methods: ACH Bank transfer, American Express, Cash, Check, Discover, Mastercard, Visa, Wire
Accepted Insurance Plans:
Aetna
Aetna Choice POS II
Aetna Open Access
Anthem
Anthem Blue Cross
Blue Cross PPO-IP (Independent Payer)
Blue Shield PPO-IP (Independent Payer)
BlueCross and/or BlueShield
Cigna
Coventry
Health Net
Horizon Healthcare
Humana
Magellan Behavioral Health
Multiplan
Premera
Primera Blue Cross
Regence
United
ValueOptions
WellPoint
Out of Network
Verify your health insurance coverage when you arrange your first visit .
—
etc etc
It is tax deductible, tho.
I would actually be surprised if it was.
If insurance wouldn’t cover it, I dont think you can deduct it from your taxes.
And if you can, it would count as a monetary gift to the son, and that would be taxable (minus the 30-some-odd thousand you can gift a relative each year).
Yes, it is.
1) rich people can afford the best insurance. 2) Nice avoidance of the country club life for the kid. Again, rich white kid, no consequences, hanging out eating gourmet food all day long. Nice way to whitewash the sentencing
Go ahead, why not quote the “Wizard of Oz”? You just want to discuss a fantasy version of the case. Have fun.
Correction – you mean the FACT that the kid was sentenced to hanging out on the beach, playing volleyball, swimming, eating gourmet meals.
Keep making up facts and intentionally distorting the truth and you’ll get banned. This is not tolerated here.
I’m always suspicious of opinion pieces when the author is too humble to put their name on it
Interesting. I’m always suspicious of commenters who are too lazy to click on the prominent “ABOUT” link at the top of the page, where 99% of all blogs reveal who writes them. Or on the side panels. where my name and e-mail appears, and who make comments like this.
Jack, really! Your name is only printed twice on the teaser — or whatever you call it — which, as far as I know, is the only way into an initial post. And of course, had Ernest had even skimmed the preceding comments, he would have come across what? six? seven? that were clearly set apart from those of visitors by the authoritative tone of response set in the gentle baby-blue background, with the host’s name spelled out to a faretheewell, and accompanied by the (deceptively) amiable visage beside it. There is a way to fix this problem: Your Name could be hidden in the montage, in upper- and lower-case with a few numerals tossed in … like the verification code one copies (the one I can never get right the first time or two) to prove that the writer is not a robot. …………. Although, way down on the left, following the 1/2 mile of link-lists ….. now, that one IS obscure.
And yet I get a lot of versions of that complaint. It’s bewildering. (For the record, if WordPress allows an author to have a byline in a post, I haven’t figured out how to do it.)
Good grief! If it’s not obvious who owns these posts, the reader is beyond lazy — a moron(ette) who … who …. just isn’t as ernest as he/she could be. p.s. Your “six or seven” posts before my comment have now left your clear signature on ten.
Best response I’ve seen to this argument since Brian Dunning had to point out that he signs off his podcasts with his real name, and publishes the transcripts with not only his real name but with the image of his signature.
I applaude the fact that the author has taken the less traveled route on this highly publicized issue. But with the same breathe I am physically appalled. I live in the Dallas area and have seen our judicial system in action. So I know that it is simply b.s. My children would have been crucified if they were in this young mans shoes. We do well but we don’t have the means to pull this off. Texas is legendary punishing Dui manslaughter, juvenile or not, and if you are a minority….. Totally different forum. Wealth and wealth alone gave this child another chance.
It could well be. The facts of the case do not compel that conclusion.
Yes they do, and you sir are just a lonely troll.
I wonder who it was who first pioneered the technique of pairing gratuitous insults with “sir” to give name-calling weight? Keith Olbermann was good at it, but this has to be an old technique. As is pretending that “no it’s not” is a rebuttal, and ad hominem attacks are effective. For your enlightenment, people who don’t swallow whole the false version of events they are fed by lazy journalists are not called “trolls.” They are called “conscious.”
I think it’s a British government thing. “In response to the honorable Lord Marshall’s remarks regarding sub-parts 1-3 of the proposed bill, I have to say that he is, in fact, a lonely, loathsome troll.” The Brits do it way better than we do — although I’ve sometimes seen old school Southern gentlemen-types pull it off.
Don’t look to the gentlemen saying “Sir,” look to the southern ladies saying “bless your heart.” If you look in their eyes while they say it your hair will turn gray.
A friend of mine who relocated to Nashville says the same thing.
I have yet to hear “bless your heart” said with any intention of insult or veiled malice. I have only heard it sai with nothing but grace, tolerance and understanding. A polite way of saying “you tried hard, an your intentions were good, I’m not angry that you messed up”
Yeah, but you’re from Texas. People are also more blunt and honest there, at least that’s the stereotype. Get over to the southeast and it means… well, let me quote the conversation I just had, verbatim:
“What do you mean in GA when you say ‘bless your heart’?”
