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 
10. The King’s Pass
One will often hear unethical behavior excused because the person involved is so important, so accomplished, and has done such great things for so many people that we should look the other way, just this once. This is a terribly dangerous mindset, because celebrities and powerful public figures come to depend on it. Their achievements, in their own minds and those of their supporters and fans, have earned them a more lenient ethical standard. This pass for bad behavior is as insidious as it is pervasive, and should be recognized and rejected when ever it raises its slimy head. In fact, the more respectable and accomplished an individual is, the more damage he or she can do through unethical conduct, because such individuals engender great trust. Thus the corrupting influence on the individual of The King’s Pass leads to the corruption of other others through…
Care to demonstrate WHO is using this rationalization and then explain it through analogy, and WHAT that person did that utilizes the King’s Pass?
Or do you just assume the readers here are obligated to guess what you mean?
I thought that a retort from the outline of the blog here might prompt some consideration. The ethical issue here is of offering a different standard of justice based on the “value” of the person in question. That is clearly the case here since he was granted options that would not be offered to others under the law because they would be unable to pay for them.
That is a failure ethically of a massive standard and a wonderful example of privilege winning out in the modern era in its oldest sense, which is the essence of the “king’s pass”.
This case does not involve the Kings Pass. “One will often hear unethical behavior excused because the person involved is so important, so accomplished, and has done such great things for so many people that we should look the other way, just this once.” Couch has done absolutely nothing to justify this application.
This is “The Child’s Pass.”
Hardly, he is being given a lesser penalty than would be granted to someone unable to pay for a private alternative to the state system.
He is being granted a privileged outcome based upon his privileged/wealthy parentage.
Would you suggest that those with greater money should be able to pay for better prison conditions?
Nope. Imprisonment and Rehabilitation are two separate forms of punishment.
But the ability to get the chance to be rehabilitated instead of just imprisoned will likely depend on how much money the defendent (or the defendent’s family in many cases) can throw at the system.
Maybe so. But that’s a problem with the price of lawyers isn’t it? Not with Due Process or Judges or Juries or Trials…is it?
In an offence like this one by a minor, regardless of prosperity, sentencing should be geared towards rehab and usually is. The fact that the parents can afford to pay for a place that has better outcomes is a good thing. The argument seems to be that the rich kid should be made to rehab where there is less of a chance of a favorable outcome. That is insane, we don’t want him to re-offend or become a hardened criminal, we want him to become a productive member of society and not end up being a burden on society for the rest of his life.
Exactly.
How often do scions of the 1% ever become “hardened criminals” due to a stint in prison or state rehab?
I’d bet it’s a lot easier for scions of the bottom 50% to become “hardened criminals” regardless of getting a pass or getting a sentence.
I dont mean to concern you, but your feckless OWS fucktardery is showing.
“Affluenza” is not, to the best of my knowledge, a DSM diagnosis (unless the DSM has changed radically in the 6 years since I retired). As such, Dan, it could not have been presented, ethically, as a legally acceptable diagnosis, at least not in Texas. Any competent prosecutor would shred you if you tried.
And, as Jack stated, we don’t know if that played a role in determining the verdict or in the sentencing.
Clearly affluence however did play a part in sentencing since without that wealth there would not be the option of a private rehabilitation rather than a state one.
Ok? That’s not a corruption of due process nor a corruption of judicial system. That some people can afford a more expensive ‘rehabilitation’ than others doesn’t make it just to deny them that option if the system has so determined that ‘rehabilitation’ is the appropriate punishment.
So, you agree that there should be a better standard of justice for the rich?
Should they be allowed to pay for better prison accommodation too? Maybe let them order in take away? Hire better chefs? Perhaps a personal trainer to help with their health and exercise?
Prison is also meant to be part rehabilitation as well as punishment…something that often enough seems to get brushed aside these days.
If the ends cannot justify the means, what of the inverse?
Can the means justify the end?
Or should the end be evaluated on its own merits as well?
False analogy. Rehabilitation and imprisonment as punishments are not parallel in their execution. Imprisonment seeks to remove people from the community and the comforts of the community for a time. Of course ‘wealthy’ convicts receiving this sentence should not benefit from the wealth their punishment is meant to remove them from.
But rehabilitation is a much lighter punishment lacking in a retributive component. Without the retributive component (which is a State ENACTED component), then the burden is on you to explain why you’d deny a criminal who can afford a more effective treatment from getting it.
So, prison is purely punitive in your world? That explains a great deal about your attitude here…and your blatant lack of concern for wider ethical and moral implications.
If there is to be rehabilitation mandated by the state, the same standard should apply to all. You should not get a better standard simply because you can pay for it….or else you end up living in an utterly unethical state where there is no equality before the law.
Your first paragraph is a non sequitur. You’ll need to explain how you make this assumption of me. I pointed out some of the differing characteristics between Prison and Rehabilitation. Certainly there is gray area.
Sorry, you can’t just repeat yourself. The burden is still on you to demonstrate why Rehabilitation, which is essentially a treatment and not retributive, but purely for the good of the convicted, must be undercut to the lowest common denominator. Seems to me you’d want those who can afford the best treatment to get it.
You still haven’t demonstrated how the law is therefore unequal.
