Ethan Couch, the teen who killed four people and injured twelve others while driving drunk, and was then sentenced to probation with "affluenza" being cited as a contributing factor, broke the terms of his probation. He has reportedly been detained along with his mother in Mexico.
There are a number of things about this that I find troubling. First, anyone with any sense that has ever watched an episode of "Law and Order" should recognize "affluenza" as synonymous with "flight risk." Further, if ever there was a child that has not yet had the opportunity to learn that actions have consequences, it would be Ethan Couch. He has also been denied the opportunity to take personal responsibility for his own actions. Given his most recent action (ducking out while on probation), it would seem to indicate that the only lessons he has learned thus far are ones that have simply reinforced his lack of personal responsibility. Sadly, his mother is also culpable, as an enabler and encourager of this lack of responsibility.
In my opinion, not only did the judge who granted him probation miss the boat; she wasn't even standing on the dock. Granting him probation not only devalued the lives of his victims, it didn't work. Ethan obviously didn't connect his actions with serious consequences because there weren't any. The lawyer that sold "affluenza" as a valid reason for avoiding responsibility certainly earned his presumed exorbitant fees. He might just as well have stood in the pasture selling cow paddies like they were bars of gold. I also wonder what the sentence might have been had this been a middle- or lower-income progeny of parents that didn't have the big bucks to pay someone to spin hay into gold.
Here's the catch: I think Ethan doesn't want to change. Why should he? His sense of entitlement says he doesn't need to. His lack of personal responsibility says he doesn't want to. The lack of appropriate natural consequences proves both.
There are no winners here. Until Ethan Couch feels the pain of the consequences of his actions, he has absolutely no incentive to change, even if he wanted to. Ethan Couch may fit the fabricated definition of a victim of "affluenza," but my observation tells me that perhaps there is a more fitting definition: sociopath. I have no knowledge that he has ever been labeled as such, nor even examined by someone with the expertise to do so. I can, however, refer to Merriam-Webster:
Pity the man who has been denied a normal life, if you must. But waste no time in giving him the opportunity to learn that, in the real world, actions do have consequences. In the real world, negative consequences can be a catalyst for change, if the desire for change is there.
In my opinion, not only did the judge who granted him probation miss the boat; she wasn't even standing on the dock. Granting him probation not only devalued the lives of his victims, it didn't work. Ethan obviously didn't connect his actions with serious consequences because there weren't any. The lawyer that sold "affluenza" as a valid reason for avoiding responsibility certainly earned his presumed exorbitant fees. He might just as well have stood in the pasture selling cow paddies like they were bars of gold. I also wonder what the sentence might have been had this been a middle- or lower-income progeny of parents that didn't have the big bucks to pay someone to spin hay into gold.
Here's the catch: I think Ethan doesn't want to change. Why should he? His sense of entitlement says he doesn't need to. His lack of personal responsibility says he doesn't want to. The lack of appropriate natural consequences proves both.
There are no winners here. Until Ethan Couch feels the pain of the consequences of his actions, he has absolutely no incentive to change, even if he wanted to. Ethan Couch may fit the fabricated definition of a victim of "affluenza," but my observation tells me that perhaps there is a more fitting definition: sociopath. I have no knowledge that he has ever been labeled as such, nor even examined by someone with the expertise to do so. I can, however, refer to Merriam-Webster:
Simple Definition of sociopath
- : someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behaviour
Pity the man who has been denied a normal life, if you must. But waste no time in giving him the opportunity to learn that, in the real world, actions do have consequences. In the real world, negative consequences can be a catalyst for change, if the desire for change is there.
1 comment:
You nailed it. Can we leave he and his mom in Guadalahara?
Post a Comment