“It means we’re calling you dumb as hell.”
And that’s from someone too polite to swear.
I know that those words are all english, but put together like that they make absolutely no sense to me…
You are in all honesty stating that you believe a juvenile from lesser means, could have committed vehicular homicide and received this sentence.
Where did I say that? The bias against the poor and lower in socio-economic status is demonstrable. That doesn’t necessarily mean it was in play in this case.
Well played. I’ve got you on my radar now though. Looking forward to future articles, even if they spoil my morning tea.
Well that sounds… Ominous.
And more than a little silly. There is only one reason why Jack’s posts could routinely ruin your morning tea, and we already have several idiot leftists.
Careful there, Meat Shield, or you may force me to bring to the floor my solution to bullying.
Signed,
Idiot Leftist
I’m not always this unappetizing.
It’s an enlightening blog.
Alot of times the really hyperactive disagreers on posts like this assume Jack is endorsing a particular viewpoint. In this case, most assume he’s endorsed the sentence imposed by this judge. In reality he’s only said “pump the brakes, we don’t really know everything that was presented that led to this verdict and sentence, it could be appropriate”.
Further discussion almost always reveals that he’s only clarifying the errors of those who have jumped to conclusions.
Stick with the blog, he discusses EVERYTHING. From international interactions to local school boards from celebrity shenanigans to teacher indiscretions, from Constituional violations to the Walking Dead. You won’t be disappointed.
Teacher indiscretions? Bless my heart.
?
Tex, I was referring to my own supposed indiscretion wherein I told a class of students, among other things, that Obama is a traitor, which, apparently, generated some angry phone calls from parents. I got suspended for an indefinite time at that school, although I’m still allowed to sub at other schools. My take here… https://www.facebook.com/Fattymoon/posts/10201172014923665
“the facts do not compel that conclusion” – Fact 1. No jail sentence. Fact 2. Rehab in sunny California eating gourmet meals and laying on the beach = no consequences. Fact 3. The widely disparate sentencing for rich white kids vs poor minority kids for the exact same crimes is incredibly well documented. This is another perfect example of a rich white kid not even getting a slap on the wrist after killing four people, destroying multiple lives, taking away peoples daughters, mother, father, siblings. This kid willfully drove drunk and under the influence of drugs and you just whitewash it as nothing,
2. Rehab in sunny California eating gourmet meals and laying on the beach = no consequences.
Who cares whether its sunny? Being forced into rehab is not “no consequence.” Have you ever been in rehab?
Fact 3. The widely disparate sentencing for rich white kids vs poor minority kids for the exact same crimes is incredibly well documented. Blatant misstatement. On a statistical population level, there is disparity. There is not disparity in every case, with every judge, and the generalization doesn’t apply to specific cases.
If you are not going to fairly characterize my post, I’m going to ignore you.
The level of luxury on offer compared to those who must rely on what the state get does indeed make a serious material difference to the experience of rehabilitation. There is also the fact that this will perpetuate an isolated and privileged view of the world. I doubt he’ll be interacting with anyone there whose net worth falls below 100 times the average wage…except those on the staff…
Look at the website for his “rehab” – it is an upscale country club = no consequence for murdering 4 people.
Also an unsubstantiated and dishonest assumption. The fact that the conditions are top of the line does not mean or suggest that the treatment isn’t effective and excellent. Rehab is no fun, and no rehab facility is truly like country club—for one thing, you can leave a country club without being thrown in jail.
1) “conditions are top of the line” – I agree, which supports my “there are no consequences” statement. When a person is convicted of a crime and they go to a better place than their current living situation, where they have better food, better facilities and a better location “sunny California, on the beach” then yes, I absolutely believe that there are no consequences for what Couch did. 2) “doesn’t mean … treatment isn’t effective” – Do you have any proof that it is effective and excellent. I haven’t seen any statistical and quantifiable evidence that his country club rehab is effective. 3) “rehab is no fun” – rehab in a country club is a lot more fun than jail, prison, or rehab in a state run facility, ie. time on the beach, swimming, boating, kayaking, gourmet meals. Oh, the horror.
I pray that this verdict is changed AND the family of the dead sue rich boy’s family into poverty…… then they won’t have to be stricken by the evil that is money, since that was their defense
It wasn’t the parents’ defense.
True enough, it was his defense that he was not responsible for his actions due to the actions of his parents and their wealth. Ethically, that would imply that they should be the ones held responsible for those deaths, but legally that isnt an option…
The verdict isn’t going to be changed, but I would think that lawsuits with large settlements are guaranteed.
Why can not the sentence be changed?
Because no matter how much you hate this particular one, the sheer horror of letting the judicial system have “take backs” outweighs it.