Your condescending language does not make you correct. Furthermore, your inability to comprehend how reserving “the best treatment” to “those who can afford it” is unequal in the context of criminal justice renders debate untenable. Criminal law involves the deprivation of liberty using the monopoly of state force. It operates at level beyond marketplace exchange. We are talking about the loss of four lives. Put down the dictionary and use your common sense.
“Criminal law involves the deprivation of liberty using the monopoly of state force.”
I think you meant to say “Sentencing in criminal cases involves the deprivation of liberty using the monopoly of state force.”
To which, I’ll answer: Sometimes, if that is what the Judge determines to be the appropriate response to the Crime committed. If rehabilitation is part of the sentencing, then we are no longer discussing retributive, deterrent, restitution, or incapacitation punishments. The actions taken in rehabilitation are NOT designed to hurt or inconvenience the accused. You, like the guy you’ve leapt to defend have the burden of demonstrating why someone so sentenced shouldn’t try to get the best rehabilitation available.
“Your condescending language does not make you correct.”
Don’t be an idiot.
The question is, would the judge have made the same sentencing determination knowing that a poor defendant would go to a texas facility with weaker rehabilitation outcomes? The judge did reference the quality of Texas facilities and why he’s going to a California one.
so, knowing a poor defendant would be less likely to have a positive outcome from treatment, would she have chosen prison instead?
Very good question. And I think its quite possible, without the option of effective treatment, the result would have been more prison time. That’s not bias, but it would sure look that way.
Your argument is “Let them eat cake”. You would have fit in very well with the French aristocracy.
In fact, it’s not. The argument is “Just because you have to eat cake doesn’t mean everyone else has to, or that it’s unfair if they can afford something better.”
On the contrary. I’m the one arguing that if someone can afford better treatment then they should get it.
The others have plainly stated they’d rather deny others who can get it because some can’t.
Who is using the “Let them eat cake argument”
Go back and re-read.
Nobody is suggesting that people be denied treatment based on income. What people like me and others are saying is that people should not get the benefit of certain judicial outcomes based on their means. Punishment should be means independent. Every child in simillarly situated circumstances should have the same opportunity to rehab IF it can be shown that they are worthy of such a chance to rehabilitate themselves. (Even the smallest iota of guilt for the actions might suffice to establish this worthiness).
That we complain that others are not allowed that same opportunity is not because we want to drag people down. It is that we beleive that others should be pulled up. Rehabilitation should be available for all people regardless of social standing if we are going to make it available to anyone.
“Nobody is suggesting that people be denied treatment based on income. What people like me and others are saying is that people should not get the benefit of certain judicial outcomes based on their means.”
That’s not at all what the guys I’m arguing against have said.
“What people like me and others are saying is that people should not get the benefit of certain judicial outcomes based on their means. Punishment should be means independent. Every child in simillarly situated circumstances should have the same opportunity to rehab IF it can be shown that they are worthy of such a chance to rehabilitate themselves. (Even the smallest iota of guilt for the actions might suffice to establish this worthiness). “
The burden is then on you to prove that this happened in this case. Jack has done a great job in the original post demonstrating why that assumption can’t be logically PROVEN in this case.
Dan — our system ALREADY does that and it is enshrined in the Constitution. Rich people pay top dollar for defense attorneys to keep them out of prison. Poor people have luck of the draw with the public defender. Justice is not blind. While I do believe in rehab for most juvenile defenders, I have no problem with “better rehab” for those parents who can afford it.
I am working my way through this from the start so don’t miss any of it, just made a similar comment above but well stated.
dragin: Are you responding to me. Because I am saying the exact same thing you are.
Yup. And my apologies. I apparently misread your comment. However, my post remains valid, as does yours.
I wonder how the author of this article would feel if his/her family members were killed by a “poor little drunken rich boy” So easy to take the high road when you have no skin in the game. Disgusting…
So easy to come to the wrong conclusion when you have a conflict of interest, is what you’re really saying. In your world, the judge should have been a relative of the victims, right? This fatuous argument is so common, and so obviously dim. Yes, if I were Couch’s mother, I’d think my little boy could do no wrong, and if I were the mother of the morons hurt while riding in the bed of a truck driven by this drunken fool, I’d refuse to accept that they were partly responsible for their own fates, and if I were the mother of a victim killed on the road, I’d want Couch boiled in oil. So waht? That’s why none of their opinions are worth as much as mine. It’s called “o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-i-t-y.” Look it up.
I’m sure “the author” would feel absolutely awful that a relative was killed by someone. I’m also positive “the author”, being a logical and rational person would also THINK through the scenario if it occurred to him. I’m sure “the author” would hope the appropriately convicted would receive an appropriate sentence. I’m sure “the author” would humbly accept the judge’s ruling if it were appropriate.
But I also know “the author” is making the argument that NO ONE KNOWS everything that transpired in that courtroom and is therefore advancing the notion that you need to calm down on the outrage because all you are getting is information from a media that has proven it’s INABILITY to accurately report courtroom proceedings.
Shame on the DISHONORABLE judge jean boyd shame!!!!!
Great argument. Sound premises, flawless logic, undeniable conclusions.
Usually comments like this are best on the news website comments sections.
