[ot-caption title=”The “affluenza” case of 2013 has recently resurfaced. (via, flickr Bloomsberries)”]

On December 28th, news broke that Tonya Couch and son Ethan were apprehended in Mexico after she assisted him in fleeing the country during his probation time. Three days later, Tonya Couch was officially arrested in the United States; Ethan Couch lingers in Mexico pending a Mexican court order. Why did Ethan Couch need to escape in the first place?

On June 15^th of 2013, Ethan Couch made a tragic mistake. It was his refusal to take the blame for this mistake, however, that resulted in great controversy. It started when sixteen-year-old Couch decided to host a party. Unfortunately, the disturbing series of events that followed are all too familiar in today’s society.  Couch and his friends consumed alcohol.  Intoxicated, they got into a car and began barreling down the street in their hometown of Burleson, Texas. Couch was driving.  An accident ensued.  Their recklessness took the lives of four innocent people and injured nine more.

Couch came from a very wealthy family, and his lawyers would use this reality and twist it to his advantage. Once Couch was indicted, his family called in psychologist G. Dick Miller, who encouraged them to use the term “affluenza” in their plea. In his mind, affluenza could be considered a disorder.  It explained to the judge and jury that Couch’s punishment should be waned due to his parents’ affluence and subsequent failure to teach him proper morals or hold him responsible for his actions during childhood and adolescence. In other words, the effect of this plea places the blame not only on Ethan, but on his upbringing as well.  In some ways, this defense was successful, as Couch received a sentence of ten years of probation along with rehab, a punishment many found to be too mild.  The terms of the probation were very strict, so it is reasonable that after Couch was caught on video playing a game of beer pong, that his punishment be changed to a more permanent and serious sentence.  This action was the impetus for mother Tanya Couch to help her son flee the country–a decision that lead to her arrest.

After following the case, I found myself asking the same question several others seemed to be wondering.  Is affluenza a legitimate disorder?  Can it be used in court as a defense for bad behavior?  It seems that even the psychologist who suggested using the term regrets it, saying, “We used to call these people spoiled brats.”  I find it nearly impossible for someone to be truly ignorant of proper morals, or unaware of the existence between right and wrong. Even if Couch’s parents were absent, and therefore did not instill in him everything they should have, it is human nature to observe the world and the people around you. Couch would’ve been witness to the actions and beliefs of his friends, other family members, teachers, coaches, media stars, and others.

For me, the bigger issue here is that it seems like Couch was raised with a sense of invincibility. His parents hired a defense team to get him out of the mess his actions caused; he clearly did not learn from his mistakes, seeing as he drank again, even with this illegal activity being absolutely prohibited in the terms of his probation. And in the end, his parents helped him once again to flee to Mexico instead of taking responsibility for his actions.  It seems impossible to grasp the idea of consequence if there is never really an opportunity to be punished. He was brought up lacking the understanding that his actions would later have considerable repercussions.

Looking at the broader society, it seems that many of today’s children and teenagers are being raised with these same principles. Morals and laws seem avoidable when there is a way to opt out.  Whether this means over protective parents who are always there to bail their children out of trouble, or a psychologist pleading “affluenza” in a major case, diffusing the responsibility seems to do nothing helpful in the long run.  Today’s youth must better understand the ideas of consequence and determination. We should all learn something from Couch’s situation: life often requires you to pay a price.

Sources: abcnews, flickr, CNN, The New Yorker