That’s actually a particularly american quirk. Double jeopardy is not in itself necessarily bad. It comes down to implementation.
It is absolutely a bad thing.
Anything else allows the State (which has virtually unlimited resources to investigate and try a case) to simply run a defendant into the ground. After enough passes, the defense will either run out of money, or the state will get an outcome it likes.
Your way is thuggish and reaks of totalitarianism.
Since when did the state have limitless resources anyway? Surely that would alleviate the entire issue of being able to buy better rehab….
Also, there are limits under other systems, but they do allow more than one pass….there is a difference between that and the golden untouchable standard of american jurisprudence where it is totally forbidden.
Perhaps while we’re at it we could also look at the standards of prisons, rehabilitation outcomes and other things that go hand in hand with different attitudes to the judicial system.
I’m sure the netherlands and others appreciate being considered thuggish totalitarians
Also, nice appeal to emotion….so well reasoned.
Double Jeopardy is appalling for several reasons, one of which is:
If the State can’t prove it’s case, that the means the Defense has created enough reasonable doubt. Once the reasonable doubt has been established that tells the State EXACTLY what is needed to clear up the doubt. Hello search for just that evidence and the slippery slope leading to evidence and testimony fabrication. No sir. We’ll let the few guilty that do get off continue to protect innocent people from being conveniently ramrodded because the State NEEDS a conviction in a particular case.
Double Jeopardy would allow trials consumed by public opinion, such as the one involving the hapless George Zimmerman to continue through multiple episodes ad infinitum.
Also, he didn’t appeal to emotion.
Damn right. Anyone advocating that Double Jeopardy is an ideal fit for any Republic that loves Due Process loses all credibility in my book. I don’t think I can take Kevin Farrell seriously from here on out.
Even if he has the correct conclusion on something, I can only assume its because of an accident.
Is there EVER a case in which I think a guilty person got off and wish they could get retried? Sure, on an emotional level. You’re fooling yourself if you think that doesn’t go very very badly in nearly every single case. And I love the notion of it being an “American Quirk.” Wow, it’s almost like it was written that way because NOT having protection against double jeopardy and other “redos” of justice is antithetical to freedom from an overbearing government.
Because regardless of how much we hate a verdict or a sentence, once given it cannot be increased. To do so would ruin our system of laws. Verdicts and sentencing should NEVER be subject to public opinion of how horrible they are (even if they are, in fact, horrible).
Why then allow leniency?
It may be better to be too lenient than not lenient enough.
Judges should not be handcuffed by bizarre regulations that require them to treat each case as being exactly the same.
But after the fact decision switching to make things harsher for the defendent should never be allowed.
1) the rich can afford the best lawyers, the poor can’t. 2) if the victims families ever see a settlement it will be years from now and pennies on the dollars 3) this nothing but a minor inconvenience for the family that their lawyers will handle for them.
Wrong. You don’t know what you are talking about. Lawsuits like these are handled via contingent fees, and the best lawyers in the country take them on daily, especially when the plaintiffs are poor.
1) As I stated the rich can afford the best lawyers, that drag this out for years. Few of the best lawyers take contingent fees when they know they will be racking up large unbillable hours that will take years to get paid 2) They families will see pennies on the dollar. 3) As I said, this is nothing but a minor inconvenience for the family. They will turn it over to their lawyers to make it go away.
“Few of the best lawyers take contingent fees when they know they will be racking up large unbillable hours that will take years to get paid”—this is not only untrue, but spectacularly and unforgivably so. In cases where contingent fees are permitted, they are standard and virtually universal. In the case at issue, there is literally no chance that a contingent fee won’t be used. How can you make an assertion like that with no facts to support it in existence? Cut it out.
“Directing her remarks to Couch, she made it clear that he, not his parents, is responsible for his actions.” Wouldn’t the fact that she made a point of stating this, make it hard for the victims to file civil suit against the parents?
No. He’s a minor. They are legally accountable for his torts.
Put aside the money issue for a moment — because it is very easy to cast rich people as villains. And of course there is disparity in sentencing — that is a well known fact across ALL crimes. The question, in my mind, is whether we should treat all teen offenders with more lenient sentences, or should we throw away the key like we do with a lot of poor kids?
It’s a tough question. Our criminal system is designed to both punish and rehabilitate. With certain hardened criminals — or even with young sociopaths — rehabilitation is unlikely, so a long prison sentence is appropriate. With young offenders who make callous mistakes, it is possible to rehabilitate — even if those errors cost lives. Drunk driving is stupid, and appropriately a crime. But we rarely incarcerate parents who step away from their toddler in the bath for a quick minute to answer the phone, or parents who do not install a car seat properly, the list goes on and on. The key is intent. We are still talking about a kid here — not a 50 year-old with multiple DUIs under his or her belt. Condemning him to a long prison sentence might just be creating another victim here.