I was having some trouble following the point at first, but the Caps-Lock cruise control followed by triple-decapitalized name really hooked me.
“Capslock: Cruise control to ‘cool’…”
For the most part I agree with your assessment. I appreciate the balanced analysis, but I disagree with some of your arguments and merely offer this as the flip side (and perhaps the common sense side – I know this doesn’t equate to the legally permissible considerations, but please indulge me):
First off, I thought the kid was 16, yet you print his name at the outset. Has his name been released to the public? If so, by who?
“The rich get away with everything: a poor, minority defendant who engaged in the same conduct would have been imprisoned.” Race should not be a factor unless we know it is. Do we?
As to your 10 arguments:
1 – Agreed
2 – Agreed
3 – If she did not use the expert’s testimony re affluenza, in my opinion (I know that means nothing) she had a duty to say so. Now we are left to wonder if this BS theory can be proffered at subsequent proceedings. And it is a BS theory, even though the defense attorney was right in applying it. It is the judge’s responsibility to snuff this out immediately. I think she failed.
4 – “Directing her remarks to Couch, she made it clear that he, not his parents, is responsible for his actions.” Ooooh. This doesn’t matter. Much like one of the prior posters, I think I could have been this kid. That being said, all I would be thinking about is keeping my backside out of prison. A spoiled 16 year-old kid who does not have to pay for his actions will barely listen to anything anyone tells him, even a judge.
“This is a sentence crafted to reform and treat a child whose life might still be salvaged.” Perhaps. But with his family’s resources, who is to say he life would be unsalvageable were he to spend time behind bars? I’m not advocating for locking him up for 10-20 years, but a year or two would at least express to the victims’ families that money doesn’t buy everything.
“…the teen violates the terms of his probation at any point, he could be sentenced to prison for 10 years.” This is where the judge dropped the ball. The sentence should have stated he will serve a mandatory minimum of like 1-3 years if he so much as even jaywalks. Saying “he could be sentenced” leads me to believe he could also be sent to another facility for $400,000 to be rehabilitated for his next crime where he kills more people.
5 – “…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.” Really? You can’t possibly believe this. If this is his first offense, I would say that should effect his sentencing. But probation is still too lenient. If this is not his first offense, and if he has any prior with alcohol, then his sentencing should have been far more stringent. Probation will not get this kid to stop drinking.
6 – Agreed.
7 – It shouldn’t matter. In order for justice to truly be blind, judges CANNOT let elections influence their decisions. I understand you are pointing out the practical and I agree with you.
Good analysis and I appreciate the formality, especiall when I am getting a lot of “You’re an ignorant dipstick!” comments. A couple points:
1. I see no reason why his name shouldn’t be released and used widely. That’s the culture’s punishment for what he did, and it should be,a and will be, brutal. He did several things reserved for adults: driving, drinking, and killing people. He can’t hide behind his age any more.
2. We don’t have to wonder: sure it can be proffered. So can the “Twinkie defense” and all the others. It’s up to the judge. If it is accepted and works, then it will become standard, like insanity. That was once a novel theory too.
3. If she was adopting it, she had an obligation to say so, but not if she wasn’t. The presumption is that if she didn’t cite it and her statements didn’t suggest it, then she ignored that aspect of the defense.
4. I just disagree on the seriousness of the sentence. Two years (with good behavior) and out is more lenient than years of oversight and a decade of probation. A decade? If he is as incorrigible as people assume, then he’ll be in jail soon, for a decade. If he can stay out of trouble for 10 years, the judge made the right call.
With good reason. You are a dipshit. I don’t think you’re ignorant and that is precisely why you are one and deserve all the ire and name calling that can be thrown at you. Fcuk that judge and fcuk you too. Dipshit.
See, AMS, this guy just doesn’t know how to do it. Sad, really. Really sad, when you can’t even spell “Fcuk”…
Often imitated, never duplicated…
People think this swearing thing is easy. It is not. It takes hard work and practice to vary the vulgarity, to properly disperse profanity…
It helps to have an IQ that is above room temperature, unlike our poor, mildly retarded friend here…
That’s why it is considered an Art Form.
Look, if you can’t even spell “fuck” right, you should probably just go eat a bullet or something…
I figured he hadn’t noticed any of your posts, and that he assumed swearing wouldn’t be tolerated. Then he closed with “dipshit,” and I coffeed my monitor.
Mind at least trying to back up your conclusion with the premises you started from and the logic used to get to the conclusion?
“This is where the judge dropped the ball. The sentence should have stated he will serve a mandatory minimum of like 1-3 years if he so much as even jaywalks.”
And yet, justice would imply that the terms of his probation would involve the kind of behavior leading to the crime committed. That is to say: alcohol abuse.
To tack on riders based on other crimes and misdemeanors doesn’t make sense. First and foremost, those would precipitate, AS NEW CRIMES, separate trials for those new crimes. Secondly, tack on those riders implies that he’d have to behave even better than the other citizens. That’s ethical accounting.
All I’m saying is that if you feel like I do, that this was too lenient of a sentence, then the “he could face jail if he slips up” theory has absolutely no teeth. As I said before, he could also be given probation again after killing more people. It does not comport with my sense of justice. Again, this is just my opinion.
Additionally, I believe a violation of probation need not be tailored to the specific characteristics of the underlying offense (i.e. alcohol.)
