The case of a Texas teen supposedly afflicted with "affluenza," who killed four people and critically injured two others while driving drunk, triggered new outrage a day after a judge refused to send him to jail.
In June, the 16-year-old had seven passengers in his Ford F-350. He was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit when the accident happened on a rural road, according to testimony at the trial in December.
He struck and killed four pedestrians. Two 15-year-olds who were riding in the bed of his pickup were ejected and severely injured, according to a statement from prosecutors.
The case drew national outrage after an expert psychologist for his defense testified that the teen had "affluenza": He was so rich and spoiled that he couldn't connect his actions with their consequences.
Let's assume the judge is not insane and/or bought and paid for by the kids family and apply the same logic when teens living in poverty commit the same crime.
The scenario would read like this;
Poor kid kills 4 people and injures 2 others.
An expert psychologist for his defense testified that the teen had "poveritis": He was so poor and desperate that he couldn't connect his actions with their consequences.
If we are to believe that everyone is innocent and equal in the eyes of the law, and justice is blind, this would be the best way to demonstrate it in action.
Do I hear any objections?