As to Zoe’s point, this place does sound like some spas I have visited in the past. But heck, maybe “equine therapy” really does transform snot-nosed rich kids into law-abiding, compassionate adults. I’m skeptical myself, but if these places do work, I don’t know if we should deny the kid access just because mommy and daddy are paying for it instead of us. The state facilities obviously will never be as nice.
Perhaps the appropriate punishment here would be send to this kid to a state rehabilitation facility AND still make the parents pay for it. But, if it can be shown that those state facilities are not as effective (and I’m willing to bet that’s the case), do we then stick with this sentence anyway out of grief and rage, or do we actually try to rehabilitate this little jerk?
I think that’s a fair and balanced analysis, Beth—exactly the kind of analysis the media’s tone in reporting this case discourages.
It also silently endorses the fact that rehabilitation is woefully undervalued and underfunded and a low priority for the american justice system as it stands.
Unless you’re rich, then you can pay for the better outcomes privately.
While it would not be right to offer a less effective treatment to this child, that ethically applies to ALL children. There is a collective responsibility as a society to promote the common good through providing for the best possible outcomes…if someone can buy their way to a better outcome than the justice system of the land would otherwise offer, that is the ethical problem….
I see your point, but on the other hand that is a step toward further separating justice for rich and poor that I’m reluctant to take. A rich man in prison isn’t allowed to decorate his own cell, even if he can afford a nicer bed. An embezzling banker sentenced to a minimum security prison isn’t allowed to spring for government-approved guards to watch him at home and enforce limited contact with the outside world, although the principle is similar. If you commit a crime and are sentenced to punishment, it just seems fundamentally wrong to let you buy your way to a nicer version of that punishment.
Of course, the issue of effectiveness is a compelling one. I think the entire justice system needs an overhaul, but that the interests of equal treatment are better served with equal consequences while trying to maximize the effectiveness of state facilities. That’s an arguable point, though, of course.
Could not have said it better myself.
For young criminals, I think rehabilitation should trump punishment. And then, if that doesn’t work, then you can throw away the key.
I’ve done pro bono work for juveniles in the criminal system. It’s become a cliche, but I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes. Nice kids (who are all guilty of being victims of bad parenting and/or extreme poverty) go in somewhat innocent and come out criminals who will be back again and again.
Life is unfair and the rich have it better. That won’t ever change, and I am reluctant to spend tax money on creating 1,000 Club Meds for juvenile offenders. I’d rather focus on improving their circumstances to begin with (education, communities, jobs) so we have fewer offenders in the first place. So if mommy and daddy can pay for Club Med prison for the few rich kid juvenile offenders out there, I don’t have a problem with that — assuming that the rehabilitation works.
I never said throw away the key, and I know that the rich have it better. I’m fine with that in day to day life, but once you’ve broken the law and come under the auspices of the justice system I strongly disagree that “I’m rich” should be an excuse to get different consequences in any way.
Poor juveniles have to go to state detention because there is no other option — and there is a high probability that they will come out hardened criminals. If there is another, better, private option available to the wealthy, shouldn’t we allow them to exercise it if it means that this kid will not grow up to be a criminal? He might actually reform and do some good for society. And we won’t have to pay for his room, board, and treatment for the next X amount of years.
Not to take us on too big of a tangent, but consider public schools. In some places they are great, other places they are awful. There is a pretty vocal part of society that wants to eliminate them altogether (they haven’t read the Constitution) because it not only gives rich kids an unfair playing field, but it actually makes the public schools even worse because the kids with resources are not there to elevate the standards.
Assuming that analysis is correct, why should we allow rich kids to go to awesome private schools? (Putting aside legal challenges.) I know you are focused on the fact that the kid broke the law, but he is a minor. Minors are special and are allowed special circumstances even when they have broken the law because they are not considered mature beings. Parents are, and should be, allowed to direct their own resources to give them every advantage in life.
But once he turns 18, I agree with you. Jail should be jail, regardless of your income. Assuming you get to jail though — money buys a better team of defense lawyers and you’re more likely to avoid detention or at least have a shorter sentence. “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you….” Maybe we should add to the Miranda warnings, “If you cannot afford your prison, one will be provided for you….”
I think the entire thing hinges on the criminal element, yes. In non-criminal terms I have no problem with rich people having it easier- it’s part of capitalism, even though I’m jealous.
As for the balance of rehabilitation- I’m glad I don’t have to make a binding call on that. It’s a compelling argument, to do the best for a minor in an individual circumstance, but I’m also not saying he should be charged as an adult, sentenced as an adult, housed with adults, etc. Part of the goal of a sentence is punishment, and regardless of age I have major problems with being able to buy your way largely out of that part of it.