Tex your crushing it! Nice Job, sorry I missed so much of this today but enjoying catching up
Thanks!
The reasoning in this “critique” is just as tortured and socially irresponsible as was the judge’s decision.
I am all in favor of rehabilitation over punishment, particularly for youth. But, unless all people get the same treatment – rich and poor, black and white alike – then this is another blatant example of the “morality” that Ethan’s parents taught him so well: that wealth and power can demand and receive special treatment under the law.
When I see Judge Boyd offer a half-million dollar rehab program to a black ghetto youth, then I will retract my condemnation. But I’m not holding my breath.
When I see Judge Boyd faced with the same facts and a poor defendant, then we’ll know. Right now, you are just presupposing, and assuming bias without parallel circumstances.
Because poor convicts have to undergo state treatment, as in “inferior,” is no reason to insist that a defendant who has access to better and more effective treatment shouldn’t get it.
Your last paragraph summarizes something I was getting wordy on and then just deleted. Perfectly worded. It’s almost a ‘moral luck’ thing that some can pay for better treatment. But only those who seek the false notion of “equality of outcomes” would consider it unjust… the remedies of which would inevitably be less just overall.
Does that apply to prison too?
Nope. Two different natures of punishment.
So, that would go a long way to explaining the recidivism rates generated by the US penal system…perhaps since you’re supporting this sentence on the basis of positive outcomes (he deserves to make use of the best option open to him) you should apply that same reasoning to sentencing in general?
Ok tiger. That’s two or three times now you’ve attributed assertions to me I’ve not made, I’m pretty much done discussing with you until you rectify this problem. Find where I support the sentence this judge came to, please. You won’t, you’ll only find where we’ve discussed that you can’t prove the sentence was decided only because of socio-economic status.
Absolutely!
Wow — I step away for a few hours …..
And you guys thought I was a bleeding heart liberal — I’m looking downright moderate compared to most of these commenters!
There are, certainly, a great number of contenders for your crown…
I’ll hire you to etch some flowery, poetic passage on it…
I have a plastic coin etched with a happy face on the front and “I Fucked Up This Time” on the rear. It’s followed me through many jobs being passed around to whoever made the most recent major blunder. I suspect that’s the sort of engraved sigil AM would be more likely to appreciate 😀
Not even remotely close… 🙂
Wait, my guess isn’t close or my happy coin is the far and away frontrunner? Because I thought I was starting to understand you…
He won’t move to Texas. I don’t think he can be understood.
It would be something like: “God damn Fuckwit Chew Off Arm God Kill Me Now Princess Sometimes Finds Nut Freakin’ Idiot Can’t Believe Attorney Who the Fuck Degree Fuck Fuck Fuck”
I’m not as eloquent as AM, but it would be something along those lines….
My biggest problem is finding the right font for “ignorant whore” that looks right on a dunce cap.
I am a victim of the medium I have to work with.
Papyrus or Garamond or Marigold, I find are the 3 go to fonts for anything.
Sans Serif is better for a dunce cap though
Dear heavens. Must you be wrong about almost everything?
Serifs on non-stylized fonts communicate class and nobility. Culture must have that.
Sans serif is painful on the eyes, especially on the computer screen. Don’t you want people to read what you type?
And my missives are, if nothing else, cultured…
In a manner of speaking.
Yes.
You’re right. The proper fonts for dunce caps truly is a subject beyond my ken. I’ll submit to your higher authority on this at least.
Ha.
Rats. I’m disappointed. You can do much better AM — and you are actually a lot funnier when you leave the sexual slurs out of your rants.
Have to go now — need to watch back recordings of The View, Oprah, and what looks to be an awesome Hallmark movie — it’s about a battered girlfriend who tracks down and kills her ex (who lives in another state and hasn’t contacted her in 5 years). Spolier alert: She’s found innocent! I also want to pet my cat and ask her opinion about what should be written on your hat/crown for me.
When did Hallmark start rerunning Lifetime movies?
Oh man, I skipped ahead in my notifications, I haven’t gotten the background on these comments but based on this one I am looking forward to getting there. You all were busy today, off for the holidays already?
Yeah that was an awful rendition of ablative.
I wasn’t really trying — it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m not sure I want to win that prize anyway. 🙂
And you guys thought I was a bleeding heart liberal — I’m looking downright moderate compared to most of these commenters!
*************
Yep.
I just said as much.
CNN covered this earlier today.
They showed the place this kid is going, it is a mega-spa that most of us would never set foot inside.
Luxury unlimited.
He’s going to eat organic, chef-prepared meals, swim in the ocean, do yoga and ride horses.
And that is somehow supposed to be punishment for the taking of FOUR lives?
His life is worth saving but the victims’ lives are worth nothing?
The taking of their lives has no price?
Ask yourself honestly, if it was your wife and kid killed at the side of the road by this punk-ass little bastard, would you consider this the correct sentence?
I doubt it.
As a lawyer you think it would be OK.
But if you actually had to feel such a monumental loss, I think you would feel differently.
Your role as a husband and father would override your role as a lawyer.
Heck, you could even wind up crossing over to the other side and tearing up LA / NYC / Chicago Paul Kersey style.
