Texas neck and neck with Florida for most ridiculous legal system.

Could they not find Richy Rich a comfy cot in juvi for at least 6 or 12 months?

Anyone want to sign my Petition to force Texas to Secede?

Or just give it back to Mexico. At least y'all Texans could play on PokerStars again. Win Win imo.

Maybe that was an appropriate sentence in a vacuum. I'm not sure. Maybe the problem is all the draconian sentencing bull**** that is the norm.

Still, he should get what everybody else gets regardless of his family's wealth. I'm just saying he is a kid who made a stupid mistake and, I assume, not a malicious one. I'm not ready to throw him into a prison and ruin his life but for the preservation of equal justice.

It's ironic how the judge seems so willing to consider the oh so subtle untoward aspects of this kid's upbringing which presumably enjoyed an idyllic setting, while kids who come from a hellish ghetto get like no understanding or leniency whatsoever. Logically it should be the other way around, the discrepancy explained by class warfare.

Affluenza is a desirable and perverse illness, as it actually grants you immunity. How much would you pay this brat to sneeze in your face? I want immunity too.

pretty sure the jail time for 5 counts of vehicular manslaughter (or 4 counts plus assault or w/e if the 5th person isn't dead) plus a DUI, plus a theft charge "in a vacuum" is not 10 years probation.

Judge should be put in prison.

At least he didn't steal a pizza.

If the parents were sued would you guys have a problem with that or no?

Life in prison.

Question:
If this was the basis of the court's leniency:
Why aren't the parents penalized? I thought parents were somewhat responsible for the actions of their kids while they're minors? If the court is letting the kid go because of the failures of the parents, can't the parents be legally culpable?

It's 2013, nobody is responsible for anything anymore, there's always an excuse or somebody to point the finger at.

I'd say 15 years,eligible for early release after 8 would have been fair for a minor, if he was an adult 25-35 years.

It's really hard to raise kids when you're rich.

I hate to break it to all the tough-on-crime folks, but the trend toward trying juveniles in the adult system has been pretty sharply reversed in the past few years:

The Duker- wow that is an odd and obscure 80's movie throwback. Three O'Clock High is one of my favorites. You know Duker represents the Nazi SS, right?

Bootstrap your way out of prison imo.

It never occurred to me, but you're right I guess. I remember the principal had some explicit nazi references, so by extension that makes Duke his SS man. That's a bummer. I just liked his one memorable line "Tell all your little friends - there's no escaping The Duker!" plus the fact that he was played by a younger version of Fox Mulder's boss from the X-Files.

The way I remember it, Duke was a buffoon who got what he deserved in the end anyway.

Ironically Duke definitely represents a black-and-white tough-on-crime approach to juvenile justice, so he'd fit right in with the consensus of this thread.

I remember seeing 3 O' Clock high when I was a little kid and seeing it along with The Karate Kid and Christine made me think high school must be the equivalent of a prison full of people waiting to beat the **** out of me for no reason.

Not sure how system works down there but this defense almost sound to me like "go easy and you will get big donations for future elections"

This or straight up got paid money to go easy on him.

lol Texas.

Nope, I'm fine with that.

It was a company vehicle, so def will be able to sue. So maybe the company is sued, if incorporated, and not the parents personally.

Since his parents were the cause of their son's Affluenza, I wouldn't have a problem if his parents were jailed either. Or jail Rick Perry. That'd work too.

Not sure how you can kill that many people driving drunk and not go to jail or juvi.

I know a retired teacher who was driving sober and hit and killed a mentally disabled person crossing the street (blinded by sunlight). She almost went to jail, but lost her license for the rest of her life I think. Her husband is even an elected town official, but they still put her through the ringer. She went through complete hell, though, thinking she was going to do 5-10 years. She finally pleaded guilty and took the license loss.

The judges are elected in Texas, huh?

Most states in the south elect judges. Judges that are elected can be Magistrate, Probate, State court, and some Southern states elect Superior court judges too. Others like Appeals, Juvenile, and Supreme are appointed.

It varies between states and county by county.

Yeah, I thought they were.

It seems to me that, if the same federal campaign finance laws govern judicial elections, judicial bribery could become a huge problem.

Whether judges should be elected or appointed is a good topic for debate imo. I'm for appointment.

I'm not sure what the pros for election even are, but people (nutcases) around here always scream for the election of judges because they think the judges are too soft or something because my state is mostly liberal, although many judges were appointed by Republican governors in years past.

I've also been thinking lately that pols just run for national election to get rich, with millions of the campaign cash funneled to family and friends. But even in state and local elections, campaign cash can find its way to the elected official's pockets, and may influence their decisions on the bench, just as pols' decisions are influenced by those who contribute to their campaigns.

I am pro-election not appointment.

The power to elect the highest position in the judicial government should be in the hands of the people and not in hands of just one person or a panel of a few. It also holds judges accountable for their actions if they are seeking office and the prerequisite is high in some southern states/counties. The judge ITC was retiring and not seeking re-election.

Judicial decisions should be made according and accountable to the law and evidence, not the dictates of the electorate.

It's not necessary the "dictates of the electorate". What I meant by that(using this case as an example) is that if the local electorate disagreed with the judgement terms(like probation for killing 4 people). They possess the power every term to elect a judge that will handout a judgement for crimes they agree with.

No, I wasn't saying you said anything about evidence. I'm just saying on what a judge should base his or her decisions.

Judges should not be making decisions based on whether or not they think they will get re-elected. They should make decisions based on the law and the evidence.