I have to agree with you that there should be an equality before the law, which means that your personal resources should not alter in any material way the outcomes from the justice system. I also agree that far more focus should be placed on trying to glean better outcomes from the state facilities rather than simply allowing those with wealth and influence to bypass them….there is a serious moral hazard there since they have no need to worry about the quality of such things because they know they will never apply to them. Plato had some entertaining thoughts on that (though I am more a fan of Epicurus in most things) with his talk of designing a society in The Republic…that those tasked with designing a system like that should have no idea where in it they will be placed so that they must give consideration to how all are treated in it.
“But, if it can be shown that those state facilities are not as effective (and I’m willing to bet that’s the case)”
I truly wonder whether a state facility would be less effective than a private facility for a kid from a rich background.
I bet (with no evidence at this point) that studies of the efficacy of these elite private treatment centers compared to state run centers have not shown better outcomes for the former for kids and adults from a wealthy background. The studies may have adjusted for SES status, but I doubt that any such adjustments were done at the level of the top 5% of wealth or income.
If you are going to say that this specific ruling in this specific case is better than sending the kid to a state facility, you must show, at a minimum, that this is the case for those of his background.
Because on the face of it it seems common sensical that a harsher environment would rehabilitate a rich person better than a “country club” environment.
?????
Go to ANY state mental/rehab ward. One hour there will change your mind forever. They all are overcrowded and underfunded. And if you want to put a rich kid there just to assuage your notion of equal justice, you’re taking away a bed from some other kid who can’t pay for it and may have to go to a criminal detention center instead. That’s not my notion of justice.
A gilded cage is still a cage.
You’re on a roll, Beth!!!
Jack, there’s something strange about your recent posts on sentencing. First you defended as ethical the argument for leniency because “hey, I only killed a hooker,” citing that bias against criminals doesn’t count as prejudice because criminals are bad, and that it’s OK to try and put an official stamp on their lower human worth by making that the basis of lower penalty for killing them.
Then, you cite Judge Tharpe’s sentencing of Ethel Anderson as grounds for “Ethics Hero” recognition. Without reference to the specific facts of the case beyond the summary of the crime, you applaud Tharpe. Paired with that case was the LeFave case, where the “too pretty for jail” argument was proposed and, seemingly, accepted. You say that shows “warped and sexist” standards. No mention there of it being a lawyer’s duty to suggest any argument, no matter how distasteful, to get his client a lighter sentence; no mention of the need to withold judgment on a judgment because the details are unknown.
Now, finally, this post. You are, again, back to saying that any argument is legally justified if it may work, and that the judgment shouldn’t be criticized by those who onl know the basic summary of the trial. You say the defendant is only a child, that his life might be fixed. I’m sure you dont’ mean it this way, but it’s starting to feel like you’re endorsing a very dual justice system, even more than we already have. On the one hand, if you murder someone that’s a subclass of society, sure, argue for leniency, it’s not like you killed someone good or important. On the other, if you’re from a rich family and of good class, you’re of more value to the law and deserve lighter treatment because hey, you’re worth something, you might do something acceptable with your life.
Among it all comes inconsistency when it comes to approval or disapproval of these verdicts. It’s never quite clear whether you’re going to wave a ruling away as being impossible to judge because we weren’t there, approve of it as sending a vital message, or trash it as warped and sexist. Surely if you can detest the LaFavre verdict for the message it sends and the reasoning apparent (but not explicit, that I could find) behind it, you can’t then turn around and chide “armchair judges” for doing the same here?
Oh, and for what it’s worth: I think this kid got off easy, but perhaps not inexcusably so without knowing more details. I think the real travesty is how light he got off comparitive to other young drunk drivers. The justice system reliably overcharges and overpursues, but if they did so equally we’d have a starting point.
Yes, and you state that the right way—it isn’t that this verdict was too light, but that other juvenile sentences may be too tough. That wouldn’t argue for a judge to be equally harsh here, just for consistency’s sake (see the Rationalizations), but that’s how a lot of people reason.
Something I’ve seen you bring up a lot is the appearance of bias. I don’t think he should have put the kid away for life, necessarily (again, avoiding overall sentencing guidelines as too much of a can of worms), but don’t you think there’s a huge appearance of bias to all of a sudden give the rich white kid the super easy sentence?
Yup. It looks bad. The question is whether it in fact IS as bad as it looks. The judge’s first obligation is to find the just sentence, not to find the sentence that the most people will think is just.
Yes — the outrage should be over too harsh of sentences for other offenders. But it’s easier to stoke outrage in the other direction.
I don’t see the inconsistency at all. Every one of those attorney arguments were ethical and zealous, no matter how ridiculous you and I may have thought they were. I didn’t say otherwise.