And you know what, there is nothing wrong with wanting someone to be punished FOR A CRIME THEY COMMITTED.
(Not condoning vigilantism.)
The whining about rehabilitating this MURDERER is starting to sound like a Starbuck’s date with a bunch of idiot liberals.
I understand the legalities, all of the nuances of the law and the judge’s expertise.
It may be legally and technically correct, but it is not right.
I feel terrible for the families of those that died.
Really, seriously terrible.
Perhaps all is not lost, the civil suits aplenty are lined up and ready to go.
Counsel for the plaintiff may also “be creative”.
In addition to the four people killed, one of the KILLER’S friends who was riding in the truck was seriously brain-injured and permanently paralyzed.
That should be worth 20 million.
How will these stellar parents pay for Sonny Boy’s punishment when their asses are sued raggedy?
I wait for that day with joy in my angry heart.
We have in this very detailed commentary, exhibit A why Lawyers are many times the most detested people in our society. It seems too often the years of study in some way disconnects them from humanity; many emerge with a twisted/disfigured concept of the term, “blind justice.”
No, in fact that has nothing to do with it. That’s not what lawyers do, and youi should be glad they do what they do, or the jackboots would be at your door. Here: do some homework…https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/05/08/texting-ethics-the-lawyers-duty-to-propose-a-ridiculous-theory-and-the-judges-duty-to-reject-it/
And on cue you validate my comment. I honestly don’t think lawyers are the devil as some may posit. The belief espoused in this linked article simply reinforces my point. Some lawyers believe that the ridiculous serves an important purpose. Emphasis, “important”. Obviously you fall into that category and I entertain no thought of changing that. I read your blog often, shaking my head at the unbelievable positions taken. I decided to comment this time since I was at my computer instead of my usual reading you on my phone. It takes all kinds to make this world go round as my mom used to say.
I think the point of lawyers supporting the ridiculous and judges rejecting is meant to be a constant process of perfecting the law. No law passed can ever hope to account for 100% of all possible exceptions or loopholes. When lawyers seek loopholes or exceptions, sometimes ridiculous ones, then judges have the opportunity to interpret the spirit of the law in the context of the Community that enacted it with the hopes of clarifying what was meant.
This process, which includes ridiculous arguments, helps perfect what the community means by the law.
perfect response. That was textbook worthy. You get an A.
That smacks of sarcasm. I’m finding it hard not to read it as anything else.
It’s not a “belief.” It’s called a duty, and all ethical lawyers believe it, because it is part of teh tradition and mission of the profession, and also true. “Ridiculous” legal theories include strict liability and punitive damages, insanity and more. All new theories sound ridiculous, until a jury or judge accepts them. People like you would strangle them in the crib. Spend more time using your head and less time shaking it.
This is ridiculous… The killer should be in a prison cell, just like I would if I committed such a damaging crime. This “child” deserves nothing less than being Bubba’s new best friend, with only a hard prison pillow to dampen his cries.
Applauding prison rape now, are we? Nice. That’s one major reason to keep kids OUT of jail.
Why Jack? Even the almost absolutist that I am, can see the value of utilitarianism in sentencing!!
Many good arguments made here. But, why do those on both sides Insist on leveling insults and jibes at those who disagree with them. It’s juvenile. Even if you’re on the receiving end of this behavior, ignore it and make a reasonable response. With so many of these posts, I read them and really pay attention. As soon as the junior high comments are used, the credibility of the poster is diminished.
Most positive new voice we have had here in a long time. Brava,Joanne.
Thank you. These discussions are great and thought provoking. How about starting a discussion on what is fair and reasonable representation?
Lately, I have been appalled at some lawyers antics. Searching your site. I’ll bet you discuss it.
We’ll fix that soon enough…
It still smacks of “to big to fail” mentality.
WHAT????? I think its fair to say that there is no similarity at all. Did you comment on the right post????
No, he was delayed in responding to this post
Which reminds me: I wish I wasn’t glad that the Boeing Union is about to learn a painful lesson in math. But I am glad. The unions need to learn math. Demanding higher wages than the market will tolerate is like demanding Niagara Falls to stop flowing. Only one side wins the argument.
I this case: math wins. (The Boeing union loses)
so, if this judge was soooooo understanding and just wanted to salvage a youth’s life, then why did she give a black kid 10 years that punched another person, killing that person? Couldn’t the same kind of compassion have been used in that case? This author is clueless
She could have, maybe she should have. Violence is a different matter than irresponsibility. There are good reasons to regard it as more serious. Hurting someone intentionally is worse than hurting someone recklessly. Was the other kid a first offender? There are other factors. If he was treated too harshly, that is no reason to do the same thing again.
I’m a former prosecutor, a lawyer, a parent and an ethicist—I have SOME clues.
The point isn’t the lawyers using a ridiculous defense. It’s the judge’s duty to shoot it down, if it smells bad. The judge didn’t shoot it down here. Whether the judge mentioned affluenza or not, her decision still has the appearance of being affected by it. Agree or not?
Can you use a similar defense from the other side, for someone who grew up in a terrible situation, filled with crime and drugs in the family and the neighborhood? Does it justify murder, if a 16 year old grew up in poverty, and seemingly never learned right from wrong? Just asking.
