Is Ethan Couch getting away with murder? On the evening of June 15, 2013, a young man named Ethan Couch killed four innocent people and injured nine others in a drunk driving accident. This case is controversial due to the sentence Mr. Couch received. Mr. Couch was only 16 years old when this terrible event occurred. At first, Couch was going to get away without going to prison because he was able to convince the jury that he was a victim of "affluence." Affluence is a condition in which children, predominantly from wealthier families, have a sense of entitlement, are irresponsible, and have inappropriate behavior due to the lack of boundaries set by their parents. Given the information provided to the court, they believed that Ethan Couch was suffering from this "affliction" and granted him parole. I believe that affluence should not be an easy way out for people in the justice system and this type of escape from their crimes should be examined to the highest degree. Lawyers and judges need to take a step back in this era of rehabilitating criminals and realize that sometimes some people need to go to prison or, in this case, not receive the lightest sentence possible using turnout to do so and America needs to draw an overall lesson from this situation and focus on the rampant problem of underage drinking that is currently happening in the United States. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay In the summer of 2013, Ethan Couch allegedly stole beer from a local Walmart and then got drunk at a party. Once drunk, Couch allegedly swerved his vehicle into four pedestrians who had stopped on the side of the road to help a stranded driver. All four pedestrians died and the two passengers who were inside Ethan Couches' truck were thrown from the vehicle. One of the passengers is no longer able to move or speak due to brain injuries sustained following the car accident. When Mr. Couch was brought to court on four counts of vehicular manslaughter, he pleaded guilty. Unfortunately, the defense did not blame Ethan for the accident, but rather the lack of parenting he had received in his youth. His lawyer and psychologist stated that "it was his parents, who raised their boy with few limits and even less discipline, indulging him to the point that he was unable to appreciate the importance of rules and laws, lest talk about the consequences of violating them." " (Park). This is known as affluence, and is most commonly used to refer to the lack of guilt that young people feel due to their relentless privilege. They blamed the entire situation on Couch's parents, who allowed the son of drinking at just 13, CNN said. From this it can be deduced that his parents were not the best role models for a child of his age. His defense argued that his parents did not do their job bearers of responsibility, and then they let Ethan get away with whatever he wanted, which in turn resulted in this terrible accident. His lawyer and psychologist argued that Couch should not serve any time in prison and, instead, seek due to the extremely poor parenting care he received. He was sentenced to ten years of probation in a rehabilitation facility, and the judge made it clear that one wrong step, and Ethan could see himself transferred to adult court. After Couch was sent to his center ofrehabilitation in California, Mr. Couch and his mother decided to take an unauthorized trip in the middle of his rehabilitation. As a result, in December 2015, after serving just two years of his ten-year probation, Ethan and his mother fled to Mexico. This was discovered when Ethan's probation officer was unable to contact him or his mother for several days. Two weeks after fleeing to Mexico, Ethan and his mother were found and arrested near the town of Puerto Vallarta. Upon returning to court, Ethan's case was transferred to adult court and he was sentenced to two years in prison. As of today, Ethan is still serving his prison sentence and is up for release and parole in the next year. This court case highlights the extreme disparity in court rulings. For example, a 16-year-old named Jaime Arellano drove under the influence of alcohol and ran red lights, crashing into a car, killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child. Jaime was sentenced to prison while Ethan received his 10-year rehabilitation from his "affluenza". Jaime had no chance of claiming he had “affluence.” He and his family are illegal immigrants and have settled in East Texas. He speaks very little English and has almost no knowledge of the US justice system. He had dropped out of high school five months before the accident. These facts are the main reason why Jaime could never reasonably get away with using Affluenza in a court case. Since it represents those who, in fact, are almost the opposite of turnout. He was never protected from reality and social norms by his parents. His parents came to America to give their children a better life and always tried to convince him to do the right thing. Something that didn't happen with Ethan, according to reports. This is important because it shows the different differences in how the two separate court cases played out. The biggest issue raised by this court case is the adaptation of the term affluence to the modern lexicon and the steps that need to be taken to ensure that affluence is debunked and is not considered a reasonable excuse in court. The other big issue raised by this court case is the large amount of underage drinking and drunk driving cases in the United States today and what can be done to stop them and lower the statistics. Psychologists believe that turnout is nothing more than junk science. Affluence is not a recognized disease in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association. Chris Ferguson, a writer for Time and a clinical psychologist, says he has never seen a professional try to diagnose someone with affluence (Ferguson). And there is little to no research done on this. The only research that has ever been conducted on turnout is a 2010 study by Peter Lorenzi and Roberto Friedman in which they found little to no evidence of turnout overwhelming America. Ferguson believes the turnout is mostly a product of “pop psychology” and that the term doesn't even mean what Couch's lawyers intended it to mean. Ferguson describes affluence as “a contagious social disease, characterized by 'keeping up with the Joneses' materialism, spending and debt'” (Ferguson). This is an excellent explanation of how Mr. Couch's lawyers used the term completely wrong. The US legal system has checks and balances that ensure this type of "junk science" cannot be used in court decisions, so it isinteresting to see how he managed to get his way in this court case. Ferguson believes the reason he got into the case was the simple reason that prosecutors didn't make the effort to challenge the use of turnout in the case. Instead, Ferguson believes that Couch, instead of turnout, could have documented mental health problems. He argues that "being raised in an atmosphere of instant gratification and negligible consequences for bad behavior [is] not healthy for the child's development... Couch's risky behavior could indicate alcoholism and, if indeed he were evidencing a pathological of entitlement or lack of empathy for others, it is possible that he could be diagnosed with a personality disorder” (Ferguson believes that the factors that most influenced the case were money, privilege and the way in which the judge conveyed the message that the rich can buy themselves a different justice than the poor. The second most important factor that this court case raises is the rampant underage drinking and alcohol use that occurs in them United States. Texas, the state where Ethan Couch is from and which committed heinous crimes, has some stricter laws, and some less strict ones than our state of Massachusetts. According to the December 2013 report to Congress on Prevention and Reduction of Disease Underage Alcohol Use conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20.4 percent of children ages 15 to 17 admit to using alcohol and 12.3% admit to excessive alcohol use within the month the study was conducted. The study reports that, in Texas, fatal traffic crashes due to an underage driver with a blood alcohol content above 0.01 amounted to a staggering 32%. These statistics may be partly due to Texas' apathetic view when it comes to house parties and kids drinking. In Texas, a child under the age of 21 may drink and have alcohol purchased as long as he or she is with a parent or guardian. Texas also grants something called a “Specific Affirmative Defense” for retail stores that sell alcohol. This means that if a retail store sells alcohol to a minor who used a fake ID to purchase said alcohol, the retail store can claim to have inspected the fake ID and come to a reasonable conclusion that the ID was valid and not fake based on his identity. aspect, this ensures that a retail store will not be accused of selling alcohol to minors if something happens and the purchase is traced back to the store. Additionally, Texas imposes no liability on the homeowner for a disrupted house party, which Massachusetts does. The report also states that in 2013, 1,915 minors were found in possession of alcohol in Texas. 906 of 8,021 retailers in Texas failed to comply with laws regarding the sale of alcohol to minors and were fined a total of $917,600. The report states that there were 12,000 teens who attended underage drinking programs in 2013, and the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program (EUDL) served 46,000 youth in Texas during 2013. The State of Texas, in 2013 , spent approximately $33.8 million on underage drinking prevention programs in K-12 schools and spent $2.3 million on community-based underage drinking programs. These statistics are important because they highlight things that can be changed in Texas rules that would make it more difficult forminors purchase alcohol. An example of something that can be done is for Texas to adopt the Massachusetts shelter law. The Social Host Law states that “any person who furnishes any such beverage or alcohol to any person under 21 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both” (The Social Host Law ). This would discourage parents from letting their children drink, as this could lead to parties and if their son or daughter is caught throwing a party, the parents take full responsibility. Something else Texas can do is impose tougher penalties on retail stores caught selling alcohol to minors and can require all retail stores to use black lights as a means of verifying authentic identity. Underage drinking throughout the United States is a serious prohibition problem. An article written by Frances Harding, Ralph Hingson, Michael Klitzner et al. titled “Underage Drinking: A Review of Trends and Prevention Strategies” outlines the epidemic of underage drinking in the United States and the prevention strategies that are being used to curb underage drinking. The document states that in 2013, 26 percent of 10th graders reported using alcohol in the past 30 days and 5.4 million minors and young adults reported binge drinking in the past month. The document states that alcohol is a contributing factor in the deaths of approximately 4,300 minors each year in the United States. For example, the document states that on the topic of underage alcohol consumption, “In 2013, of the 1,691 drivers aged 15 to 20 who died in traffic accidents, 492 (29%) had an alcohol concentration in blood = 0.01” (Harding et al). Federal, state, and local governments as well as coalitions and community organizations and interested individuals” (Harding et al) In 2004, Congress mandated the ICCPUD, which plays a leadership role in underage drinking by forming organizations community-based. STOP was born in 2006. STOP is the “Sober Truth about Preventing Underage Drinking.” They provide annual grant funding to community coalitions working to prevent and reduce underage drinking. All of these facts presented are prime examples of why Ethan Couch should have been found guilty of the charges. Not only would it have taught the boy a lesson, but it would also have shed a lot of light on the taboo subject of alcohol consumption among minors and what can be done to curb it in the future. These statistics demonstrate that what America needs now more than ever is to continue funding these programs and promote the education of minors about the dangers of underage drinking. America has come a long way in terms of underage drinking in recent years. A graph from Harding et al. shows that in 2013, fewer than 10% of 12th graders reported driving after consuming alcohol, and 5% of 12th graders reported driving after consuming more than 5 alcoholic drinks. These data, compared to the 2003 report, 10 years earlier, show a decline in this behavior. In 2003, more than 15% of 12th graders reported driving after consuming alcohol, and 10% of 12th graders reported driving after consuming more than 5 alcoholic beverages. This is good as it shows a positive downward trend in drunk driving; most likely because of the programs children are shown and take part in what increases the.