I cut a sentence specifically addressing this issue, and maybe I shouldn’t. There are objectively bad decisions on their face—the LaFave sentence was one of them. The decision recently where a rapist was let off because the judge ruled he was “stealing services.” Everyone, but everyone, felt these were wrong, and the judge had no good reasoning to rebut it. My objection to the criticism of Boyd is that it doesn’t consider the underlying facts—like the fact that a 20 years sentence can become 2 years with a juvenile. Doesn’t that suggest that the “harsh” sentence was really too lenient also?
I read all my judge-related posts before writing this one. There’s a lot of gray area, but I don’t find them inconsistent.
Your logic makes sense, it just seems somewhat internally inconsistent to go from criticizing a verdict to saying that a verdict can’t be criticized because trials are too complex, and that summaries leave out information. I’m not saying you mean it in bad faith or are trying to deceive, but it comes out sounding inconsistent in writing, especially without anythign addressing why you can go from no-judgment to castigating.
This is what i need to cover in some detail: the conflict, when there is one, between sending the right message and finding the fair and effective sentence. Especially in this case, where “20 years,’ which would have sent the right message, really meant 2 years, which wouldn’t be just.
A post on it would be great. As I said in my original one (lengthy to distinguish my thought processes from some of the… “pithier” commenters above), I don’t think you actually think some of these things, just that the way you rposts are falling is implying them to some extent.
Not even “Sentencing logic like Judge O’Grady’s undermines the credibility of the justice system, doesn’t even protect the public, and looks just as terrible as it is.”?
A just decision is to make the punishment fit the severity of the crime. The court’s responsibility is to insure that happens, not to concern itself with “rehabilitation”, which is the charge of the penal system.
That’s not the charge of the justice system, and sentencing includes many factors, including rehabilitation, especially where children are involved. I think you’re thinking of “The Mikado.”
“The decision recently where a rapist was let off because the judge ruled he was “stealing services.” Everyone, but everyone, felt these were wrong, and the judge had no good reasoning to rebut it”
My first comment at the top was about that case. Read point 1 you make here and read that post again. Additionally read the comments of that post I made. I presented some doubt and finally found some facts. That whole outrage was nothing but a political hit job. As a matter of fact your post was recent but the case was some time ago and was brought back up due to the recent election.
What? You were thrashed in that thread, by Beth and others. The ruling was wrong on the law, on multiple laws, in fact. His theory was unsustainable. Nor can you fairly call that “a political hit job,” and suggest that the outrage was phony, as in “based on nothing.” A woman is gang raped and the judge claims it’s a lesser crime because she’s a prostitute? That’s not outrageous? The outrage is real because its an outrageous ruling, and it was brought up in the election because for any judge to be in robes who thinks like that—and is so stupid to boot, is an offense to civilization.
Brother. Talk about re-writing history…
And if everything you stated supporting your view were true I would agree with you whole heartily. However in reality you had no idea whether the Judges ruling was appropriate or not because you didn’t even state the actual ruling.
You and Beth did school me up on legal definitions and principals but you failed on your basic premise that the judge was unethical for a ruling that never happened.
I am sure I am going to piss you off but I am going to now plagiarize and adapt your point 1 in regards that case. The judge didn’t make a ruling on the case by simply reading summaries of the facts, arguments and testimony—that is, exactly what all of the critics were basing their howls on, not even that—-everyone would agree that the practice was unwise, unfair, and likely to produce bad jurisprudence. The game of second-guessing judges and juries, primed by instant call-in or online polls responded to by casual voters leads to a lynch mob mentality, where people who learn about case results second and third hand inflame everyone they know, and soon a cultural consensus is in place regardless of relevant facts.
You never acknowledge that he was found guilty of the other charges he faced, guilty based on evidence. That when the rape charge was refiled in another court they dropped it as well, seems like maybe an evidentiary issue, or maybe that judge was just cool with rape? Yet one hack, a hack who had defend herself before for quotes she has used, got a quote from the judge in a coffee shop who has never prior to or since that case ever made a comment about one of her cases. That one coffee shop account was re-reported in every other story. In an official statement from the judge she states that she does not talk about her cases and is bared from doing so. But hey it was rape so its cool to simply read summaries of the facts, arguments and testimony even if the practice is unwise, unfair, and likely to produce bad jurisprudence.
Your conclusion to point one sums it up and I agree.
Should we question verdicts and sentences that seem wrong to us? Absolutely. There are bad verdicts and unjust sentences. I highlighted one recently that I would be stunned if any additional information surfaced that could justify it. Still, even in that case, it could happen. Judge Boyd has more experience and knowledge about this case in her court than any after-the fact kibitzers. She deserves the benefit of the doubt, when there is doubt, and there usually is.
As I stated then I have little doubt that the scumbag did it, but somewhere in the mess of evidence and testimony the Judge came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to support finding him guilty of it, to me that seems to indicate an ethical judge.