Seriously? Those arguments have been SOP since the Sixties, absurdly so. They have saved so many killers from death row, it’s beyond counting.
Does that make it right?
Depends.
Darn that ethics… So situational.
There are several problems, if not direct contradictions, in your argument:
“I have no idea whether Judge Boyd’s sentence was appropriate or not, and neither do you”, yet, “Should we question verdicts and sentences that seem wrong to us? Absolutely.” So with no idea of the appropriateness of the sentence we should question it since it seems wrong? How can it seem anything if we have no idea?
“His parents were ordered to pay the $450,000-a-year cost for his treatment”, yet,” Directing her remarks to Couch, she made it clear that he, not his parents, is responsible for his actions.” Is a $450,000 order not shifting some of the responsibility onto the parents? More importantly, though, much of the public outrage seems to point to the unlikelihood that a poor 16 year old gets ordered the same treatment instead of jail time. In fact, it’s an impossibility that someone poor would have the opportunity to attend such a treatment facility in these circumstances. Thus, the rich have it better off, so much of the public says.
“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.” So your argument is that in 20 years if all is well with Couch, justice prevailed? Hobbes’s fool might be the only reader impressed with that specious reasoning. Plus, let’s not redirect the issue. If you think the treatment will work, argue for it. If you think a rehabilitation approach should be taken, consistently of course, then say it; argue for it. But don’t give us the “in 20 years…” line with no supporting argument. You’re skirting the issue.
I agree with Cogito that the sentence is clearly more lenient than the alternative prison sentence. Your response was: “Two years (with good behavior) and out is more lenient than years of oversight and a decade of probation. A decade? If he is as incorrigible as people assume, then he’ll be in jail soon, for a decade. If he can stay out of trouble for 10 years, the judge made the right call.” This is probably just ignorance on your part, but if released from a long jail sentence in Texas in two years, Couch would undoubtedly be on probation. And the $450,000-per-year treatment center looks more like a resort than what most people would think when they hear ‘treatment center’.
“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.” But the idea that judges send a message to others in their sentencing is at least part of the issue. You are building a bit of a straw man by adding ‘powerful’ and ‘harshly’ (probably a loaded term wouldn’t you say?). The message doesn’t have to be powerful and the sentence doesn’t have to be harsh. It, nevertheless, obviously should be a consideration. It matters, at least some, that other 16-year-olds, and younger kids, are likely to view the lenient sentence of Couch as much less of a deterrent than jail time.
“Hurting someone intentionally is worse than hurting someone recklessly.” Perhaps, but the reckless killing of four people is worse than intentionally hurting someone who happens to die as result (still killing, yes, I know, but neither case is intentional killing).
I agree with you that the media has mischaracterized the case. But when the defense makes, as their primary defense, the affluenza argument and the judge gives such a lenient sentencing, what does it look like happened? The judge seems to have been at least partially convinced. The affluenza argument, as you point out, relies on the parents being blamed to some degree. And, as I have suggested, the $450,000-per-year cost of treatment sounds like shifting some of the blame to the parents. Now, whether the judge was, in fact, influenced by that particular defense, I agree that we can’t know for sure. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime. And we should at least question the sentence, right? Even though no one has an idea 🙂
1. “No idea” means, in such a context, “we don’t know” (for certain.)” i will cop to using unclear vernacular. Nonetheless, we question many things we don’t understand, and that is appropriate. From the outside, the verdict seems strangely lenient. That’s reason to question it; it is not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion about it, as the critics are. I wrote that the judge deserves the benefit of the doubt, and in this case, there is doubt about what us the best balancing of interests, Some sentencing is so awful, there is no doubt.
2. “It matters, at least some, that other 16-year-olds, and younger kids, are likely to view the lenient sentence of Couch as much less of a deterrent than jail time.” i doubt that any sentence has any deterrent qualities at all. If you asked Couch, as hypothetical, unless he’s a moron (and sentencing morons harshly is cruel), what would happen to him if he killed four people joyriding drunk, I’m certian he would have guessed, “Go to jail for a long long time?”getting caught isn’t part of a typical teens thought process.
3. “Hurting someone intentionally is worse than hurting someone recklessly.” Perhaps, but the reckless killing of four people is worse than intentionally hurting someone who happens to die as result (still killing, yes, I know, but neither case is intentional killing).”
No. The fact that what Couch his killed four people and injured two others is pure, bad luck. He is no worse a criminal than someone who did what he did and killed nobody. His conduct was the same. Sometimes the justice system punished conduct, and sometimes it punished outcomes. Conduct makes more sense, and is fairer. We should punish people for what they can control, primarily. This could mean punishing any drunk driver as harshly, or nearly, as someone whose drunk driving ends up killing people. That would be fine with me.
3. “The judge seems to have been at least partially convinced. The affluenza argument, as you point out, relies on the parents being blamed to some degree. And, as I have suggested, the $450,000-per-year cost of treatment sounds like shifting some of the blame to the parents.” Untrue. The defense’s argument was that the parents, not Ethan, were responsible. Boyd specifically rejected that premise. As for the costs, that’s because he’s a minor. His parents could have won Parents of the Year for ten years, and they would still be liable for the bill.
