Last Tuesday, Tonya Couch was released from prison after helping her son, Ethan Couch – who caused a fatal car crash on June 15, 2013 – avoid justice in Mexico. Injuring two and killing four, the crash occurred as a result of 16-year-old Couch driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit. Judge Jean Hudson sentenced Couch to psychological treatment and probation due to Couch’s age as well as a psychologist’s testimony that stated enabling by Couch’s wealthy parents negatively affected Couch psychologically and therefore damaged his ability to feel responsible for his actions. This phenomenon has been called ‘affluenza.’ Do you believe ‘affluenza’ is a valid legal defense for Ethan Couch, and should ‘affluenza’ be treated as a mental disorder in criminal law?


William Nealley ’18  

The idea that Couch’s abundant wealth and privilege has somehow left him incapable of feeling responsible and now exempt from usual consequences is not a valid defense. A clinical or medical definition of a mental disorder is far broader than its legal counterpart. In a court of law, in order for a mental illness to be taken into consideration as a legitimate defense, it typically needs to be quite severe in nature and easily identifiable via a heavy preponderance of the evidence. Many in the mental health field debate the legitimacy and existence of this disorder. Perhaps Couch’s upbringing of enabling, wealthy parents can provide great insight into what led to his reckless behavior, but it certainly is not an excuse. Frankly, the ‘affluenza’ defense seems like an injustice that only further perpetuates the classist notion that the rich are not subjected to the same standards in our legal system. 

William Nealley ’18 is the vice president of the Brandeis University Mock Trial Association. He is majoring in philosophy and classical studies.

Jiahui Zong ’18

I believe that “affluenza” is not a valid legal defense for Ethan Couch. The defense stated that because he was too rich and too spoiled to take responsibility, he could avoid prison for killing four people in a drunk-driving accident. But “affluenza” should not be called a mental disorder as an excuse for people to avoid getting sentenced. There is no such diagnosis as “affluenza,” therefore, people can come up with their own symptoms. People are using this term merely to question parents’ failure of supervision and proper guidance but not to come up with a more effective disposal of such accident. Such treatment does not warn teenagers who are already lack in societal responsibility but gives them a legitimate excuse to act irresponsibly further.

Jiahui Zong ’18 is the president of Brandeis Pre-Law Society. She is majoring in politics, economics and psychology. 

Daphne Nounesi ’17
A mental condition must always be taken into account by the court upon deciding a criminal’s punishment. I can’t possibly understand how difficult it could be to live with “affluenza.” However, most of this country’s psychiatrists do not acknowledge it as a real mental condition. If it is not a condition, then it shouldn’t be accepted by a judge any more than a kid growuing up in disadvantaged social circimstances that engages in criminal activity can claim those circumstances are reason for the judge to be lenient. After all, being a spoiled brat sounds like a way weaker excuse than systematic injustice. On top of that, the fact that a person suffering from affluenza has trouble demonstrating moral behavior that will keep her within the limits of the law makes it the more imperative to keep that person from committing harm to the rest of society. Isn’t that what prisons are for?
Daphne Nounesi ’17 is the secretary of Brandeis University Mock Trial Association. She is majoring in international and global studies. 

Ana Chavez ’18

“Affluenza” should not be treated as a mental disorder in the US because it enables the offsprings of the elite to not take responsibility for their actions. America is already structured to cater to the highest income bracket while the ones in the lowest income bracket are often wrongfully accused of crimes or given longer sentences. Honestly, affluenza is a denial of responsibility, and it is not a psychological disorder. This is an example of injustice because if Ethan did not have wealthy parents, he would not be diagnosed with affluenza. This is the psychological disease for the rich. If Ethan was poor, he would probably have gotten a stronger punishment. Shouldn’t everyone from every socio-economic status be treated the same? Every young adult should take responsibility for their actions. My question to Ethan’s parents would be, what happens when Ethan become an adult? 
Ana Chavez ’18 is a student researcher for the Justice Brandeis Law Project at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism. She is majoring in sociology and minoring in legal studies.