When you have some time go back and read that post again and the comments, links and arguments I made. I looked at that case from an ethical perspective and applied the principals. As I said I think the arguments you made here also applies to that case.
My apologies for butchering your words to apply them to that case, it seemed like the best way for me to demonstrate my point.
Nothing to apologize for; that was well done. And that case does illustrate the perils of judging verdicts and sentences from second hand accounts, especially since the newsmedia is untrustworthy. However, Bar associations do not lightly condemn judges; indeed, it is highly unusual. Your version of the facts is a best-case scenario for Deni, and a bit more. For example, you are misrepresenting the reason for the second decision not to prosecute. Assistant district attorney Rich DeSipio refused to present the case before Deni because of her earlier ruling, saying that “I wouldn’t demean her [the victim] that way.” Naturally, Judge Deni threw out the second case for failure to prosecute. The facts of the assault were not seriously in question. And the judge has NOT denied that she made the statement in question. If that was even in the back of her mind, she was unqualified to hear the case.
Often judging a verdict from afar is unfair and perilous, and I appreciate you using the worst possible case to illustrate that. Good job. That sentence was still, objectively and from a afar, or close-up, a disgrace, and I’ll stand securely with the Philadelphia Bar Association. (Full disclosure: it hired me once.)
Getting ready to head out the door so this still be short. The chancellor wrote that letter based as it pertained on the theft/rape charge on what thewhat the reporter said the judge said at the coffee shop, the members of the bar were outraged at her for using her position and poor information to attack the judge. The bar still highly endorses the judge and has throughout, trust them still? The judge and court did reply, the started the judge has never and is prohibited from commenting on cases. I read that as the hack is lying, which apparently wouldnt be the first time, so yes I think that isa a denial. I am not sure why you were going to do a COTD but at the time I thought the nature of the charge was coloring the perspectives and opinions of the regulars here to the point objectivity was lost. I still think based on the totality of what I found on judge deni, calling her unethical is unfair
Oh and keep in mind the theft charge was completely unrelated to the rape, it was the money and phone that got him that charge. The critics linked them, it was made up.
I initially reacted, not so much with outrage, but with a heavy sigh and a roll of the eyes but after I read Jack’s post I began to look at this sentence differently. I don’t know the details of his probation but my guess is that this kid is going to find out quite quickly just how limited his life is going to be, how he is going to be reminded almost daily, of his crime for the next ten years – as opposed to possibly only serving two years with wifi, three squares a day, little to no responsibilities, and the ability to finish out his education all paid for by the good people of Texas. My husband, a retired police sergeant, who worked DUI/Traffic Homicide for a number of years, also reminded me that this kid could behave himself perfectly for the next 9 and half years. If he were to screw up the month before his probation ends, he could potentially face the original 20.
1) what makes you think his life will be “limited”. His family has plenty of money. There will be no “limitations”. 2) Sociopaths by definition don’t feel remorse. This kid has never demonstrated remorse or even acknowledged that he did something wrong. He is just sorry he got caught. 3) He could also get a slap on the wrist for every parole violation. Look at Lindsay Lohan, violation after violation, nothing. He won’t get prison for minor / petty violations. If he does something serious his parents will buy him out of that as well.
Plain and simple. The judge was bought off and is nothing but scum. She just presented a precedent for future cases for juveniles to use. “Oh my parents didn’t teach me right from wrong” will be the excuse used. I have been away from Texas for 10 yrs, please tell me that Texas has not fallen this far in disrepute and that this scum of a judge is the norm.
I long forbthe day when such words were grounds for a duel.
You have libeled the judge. You did not state an opinion, you stated a fact that seems based on information not publicly available. You have also, I would agree, done so out of malice.
Support your claim, or get fucked, assclown.
I am with you on that
Our court system is out of touch with reality and common fairness . I wonder if her children , if she has any , are allowed to run rampant yelling that they’ll get their friends off because their mother is Judge Jean Boyd . What a thing to be proud of ! I love my children Dearly but I would not allow them to be so callous in the way that they approach their daily comings and goings . As parents in this day and age we owe it to them and society to raise them with a little do unto others attitude instead of your special cause we got money . Forgive us All our short comings ,especially you Judge Jean Boyd . My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones or are dealing with a cripple now,,,I’m truly sorry.. Bless You and may your paths get easier to travel from this point on.. I pray that we start doing some real soul searching because of this .
I think any pshchologist who, as a defense expert, tries to use made up conditions that do not exist in the DSM should be held in contempt of court and should have their license to practice stripped from them.
Affluenza is not a real thing. It’s use should not be allowed in the court room.
Battered Woman Syndrome wasn’t a real thing either, until it was.
