Ethan Couch's Argument

1117 Words3 Pages

In recent times, it has become very evident that wealth plays a major factor in the judicial system. There have been many cases that display the wealthy being given less of a punishment than the lower classes. In one particular case a teen, Ethan Couch, was driving under the influence after stealing beer from Walmart and he swerved off road, killing four pedestrians. The judge sentenced him to 10 years’ probation; this outraged many people because the usual punishment is a life sentence. Mr. Couch claims he suffers from “Affluenza”, which is a psychological problem that is caused by children being extremely privileged. Ethan Couch should not have received probation because of his family’s status, because he was driving under the influence, …show more content…

There are countless reasons why Ethan Couch should not have received probation. The first reason is the fact that Mr. Couch was driving under the influence. Ethan Couch was sixteen years old which means, he was practicing under aged drinking. Drinking under the age of twenty one is illegal; Mr. Couch …show more content…

Couch should have not received a harsher sentence. One opposing view is that the judge was giving Mr. Couch a second chance since he was so young. It would make sense to give Ethan Couch a second chance since he is only sixteen years old. It was Mr. Couch’s first drunk driving offense and in most cases the first case does not get the maximum sentence. Although, at the age sixteen he was well aware of the consequences of drunk driving and did take the lives of four innocent people. He knew the dangers of drunk driving and should not have drove the car with three times the legal amount of alcohol in his system. A second opposing view is the fact that Ethan Couch pleaded guilty to the case. It is proven that individuals who plead guilty in any case get a lighter sentence than those who plead not guilty. It would only make sense that since Mr. Couch cooperated with the police he would receive a lighter sentence. Although, his plead does not change the fact that he broke two laws and was responsible of the deaths of four people. Those four people and their families deserve justice. The opposing views do have some valid points, but in the end the case did not give the victims the justice they

Open Document