If the judge ruled that his parents were to blame, surely his parents should now be prosecuted?

I agree this is a fucked up judgement.

Beyond fucked up and the best thing will be when the families sue his family (who has been found liable through their negligent upbringing of this bastard) into the poor house. The families of the victims will, I hope, get together with one top notch attorney willing to take it on a contingency basis (I'm sure with this case there are plenty out there) and take away everything from them.

But then, he will kill again after he gets out of his long-term facility and then he will be an adult with no excuse and get life.

Now they are calling it "affluenza."

Is this a joke? Is the sentence appealable?

Possibly, but very difficult if my understanding is correct. There have been appeals of "too lenient" that have held up, but they are few and far between.

The affluenza part is really fucked up and probably hurts the public view of the judge more than the support it gives to his decision. He could've easily backed up his decision by simply pointing out his age. Sentences like these are not unusual for someone of his age comitting similar crimes - not that it makes the sentences right that way. I think part of the issue is the age limit the states set for driving - when you set it lower than a limit for legal adulthood, you will always wind up with sentences lower than I believe they should be because of the appeal to the offender's age. If the society believes you are responsible enough to drive a car, you should be fully responsible when you fuck up while doing that, especially when you are driving intoxicated, which is "double" illegal when you are 16 (I also think that being allowed to drink long after you can drive or die for your country abroad is wrong but that's the way Americans want it so I respect that).

If I had gotten a DUI at 16 I would have gotten the death penalty by way of my parents.

If I get a DUI ever, the same probably applies.

If he was black, his ass would be in jail for the next 25 years.

Most other kids would have been tried as an adult or held as a juvenile in jail until they were an adult. It is possible as an adult to get off, but you really need some good circumstances like not being able to see the victims (next to a car) or a problem with the vehicle being driven.

The "affluenza" argument the kid's lawyer made through the psychiatrist's testimony is ridiculous. I wonder how it even got in.

However, before we let lose the dogs of outrage, I'd like to know if this is atypical sentencing for underage drunk drivers in Texas. Does Texas normally lock up children in prisons rather than put them on probation and enter them into a treatment facility, as this ruling does? If what happened here is what happens in this situation in Texas, then this is just a click-bait story that makes a normal case with a sexy anomaly (the stupid psychologist's argument) look like a horrible miscarriage of justice.

However, if Texas policy really is to throw 16 year olds who make tragic mistakes in prison then the ruling here is really quite disgusting. Almost as disgusting as that being the actual policy.

Did a little digging. It looks like in his county 1 in 3 juveniles are tried as adults when they are eligible to be done so. For his age group it moves closer to 1 in 2.

That doesn't tell us much since that data would, I assume, include all crimes.

Unless this ruling is way out of line with how other 16 years olds in this situation are treated, we should be mad at the lawyer for making such an offensive argument, not the judge's ruling.

Eh, that was the closest thing I could find to actual data on it. It wasn't specific enough.

Invictus, if the judge had let the guy off with probation because he was 16, no one would have argued. We wouldn't have heard about it if not for this whole "affluenza" thing.

You don't know if the judge gave probation and rehab because of the psychologist's testimony on "affluenza." Just because the defense presents expert testimony doesn't mean the judge has to listen to it and include it in the reasoning behind the judgement.

Like I said, this may (if probation and rehab instead of prison is atypical for Texas in these situations) be nothing more than click bait. The journalist wants to get people in high dudgeon and get hits on his employer's site, despite reality being far less outrageous than things look at first glance. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's a real possibility.

Then it worked.

It's worse than it looks. This kid has a history of being in trouble.

Hey, he could be a real piece of shit. I don't know or care. That's a separate issue, though.

"mad at the lawyer for making such an offensive argument"

For all of you mad at the obviously-offensive "affluenza" argument, are you equally appalled when lawyers/activists makes the argument that a kid isn't at fault because he's a "underprivileged" with no Dad in the home who's Momma work two minimum wage jobs to survive, yadda yadda yadda it's not his fault because he's had a poor upbringing blah blah blah?

Same argument applies to why some kids can't do good in school, can't succeed in work , etc. Is the opposite of "affluenza" a legitimate excuse for being a fuck-up?

I don't accept those excuses either, krellin. I get mad at any "excuse" for committing a crime when the person is old enough and mature enough (the two are different) to know better. Now, I don't blame the defense. It is their job to look for anything to get their client off. I blame the judge who buys into the bullshit theory or the jurors who were too stupid to see what is in front of their eyes.

krellin - those are real psychological effects that *explain* behavior. But in no way, shape or form do either of those justify behavior.

But should explaining the behavior be a reason to let a person off *for& their behavior? In my mind, no.

It should be reason to get them help for the behavior but there are still consequences for actions done unto others.

And that I can agree with. But would you agree that probation only is not enough punishment for the action? I would have said "incarceration until 18 then 8 years probation" and kept the counseling requirement up. Or maybe 2 years of in clinic rehab then detention till 21 then 5 years of probation. But 10 years probation and order to get counseling is not enough. IF he is so "sick" with "affluenza," he needs to be taken out of the community until his "affluenza" is cured.

If you want to see what happens to a person like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Busch_IV
Scroll down to his arrest record and remember he was underage when he was drinking and the original police report in the newspapers was that they couldn't get a hold of him for over a day until he had a lawyer and it was after blood tests wouldn't have been useful.