I thought you hated the ruling…
But my statement still stands. Something shouldn’t be allowed to be used as a clinical defense by an “expert” in psychology if it is not a real diagnosis that is accepted by peers.
My hate is a wonderous and many-faceted diamond of unspeakable complexity.
I hate the sentence, but I hate the people bitching about it more.
And 10 years probation is nothing to sneeze at. Being at a college party where the cops show up and there is one underage drinker could land the kid in prison.
And since this will carry into adulthood, I’m pretty sure he gets to check “yes” to the employment question of “have you been convicted of a felony” for a long time.
Would I like yo have seen the kid spend some time in prison? Sure. Even a couple of weekends can be eye-opening.
And just to be clear, you are arguing that BWS and other such defenses shoud not be allowed, yes?
Because it was only their controversial use at trial that ended up getting them to be accepted.
I agree with you, AM. 10 years probation is going to prove to be far more difficult and restrictive than this kid realizes. By the time he’s 25, he’ll probably be wishing he had served the two years and been done with it.
My hate is a wonderous and many-faceted diamond of unspeakable complexity.
***************
That is the best remark I’ve heard in the past five YEARS.
Bwahaha
I really hope you are a writer.
Or maybe you are actually Stephen King, slumming with the common folk.
Medical and psychological conditions are whatever enough professionals say they are. There is no “real thing.” Fad diseases appear all the time. Look at the applications of the ADA.
I must admit I have issues with some of the conduct of the APA, but that has to do with lacking methodology in some studies and often poor application of logic and the scientific method. To dismiss medical consensus with talk of fad conditions is utterly unhelpful and lacking in intellectual character.
“Boyd explained that she is familiar with the programs available in the Texas juvenile justice system , and that teens often fail to get the kind of intensive therapy in a state-run program that they would receive at the California facility where she was sending him. This is a sentence crafted to reform and treat a child whose life might still be salvaged.”
Yet most teens will still go to that intensive therapy in state run programs because they wont have access to the funds required to send their children to the California facility. The wealth of his family should not be what dictates if he gets “salvaged”. And because he gets the better deal that most, he is being given the lesson that because he is rich he gets a different standard of judgement. He pays less of a consequence for his actions.
If affluenza was real (it isn’t), this sentence just contributes to it.
Actually, the choice of the expensive facility fits in with the whole defense. “Too rich to learn right from wrong? Then, you probably have enough money to pay for REALLY expensive therapy. That’ll learn ya!”
-Jut
I don’t doubt Zoe did her research (as usual) and indeed this sounds like a bed of California feathers instead of a Texas cot-o’-nails, but rehab (the very nickname says it’s not supposed to be seriously -illitating) comes in both materials. And doesn’t work well in either.
I spent several years working per diem in two juvenile psych facilities, I can tell you that the kind of treatment in California Judge Boyd was talking about (and hoping for — doesn’t anyone get to vet the parents’ lawyers’ choice?) — does exist. Quietly. Without Duffyboats or mollycoddling. One of them (since appropriated by a state institution, unfortunately, though still effective, if colder) accepted the most intractable cases from all over the country (at a high price for out-of-state patients, just like the schools do), including several similar to Couch’s. From what I know of follow-up accounts, going back to the 70s, they had/have a high rate of success in curing, literally, this kind of blind sociopathy. Someone who “has never had to face the consequences” of his or her actions, (something usually learned in toddlerhood), and who has thus been able to commit such iniquitous crimes without thought (and, as Jack pointed out, not through a deliberate, native viciousness) –“heinous” was the right word before SVU co-opted and corrupted it — such a young person is considered to have a steep learning curve, much harder to deal with than a flat one. The simple rules of, yes, ethical behavior were learned easily and early on . . . and just as easily and quickly dismissed since no one reinforced them (they do not flourish in an atmosphere of affluenza).
The “cure” is desirable for everyone, however painful the process and forever pain-aware the “cured.” But once done right, it cannot be undone. (except by suicide, which can be a danger in cases when someone like Couch hasn’t also been taught to cope with the ghosts that will always haunt.) Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like this rich kid will get the chance; not if he’s “rehabbed”. The “country club” exists in every state that has a temperate climate and lots of recreational facilities. His only chance may be in those weird, hippy-dippy, californicatin’, easy-breezy, milksoppy, worthless teachings … like art therapy, yoga and meditation, among other techniques designed, effectively, to foster insight and self-discipline. They could be the difference between forming a responsible adult or an ex-con who has learned nothing of any value to himself or society (GED notwithstanding).
And thanks, Jack, for once again, as that moustached Belgian with the egg-shaped head would say, causing me furiously to think.
… as soon as the pain from that first knee-jerk reaction wears off.
Yes, the local dept of juvenile corrections will produce a report on a number of options, and until such time the kid is going to sit in juvie.