Should all children be held accountable for their actions as individuals? Many people think that parents are often to blame for their children’s actions. In the case of Fred and Tonya Couch, it is difficult to say when, or if, they will hear the last of the uproar regarding their parenting of their son: Ethan Couch, a sixteen-year-old North Texan convicted for the death of four persons, was left with little more than a slap on the wrist from his parents.
Credit: Flickr Commons
After consuming enough alcohol, stolen from a Walmart, to surpass the legal limit for drivers threefold, Couch hit and killed four pedestrians while speeding in his father’s Ford F-350 truck. The same crash also injured two teenagers riding in the truck with him on June 15, 2013; passenger Sergio E. Molina, who suffered extensive head trauma and severe brain injuries from the accident, is still being treated today.
After the trial, Couch’s defense team, comprised of lawyers and psychologists, was persistent in declaring that Couch should not be persecuted for his actions. This statement came from reasoning that Couch suffered from a lack in judgment due to his highly privileged upbringing. This case of “affluenza” deemed it suitable for Couch’s sentence to be reduced from a maximum 20-year imprisonment to a 10-year probation in a rehabilitation center where an annual stay values about $500,000 per year. This center offers activities such as horseback riding and massages on its six-acre property.
Psychologist Dr. Robin S. Rosenberg disagrees with the defense here on the basis of affluenza because it only emphasizes Couch’s supposition that “wealth and privilege can obviate the negative consequences.” This raises an incredibly important discussion point: at which point are certain privileges too much? From one standpoint, parents generally want to give their children the best, no matter the cost. On the other hand, when does this parental aspiration prevent children from learning valuable lessons about responsibility and consequences?
As Couch’s defense stated, Ethan Couch has lived believing that his wealth and privilege would always prevent him from facing consequences; he had not yet been exposed to the range of positive and negative repercussions that stem from action. However, the grieving families of the victims believe that Couch has once again evaded legal ramifications, using his upbringing as an excuse. Dr. Suniya S. Luthar, a psychologist at Columbia University who studies affluence in wealthy neighborhoods, spoke against Couch’s sentence by explaining that “we are setting a double standard for the rich and poor.” To end her argument, Luthar posed the question of whether a child who grew up with vastly different conditions concerning race, socio-economic status, and family structure would receive similar treatment.
Thoroughly unsatisfied with the results of the trial, the friends and family of the victims have decided to slam the Couch family with a pile of law suits that stacks high enough to give the multimillionaires a run for their money. Some analyses of the projected costs amount to well over $20 million dollars, a price that, though it cannot bring back their loved ones, may be able to restore some peace of mind.