State pays for Affluenza Teen's rehab
 

http://jalopnik.com/affluenza-teen-w...1562755903/all

On the other hand, had he gone to prison, the taxpayers would be paying the entire bill. This way they're only covering 95 percent of it.

and then there's the story of the dupont heir who raped his 3 yo daughter...but won't go to prison, because the judge said he wouldn't do well there. isn't that the point of prison?


i really think that they should empanel people to sentence criminals once they're convicted. no names, identifying features....just the facts of the conviction itself. gotta be a better way to make sure that sentences are consistent, rather than rich and white getting less time or other punishment than other criminals.


and the rich kid is too 'emotionally stunted' to even apologize....sounds like he needs to be locked up in a mental hospital.

Sad that the victim's families seemed to sell-out instead of seeking retribution. The good news is the taxpayers in Texas are on the hook rather than dragging in the whole country.

The DuPont story is a completely different animal as we all know pedophiles CAN NOT be rehabilitated.

Bottom line is the teen belongs in prison sucking d$@k and the DuPont belongs in the ground sucking dirt.

Some thoughts are better off unarticulated on a public forum:zz:

If the families of the victims hadn't supported a suspended prison sentence he'd be doing 'that' and a lot more.

Some things need to be said despite PC alarms going off.

BTW I did refrain from using the word salad.

And how ironic is it that the victim's families seemed to have been influenced by the teen's family's affluence just as he is alleging he was?

Just hope some wanted him out to handle justice for themselves.

The criminal portion of the case has been settled; even if all of the victims' families had refused to settle, it wouldn't have meant jail time for the kid. That's done. The only thing in play in a civil case is money.

The one family refusing to settle is the family of the Good Samaritan who was helping out passengers in a car that broke down, I think. The other victims were all passengers of the kid. I am NOT excusing him in any way, but most of them were drunk as well. I suspect the families didn't want to have all that dragged out during court proceedings, as the question from the very good defense lawyers the kid's parents could afford would then likely be, well, why were the kids in the car in the first place? They stood a real chance of not getting anything, and the one kid is going to have huge medical bills for the rest of his life.

In the case of the Good Samaritan, it'll be a much harder case for the defense. I hope his family gets a gajillion dollars, though the rich are great at hiding their money in places where it's not subject to garnishment, even by the law, so in the end, yeah, no justice will be served here. Once again, hereditary wealthy win and everyone else loses.

If you go back to the days of sentencing you'll find that the prosecutor sought a suspended sentence because it is what the victim's families wanted.

No, the prosecution asked for a 20-year sentence:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1602998

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime...dwi-deaths.ece

http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/...n-behind-bars/

... also see several thousand other links on the case. The prosecution asked for 20 years. Not a suspended sentence. I don't know where you got that idea. Link, please?

You are correct and I was confusing this case with another. I retract all statements made concerning this case and suggest this kid go to prison and suck some d#$k for at least 10 years. And be allowed to kiss his parents during visits.