It's good to be rich in Texas

[Chaddyboxer]

This sh#t.........

Isn't justice.

Plain and simple.

[HSKR]

while no one is arguing that the rich in california are not afforded similar advantages to the rich in texas, there are obvious differences between oj and the above-referenced defendant. specifically, one was acquitted by a jury and the other pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter and was given a lighter sentence, reportedly because of the very fact that he comes from a wealthy family. not only could he afford high-powered defense attorneys, like oj, but his mere opulence was, reportedly, a favorable consideration in his sentencing.

 

i am thoroughly confused as to how oj is relevant to this in the first place, though.

 

Wow you are really trying to over think this aren't you? It's not complicated. Money got OJ off. Money is getting this kid off. As disgusting as it is, really nothing more to the story.

[sd'sker]

while no one is arguing that the rich in california are not afforded similar advantages to the rich in texas, there are obvious differences between oj and the above-referenced defendant. specifically, one was acquitted by a jury and the other pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter and was given a lighter sentence, reportedly because of the very fact that he comes from a wealthy family. not only could he afford high-powered defense attorneys, like oj, but his mere opulence was, reportedly, a favorable consideration in his sentencing.

 

i am thoroughly confused as to how oj is relevant to this in the first place, though.

 

Wow you are really trying to over think this aren't you? It's not complicated. Money got OJ off. Money is getting this kid off. As disgusting as it is, really nothing more to the story.

not the first time.

[rawhide]

On the other hand; what about that rape case where the teacher was given a token sentence. Not a case of affluence but still raping a 14 y.o.:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...0-day-sentence/

 

 

money or not don't these cases make you have some doubt about the justice system? I know that's where attorneys make their money by playing on extenuating circumstances. Sorry AR

[tschu]

Sickening.

 

Also, huge lol @ Conga accusing carlfense of watching foxnews

[commando]

The judge has a medical degree that can let him diagnose "affluenza"?

[Stumpy1]

I gonna go rob a bank and blame it on my herpes...that should work, right?

[Conga3]

While it has been reported that the prosecutor and victim families have spoken out against the ruling - that the probation sentencing was due to the family wealth..

 

And it was reported the defense testimony included a physiologist who said the kid had "affluenza"...

 

... it wasn't reported that the judge's sentence was :

• atypical
  
• reduced because of the kid's "affluenza" or family wealth
  

The opinions of the prosecution and victims are not likely to be representative of the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

 

--

 

The outrage I see some folks having disheartens me. It's like they don't want to know WHY the judge sentenced the kid to probation or IF the sentence is even out of the ordinary to begin with.

 

--

 

Curiosity is being replaced with convenience.

[Conga3]

Sickening.

 

Also, huge lol @ Conga accusing carlfense of watching foxnews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

[carlfense]

The opinions of the prosecution and victims are not likely to be representative of the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

But your opinion that the affluenza testimony "[m]ore than likely. . . didn't swing the judge's decision" is likely to be representative of the reasoning behind the judge's decision?

 

I'd venture a guess that the prosecutors in this case are quite a bit more familiar with this judge and his reasoning than Conga3.

[carlfense]

This is the same judge:

FORT WORTH — A 14-year-old Fort Worth boy has been sentenced to 10 years in a juvenile jail for killing a stranger with a single unprovoked punch.

State District Judge Jean Boyd sentenced the boy Thursday.

 

The teen, who is not being identified because he is a juvenile, admitted to a manslaughter charge earlier this year following the October attack on 40-year-old Mark Gregory.

http://lubbockonline...ch#.Uqs1m2SLSLF

 

Any guesses as to whether this 14 year old could afford expert witnesses?

 

(FWIW, I'm not complaining about the 10 year juvenile jail sentence but about the disparity in outcomes.)

[carlfense]

Money got OJ off.

Money, fame, and a very favorable jury pool who were apparently quite susceptible to allegations of racism.

[sd'sker]

The outrage I see some folks having disheartens me. It's like they don't want to know WHY the judge sentenced the kid to probation or IF the sentence is even out of the ordinary to begin with.

 

--

 

Curiosity is being replaced with convenience.

this is kind of funny, though. because you are just as guilty as relying on 'convenience' than curiosity.

 

you are reading more into what has been reported, yet you have not demonstrated any reason to doubt that reporting other than it is possible that the judge did not consider the bogus 'affluenza' or that the judge would have sentenced the way he did regardless.

[carlfense]

That's certainly a conversation worth having, but it's not really what's causing the outrage over Couch's sentence. Instead it's the perception that the relatively lenient sentence was predicated on the fact that the teen's family has lots of money—both because it was the basis for the "affluenza" defense that more or less claimed Couch never knew his actions had consequences because he came from privilege, and because his parents are the ones footing the bill for his stay at a $450,000-a-year, in-patient rehab facility near Newport Beach as part of the sentence (a center that Cooper repeatedly, and almost compulsively, points out offers "equine therapy.")

 

It's hard to imagine a poor teen being handed the same sentence for committing the same crime, or even a similar one, but this too is a topic that Miller more or less dodges . .

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/13/affluenza_cnn_s_anderson_cooper_interview_dr_g_dick_miller_defense_called.html

[Conga3]

The opinions of the prosecution and victims are not likely to be representative of the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

But your opinion that the affluenza testimony "[m]ore than likely. . . didn't swing the judge's decision" is likely to be representative of the reasoning behind the judge's decision?

 

I'd venture a guess that the prosecutors in this case are quite a bit more familiar with this judge and his reasoning than Conga3.

 

My opinion is based on the assumption the judge has half a brain and public prosecutors have a motivation to defend themselves when they "lose" a ruling. (although he didn't lose)

 

Your opinion assumes the judge is weak minded and was swayed by the power and wealth of the family and the defense testimony of some sort of "rich-kid" disease, and the prosecutor's version of events might as well be gospel.

 

--

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.