Dec 23, 2013 2 min read

“Affluenza” is not, should not be, a legal defense. Rather, affluenza is an untenable, legal concoction that diminishes our trust in our justice system and could lead to future legal outrages.

“Affluenza” is the term used to describe why a Ethan Couch, a 16- year-old drunk in Texas, three times over the legal driving limit, shammed his vehicle into another, killing four people and paralyzing another.

He was sentenced to treatment in an upscale rehab facility, his family footing the $500,000 bill, and put on 10-years probation. Simply stated, the argument for “affluenza” is that the teenager grew up in a rich family that didn’t, or couldn’t, teach him right from wrong, or looked the other way believing that throwing a lot of money would solved all problems.

Even drunk driving. Even manslaughter.

If Couch had taken a gun into his high school, shot, gravely wounded or killed four fellow students and teachers, would we consider “affluenza” a cogent defense?

Doubt it.

The cockamamie “affluenza” legal defense creates another problem. And it’s only a matter of time that a lawyer will argue it, and it’s this. That a client should not be held responsible for some heinous crime because his or her client grew up in a poor community and was raised by irresponsible parents.

Call it “needyfluenza.”

In either case, the rich or the poor, if the children can’t, aren’t, shouldn’t, be held responsible, maybe we should hold their parents responsible for not being more involved in raising their kids.

Richard Ringer

Uniontown