Defense Of Affluenza In Ethan Couch's Argument

The decision of sixteen year old Ethan Couch was to consume alcohol and operate a vehicle, which resulted in four deaths and nine injuries. Couch’s lawyers cited that the reason for the deaths and injuries of numerous innocent human beings, was that Couch was experiencing an effect of alcohol called “affluenza.” Couch’s lawyers argued that Couch was affluent and that he could not recognize the consequences of his actions. I believe that the “affluenza” defense is merely not a defense at all. I believe that Couch made a very poor decision to consume alcohol. It was not the fact that he could not see the consequences of his actions because he made the choice to drink when he was not “affluent.” I think that Couch’s lawyers created a term to sway judges to believe that Ethan Couch was not responsible for his actions. During this video, Kendall Coffey said that “the defense of affluenza is unheard of and it’s wrong legally because it puts the wealthy on a better position than the rest of us.” I agree with this statement because I believe it allows wealthier individuals a reduced sentence. I believe that wealthier people are less aware of legal consequences because they have money to get a minor sentence than an average individual. In my opinion, I believe some individuals that are wealthy consider …show more content…
He lost his wife and daughter due to one mistake. If Couch would have made better decisions then Boyles’ would not have to face every day living without the people important to him. Irma Lemus’s grandson, Serigo, was left paralyzed because of Couch’s mistake. Not just these two people, but many more were affected by Couch’s senseless decision to drink and drive. He should have to face more consequences than what he was sentenced. I do not feel justice was served in this case, I believe that Couch should have had a severe punishment. I think a serious punishment would give justice to the victims’