These are the types of people the cops should be shooting.

The judge is the type of person the cops should be shooting.

In Saudi Arabia he would have been executed, and Jamie would be very cross.

So what are we arguing for here? More jail time for mentally ill juveniles? Have I woken up in the Star Trek evil alternate reality or something?

They should try to cure his affluenza by talking away all his money.

Octavious, if that's what it takes to convince you you're living in the evil alternate reality, I have news for you: a helluva lot of people in this world already live there. This kid isn't living there 'cause he's high-status, and that's all there is to it.

In a better world, maybe he gets better mental health treatment and someone keeps him away from his parents, but there are limits to what can be done.

No, Letho, what is amazing me is that the likes of Bo are on the hang 'em, flog 'em side of the debate. That's just so damned weird.

I can't say for sure, of course, but my impression is that Bo is on the "letting people who are high-status get away with shit that people who are low-status wouldn't get away with is infuriating" side of the debate, rather than expressing any concrete policy preference.

He said the judge should be shot, which is a pretty clear expression of dissatisfaction with the judgement. He did not say, for example "Jolly good work from the judge. An exemplar of best practice that should be adopted across the spectrum of society post haste to inject good sense and compassion and to counter the perception of racial bias in the legal system"

Well, golly, the result suggests that *somebody* fucked up. Do you expect him to be satisfied? The rest comes down to expressing a system 1 reaction instead of a system 2 deliberation.

I have absolutely no idea what a system 1 reaction is, which is a shame because I suspect that you have a point hidden somewhere in that.

Tax the rich. More.

"No, Letho, what is amazing me is that the likes of Bo are on the hang 'em, flog 'em side of the debate."

You know what's amazing to me, Octavious? Up to 75% of convicted drunk drivers will keep on driving on their suspended license. 28 people die a day in the United States in drunk driving crashes. 10,000 people died in the US in a drunk driving crash in 2013. One of them was a friend of mine and four of them were the people that this kid killed.

The CNN article says that his .24 BAC was three times the legal limit, but actually, it's an infinite amount above the legal limit because it's not legal to drink until you're 21. He was 16. So he's a 16 year old, he was well beyond drunk and infinitesimally above the legal limit driving a truck with two people in the bed (who were hurt in the crash along with the four killed), and he killed four bystanders because he ran off the road and hit them.

The judge didn't send this kid to jail because a) he's rich, and b) she wanted to give him a second chance. Honestly, I get both of those things, including the affluenza aspect (it's repulsive that it would be used as a defense in court, though). However, she didn't hold Ethan accountable for what he did and make him understand how he took four lives and ruined many more, and she didn't help the parents understand what needed to be done to make Ethan's second chance a worthwhile risk. If she wasn't prepared to do these things, then Ethan should be in jail.

He should be in jail anyway. A lighter sentence would have been less time, not probation. Probation might as well be a warning when it comes to DUI manslaughter. Drunk driving, as I already demonstrated, is a massive issue and it shouldn't be a catch-and-release scenario. It should be prison time.

@ Octavious: "In Saudi Arabia he would have been executed, and Jamie would be very cross."

Well, yes, you're right. I don't support the death penalty in any case whatsoever. This young man is clearly an asshole and his mother is hardly helping matters, but I certainly don't think he should be put to death.

System 1 is rapid heuristics generating impulsive judgments. System 2 is analytical thinking producing deliberate judgments. Kahneman is a good read. Anyway, Bo makes good points now he's back on.

Does he? I confess that the American legal system is something of a mystery to me, so what are considered just punishments and what aren't may seem rather foreign.

From a personal perspective I have never seen a good reason why someone who gets drunk and drives dangerously with no consequences should be treated any differently to someone who gets drunk, drives dangerously, and accidentally kills a dozen people.

From a point of view of responsibility, I take the view that if you have the right to drive you have full responsibility. I have some sympathy for him for having awful parents, but that should not be a mitigating factor.

Still, I don't think jail time was appropriate. For someone who had no violent intent, and wished no one any harm, I think the judge got it largely right. I'd have given him a driving ban and a hefty amount of community service. I think the alcohol ban was an error, purely because it's so hard to keep, but hey ho.

