The supposed rationale of this defense is that the defendant was through their upbringing taught that there were no consequences of breaching the social contract, In this case because wealth would shield them from such consequences. But does not using this defense successfully only serve to reinforce the faulty lesson? It does not serve to help the one "afflicted" with affluenza to become a good functioning member of society in terms of heeding the social contract, It only prolongs the "disease".
A real problem here too is the idea that the person would only be deterred from hurting others by consequences to self--no empathy, Or other desire to just not cause pain or harm to others, Comes into play as a deterrent. In a person beyond early childhood, That is the marking of a sociopath--which is a far more serious disorder than "affluenza" that affects people in all classes. That I suspect is the real culprit here, But we must still as a society with a justice system provide punitive consequences for harming others, Especially if that's the only thing that would deter a person.
Personally I'm spoiled and my parents blessed me to have a 2016 mustang get but even then I feel that I'm isolated from the community because people only want me for my money. There's times when I my parents give 100$ and my friends and I go out and they only carry like 5$ so they expect me to be humble and pay for them. Ridiculousness you guys are the ones that position me in this situation expecting me to be humble and stuff. I deserve so much more then being treated right for my money. This lack of social communication can lead to many mental problems that would cause us to drink and drive because we have nothing else to live for since our parents wealth is going to support us in the future. #RICHkidPROBZ
But making it a defense defeats the purpose of the justice system. When someone commits a crime, the justice system is supposed to be a way to rehabilitate them and/or protect the citizens if they are dangerous. Probably more often than not a bad upbringing is what made them criminals, but the only way to deal with them at this point is through the justice system. If you let them go because they had a bad upbringing (like practically everyone), then they learn nothing to correct their behavior and the deterrent qualities of the justice system will also become weaker.
I absolutely do not agree with the affluenza debate. I think it is the worst legal defense that I have ever heart. So if you are rich and your parents never gave you any boundaries, then it's okay if you kill a bunch of people while drunk driving at 16? Absolutely ridiculous.
The so called affluenza defense was a classic example of media hype playing off the cause of the day - in this case, the hatred people today feel towards people they consider richer than themselves. The kid in question was able to pay, true, but that was not the legal defense - its part of the law in the area for a guilty verdict.
No, affluenza should not be a legitimate legal defense, because it is nothing more than an excuse for not being held accountable for actions. A poor person who has not even had parents present would have a much more legitimate claim to not have been brought up properly. Rich children should be smart enough to figure out proper behavior on their own.
Affluenza should definitely not be a legitimate legal defense. It is totally ridiculous. I do not think that people need another cop out "disease" to explain something that is their own fault. I think that too often there is someone to blame for just about anything. We do not need another excuse. Own up to what you did.
Affluenza isn't a legal defense. It's an excuse that unethical lawyers use to protect their clients from the justice they deserve. A person that is brought up in luxury has no excuse to avoid the law and the punishments they deserve for breaking laws. Affluenza is the worst defense possible.