Anderson Cooper spent the better part of a half-hour last night grilling Dr. G. Dick Miller, the defense-called psychologist who used the term ”affluenza” in the troubling case of Ethan Couch, the 16-year-old who avoided serving prison time for killing four people in a drunken-driving crash this summer. Above is clip No. 2 of 3 from that interview (you can find all three clips here, but if you only have time for one, No. 2 is probably the one you want).
The interview itself is frustrating, in large part because I’d much rather see Cooper cross-examine Judge Jean Boyd, who is the one who sentenced Couch to 10 years’ probation instead of the 20-year prison sentence that prosecutors had asked for. But she has yet to publicly defend her decision, so instead we’re left with Miller, who basically argues for the position that we should always err on the side of probation and rehab over prison time.
That’s certainly a conversation worth having, but it’s not what’s causing the outrage over Couch’s sentence. Instead the understandable outrcy is over the perception that the relatively lenient sentence was predicated on the fact that the teen’s family has lots of money—both because that was the basis for the “affluenza” defense that more or less claimed Couch didn’t know 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, preventing Cooper from landing the cathartic knockout blow that viewers no doubt were hoping for. (Then again, Miller probably wasn’t the best target for that punch anyway.)
Miller also seems to blur his specific “affluenza” argument when he suggests, more than once, that Couch’s is far from a special case. “I wish I hadn’t used that term. Everyone seems to have hooked onto it,” he told Cooper. “We used to call these people spoiled brats.” There’s also the issue that throughout the interview Miller repeatedly suggests that Couch wasn’t actually responsible for the deaths of the four people that were killed in the crash. He repeatedly takes issue with Anderson describing their deaths as murders, and even goes as far as to push back against the idea that Couch killed them, granting only: “Four people died.”
Check the Details of below
Here’s an Internet outrage-inducing story that has been bubbling up for the past few days and appears to have finally hit critical mass: A Texas judge on Tuesday sentenced a wealthy 16-year-old boy to 10 years of probation for a horrific drunken driving crash that killed four people and seriously injured two others this summer. But it’s not the relatively lenient sentence that has people up in arms—it’s the apparent reasoning behind it. Here’s the ABC affiliate in Dallas with the details of the teen’s defense:
Prior to sentencing, a psychologist called by the defense, Dr. G. Dick Miller, testified that [Ethan] Couch’s life could be salvaged with one to two years’ treatment and no contact with his parents. … Miller said Couch’s parents gave him “freedoms no young person should have.” He called Couch a product of “affluenza,” where his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences.
He said Couch got whatever he wanted. As an example, Miller said Couch’s parents gave no punishment after police ticketed the then-15-year-old when he was found in a parked pickup with a passed out, undressed, 14-year-old girl. Miller also pointed out that Couch was allowed to drive at age 13. He said the teen was emotionally flat and needed years of therapy.
According to police, Couch was going 70 miles-per-hour in his father’s Ford F-350 pickup in a 40 mph zone when he lost control and started a deadly chain of collisions that claimed the lives of: 24-year-old Breanna Mitchell, whose car had broken down on the side of the road; Hollie Boyles and her 21-year-old daughter Shelby, who lived nearby and had come outside to help Mitchell; and Brian Jennings, a youth pastor who was also playing the role of good samaritan. Two of the seven passengers riding in Couch’s truck were also seriously injured.
Earlier in the night, police say that several of the passengers were caught on camerastealing two cases of beer from a local Walmart. At the time of the crash, Couch had a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit for an adult, and also hadtraces of Valium in his system, according to police. He pleaded guilty last week to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury.
Now’s a good time to take a quick step back and remember that the destined-to-be-mocked-by-a-hashtag “affluenza” excuse wasn’t actually mentioned by the Judge Jean Boyd when she handed out her sentence. Indeed, Boyd has yet to publicly explain her rationale for handing out 10 years of probation instead of the 20-year prison sentence that prosecutors and the victims’ families had asked for. Still, it certainly appears as though the judge bought at least some of what the defense was selling, which in addition to the idea that the family’s wealth left the teen apparently unable to understand right from wrong also focused on his parents’ strained relationship. (“This kid has been in a system that’s sick,” Miller said. “If he goes to jail, that’s just another sick system.”)
Best case scenario, the parents are sued by everyone, lose everything, can’t afford the 500k “rehab” and the kid gets sent to jail. More…
The post Pyschologist Who Recommended DUI Driver Not Go to Jail Say Rich Ppl Have More Priviledge Than Poor! appeared first on Late Night Creep.