In what context does “no idea” mean “we don’t for for certain”? It surely means “no idea”. Anyway, I was just quibbling with you on that point for jest.
“If you asked Couch, as hypothetical, unless he’s a moron (and sentencing morons harshly is cruel), what would happen to him if he killed four people joyriding drunk, I’m certian he would have guessed, “Go to jail for a long long time?”getting caught isn’t part of a typical teens thought process.”
Perhaps, but what about Joe today? It seems, assuming any sort of news has flashed in front of his eyes today, that he just might say “equestrian therapy and probation”.
For your first point #3, I agree completely that the actions of people ought to be judged according to conduct rather than results (from an ethical point of view). But that is not how the legal system works and we should, at least for this argument’s sake, respect that. Vehicular manslaughter and DWI are treated very differently in the courts. Now, to go back to an ethical perspective, I think the world would be better off (i.e., I prefer it) if there was more punching (the general sort) and fewer drunk, joy-riding 16 year olds in pickups.
For your second point #3, he’s a minor with affluent parents who can afford an extravagant rehab facility. Does that not make his ‘punishment’ much more pleasant than the poor? Surely. “Boyd specifically rejected that premise.” Well, actions speak louder than words I’d say.
know*
1. “Now, to go back to an ethical perspective, I think the world would be better off (i.e., I prefer it) if there was more punching (the general sort) and fewer drunk, joy-riding 16 year olds in pickups.”
I think that’s a highly dubious proposition.
2. “It seems, assuming any sort of news has flashed in front of his eyes today, that he just might say “equestrian therapy and probation”. Boy, the legend of Zoe’s fantasy island of rehab grows apace. No true rehab facillity is a picnic. You are under the control of others, and teens, in particular, hate that.
3.“In what context does “no idea” mean “we don’t know for certain”? If someone asks me when Millard Fillmore was born, I might well say, “I have no idea,” Actually, I have some idea: I know he was President until 1852, which means he was born in the vicinity of 1800, probably a few years earlier. “I don’t know for certain” would be a better response, but I presume that’s the gist of what I have communicated. I said I agreed that I should have been clearer.
4. “But that is not how the legal system works and we should, at least for this argument’s sake, respect that.” It’s how the legal system works if any particular judge wants it to work that way. If you agree with the proposition, then you should agree with the sentence.
5.”Does that not make his ‘punishment’ much more pleasant than the poor?” So what? The goal of sentencing minors is to achieve something positive within the available resources. Choosing a less effective rehabilitation regimen so that one offender’s punishment won’t be less unpleasant than another’s is irrational. The goal of the justice system isn’t equality of unpleasantness.
“1. “Now, to go back to an ethical perspective, I think the world would be better off (i.e., I prefer it) if there was more punching (the general sort) and fewer drunk, joy-riding 16 year olds in pickups.”
I think that’s a highly dubious proposition.”
I agree with Jason. I’d prefer such a world. And I don’t think there’s anything particularly dubious about our preferences.
Boyd’s sentence deserves to be scorned on two counts. There is no defensible reason I can think of for why a drunk driver who kills someone as a result of his actions gets off without jail time. Moreover, not everyone is lucky enough to afford to send their kids to a posh rehab facility. Last night, Anderson Cooper Cooper then reminded Miller that the same judge who sentenced Couch sent a less-privileged kid to juvenile hall for 10 years–and yet, still insisted with a straight face that there wasn’t a separate system for the well-off.
We’ve covered this. Drunk driving and assault are materially different offenses; different crimes, different sentencing guidelines. You can’t use them for valid comparisons (and Cooper should know better). And your first point makes no sense: if such rehab was superior to state programs, are you saying that those who can afford it should be forced to use lesser, less effective rehab facilities because everyone can’t afford them? That’s called “making the perfect the enemy of the good.”
This is all nothing but a mutation of the rampant ignorance that fueled the Occupy protests.
Jealousy of the rich turns to hate, and when coupled with ignorance and little more than “we feel something, and that makes us right”, you end up with droves of raging morons who come here and bitch and moan about “no justice”.
They are like the Trayvon Martin crowd, only they didn’t need months of media and race-baiting to get there.
They are becoming very well trained useful idiots.
This wasn’t just drunk driving–it was drunk driving and vehicular homicide. And it was Miller who insisted with a straight face that there isn’t a separate system for the well-off.
This case is beginning to remind me of the Leopold-Loeb trial, Not teh case itself, but the reasoning in some of the comments. L-L were young, spoiled, rich, Jewish, thrill-killing, neo-Nazi gay assholes, and since they killed a little boy just to show they could, everyone had about ten reasons too hate them and wish them dead. But their parents paid a fortune for the greatest lawyer in US history to defend them. He tried new defenses; he had a psychiatrist testify that they were, in essence, crazy with “affluenza,” and then he ended with an appeal to mercy rather than vengeance, the greatest argument against capital punishment anyone has ever made. And they were spared. I’m sure a poor defendant who couldn’t afford Clarence Darrow would have been executed. That doesn’t make the judge’s decision on Leopold and Loeb wrong.
Has anyone even pointed out the obvious? Namely, that what should really to be discussed isn’t how to make rich people use worse rehab (an argument akin to trying to treat the wealth/income disparity by taxing the rich with no intent to spend the money for anything, not even the debt), but to improve the quality and affordability of rehab for those of us less economically secure.