Breaking the conditions given to him, however, should be instant jail. Although a life time's self imposed exile isn't exactly a picnic either.

At a bare, *bare* minimum, there are degrees of dangerous drunk driving, and if someone kills four people, he's *probably* on the higher end of the scale and requires greater legal constraint.

That's, y'know, assuming we throw out the whole 'killing people > not killing people, all else equal' premise as a general sentencing practice. Personally, I think manslaughter carries a nonzero sentence. I don't think that's particularly controversial, but if *you* haven't seen a good argument for it, I guess we should just throw the whole thing out?

Sorry, Letho, you seem to be confusing me for someone who is imposing their views on someone else. Unless I have powers I'm unaware of I'm pretty sure that isn't happening.

He may not have intended harm, but he was certainly indifferent to the fact that he may cause it, and from my point of view, that's just as bad. Anyone that drives drunk falls under that category, and I agree with you - even those who are fortunate enough not to cause any harm should be treated the same as those who do.

The alcohol ban was already imposed under federal law. Breaking a federal law is a violation of any probation, so it was largely a symbolic measure.

Having awful parents shouldn't matter a whole lot, but if the judge believed that it mattered when she ruled the case, then the parents should have held the responsibility for what happened. If the defense was so ready to put the blame on the parents, then they should have actively done so rather than only doing so in order to get the kid out of trouble. That means that parents should be in prison. I don't think that that is appropriate, but simply adhering to what the judge ruled and what the defense argued, it is what they should have done.

There are limits to making the parents accessories to the crime since they weren't present at the time their son got the alcohol, drunk the alcohol, or drove drunk. Now if the mother helped her son avoid probation, then she is an accessory to that crime and could see jail time depending when and where they are when they get caught.

Now letting the son off with no jail time when their were deaths as a result of so many other crimes was stupid on so many levels. You need to make sure the results are really known to him.

Of course there are limits to making the parents accessories, but the defense's argument was specifically that the parents were accessories and that they effectively committed the crime by raising their son without limits or discipline of basically any kind. The same principle should apply then too. That's where the judge got it so wrong.

Part of the reason drunk driving is so common and trivialized is because we don't treat it seriously enough in our nation. Probation and community service? Those are slaps on the wrist. If you kill four people, you need to be held seriously accountable.

I also agree with bo and Oct that people who don't kill anyone but do the same actions should be held equally accountable.

Jail time for drunk drivers. That's the only thing they understand. Give 'em time to dry out and think about it.

Pay a fine. Go on probation. Lose your license. Those do nothing to prevent recidivism for this crime.

Could also raise the driving age and lower the drinking age. If you start driving at 18 but you can drink by 16, you'll have had two years to learn about yourself and your limits before you ever get behind the wheel at all and you'll know how much alcohol can seriously fuck you up. It sounds ridiculous but there are plenty of places where drinking is legal by 16.

US raised the drinking age to reduce drunk driving by having teen agers get used to driving before they started to drink and drive. I have a few friends that are safer drivers when they are drunk since they know their reaction times will be slower so they slow down and pay more attention to their driving.

There will be bad drivers regardless. I don't doubt that some people will do better learning how to drive before they drink, but it seems to me that the more impactful thing is the drinking. I would be shocked if increasing the driving age wouldn't make roads safer on its own, but if it doesn't, then increasing awareness (which is already happening) for drunk driving, upping the consequences, and potentially something like lowering the drinking age would do wonders.

How does the US compare to other nations in regards to drink driving? I know the figures are a little iffy, as many places tend to add it as a contributory factor to a crash if one of the drivers has a hint of alcohol about them regardless of whether it was or not, but there must be hints.

In the UK you can drive from 17 in theory, but in reality insurance costs have priced a lot of people out. To get the insurance as low as possible youngsters are increasingly signing up to those ghastly monitoring boxes that keep track of your speed, driving style, and when you're driving. It is a horrible, vile idea... but it is quite effective.

You're allowed to drink pretty much from the age you start school, but can't drink in a pub until 16, and then only with food.

International comparison is difficult since standards differ by country. Moreover, many studies seem to be using % of fatalities that were alcohol induced as a test statistic, which is terribly uninformative.

*standards: meeting the legal definition of intoxication for the purpose of accident statistics