Yeah maybe so. But then you have to run down a progressive rat hole. Is that worth it?
If we actually figure something useful out, even if it’s just “these proposed solutions suck, and here’s why”. It’s worth noting that I didn’t say how that goal was to be achieved, anyways; “progressive” means aren’t the only ones available.
I talked about that. Of course, criminal rehab should be improved — but to a point. In any event, it would be a far better use of resources to improve these kids’ lives (and only so much can be done there) rather than build posh rehab facilities. The ounce of prevention quote comes to mind.
Agreed.
You mean George S Patton’s quote?
Points to you.
Correct. It doesn’t make the judgment wrong for someone executed. It only further proves that our system is designed to err on the side of leniency and mercy.
Which ends up protecting people from being arbitrary political targets of the state. That’s what it all hinges on. Protecting people from that.
On a related note, I think some of the controversies over the past last couple years or so have given you another potential entry for your rationalizations/misconceptions list: Lowest Common-Denominator Socialism, aka Socialism By Subtraction, aka “If He Didn’t Get It, Nobody Should.”
“Lowest Common Denominator Socialism” is redundant.
Just say “socialism”
I think I’ll go with the second one, come to think of it; it clarifies most clearly that the argument is purely destructive in its logic, without even the fig leaf of redistribution.
Though I suppose the “He” should be replaced with “They”.
Yes, excellent observation. Is there anyone on this blog who picks his spots better than you do? I doubt it.
ummm i like facts so this mental gymnastics you’re pulling is horse shiiiit…. he got drunk underage from stolen alcohol and killed 4 people… the judge is a corrupt/ignorant/despicable p o s thinking he even deserves rehabilitation and should be put away for 4 life terms for the lives he took. She gave a black 14 year old 10 years for punching a guy who fell down hit his head and died…. this judge deserves jail time for being corrupt or a complete idiot…
ummmm..yeah, Kenny, nice “facts.” Mental gymnastics, or, as they are called in the civilized world, making distinctions, analysis and valid comparisons, are to facts like a recipe to raw food. People, like judges, have to pay attention to other facts that are more than nuances, like the difference between a reckless adventure gone wrong and a physical attack with intent to harm. Or the difference between mere characterization and an actual argument.
Let’s just say that had a rehab centre been one chosen by professionals in the Texas Juvenile Justice system, or one with a proven track record of success within the Texas jurisdiction, where progress could be monitored, I would have had a very different view.
I have grave misgivings as to the practicality of the sentence. If the perp misbehaves while in rehab – who is the guardian? Who gets to decide what to report to the Texas Juvenile Justice system? How long must he stay in rehab? 30 days? 2 years? Until judged “rehabilitated”, and if so, by who?
After that – what are the probation conditions, and who will be appointed to monitor them? There are obvious jurisdictional issues, especially with an unemancipated minor. When he reaches his majority, the situation changes again.
Under these circumstances, the fact that the perp has access to great wealth and the best legal representation money can buy to run interference means I have no confidence that rehabilitation is the object here.
Under other circumstances, things would be different, but the cumulative effect of a luxury treatment centre, out of state, one chosen by his parents, with so many practical jurisdictional difficulties in ensuring or even monitoring compliance with conditions means that I find the sentence unsafe.
See, newcomer fuckwits, this is a good way to make an objection to Jack’s post.
By the time we reach the last comment on this post we are all going to sound like AM
Oh wait, you meant the other AM. Oh well, close enough.
MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
So this is your nefarious plan for the eventual robot uprising, Mr. Allied Mastercomputer!
This … I guess, column? lacks basis, contradicts itself, posits false information, & engages in quixotic conjecture. First, by not being in court, we’re all receiving second or third hand information. What is the writer basing his, “thinking the judge did her job quite well” on? & how is his opinion any different from people “pundits” who believe otherwise?
Where did the specious notion that the judge “ordered” the kids family to pay $450,000 a year for rehab come from?? This was recommended by counsel.
How do we know that this kid is not an incorrigible offender, or that perpetuating the “affluenza” practice by not punishing him for action taking through his own volition (not his parents) will contribute to his subsequent rehabilitation?
I could point to copious other inconsistencies, but I’ll sum it up by saying…The writer of this post is no different from those with whom he repudiates in the media for voicing an opinion based on the same second or third hand information. He should consider this as he unleashes vacuous strictures.
You undercut your legitimacy, Burt, by misquoting the post. (And my name is Jack Marshall, I’m an ethicist, and the information is available on the site.) I said that “I think the judge, despite what we are hearing from the media, may have done her job well.”, not, as you falsely quoted,“thinking the judge did her job quite well.” I said she deserved the benefit of the doubt, and the post was about the area of those doubts.
Don’t put words in my mouth and then use them to show how wrong I am.
And you did not, or cannot read what I really wrote. I repeat: she did not, as far as any evidence shows, buy the “affluenza” defense. All that snotty indignation, and no commentary on what I actually wrote at all! Pretty pathetic.
Oh goody… A fresh round of these fuckwits. How “nice”.
Jack, how many of these people actually have unique IP addresses?
That was what I wondered yesterday, I hope that it isa just a couple of trolls