Deep Thoughts on the Affluenza Defense

[Jackpine Radical]

Everyone is seemingly outraged but the"affluenza defense" that was used as a justification for giving a rich kid a light sentence after he killed and injured a number of people in a drunk driving incident.

I've been giving this whole matter some thought, and it seems to me that we really ought to give this whole issue more careful consideration.

First of all, affluenza theory dovetails nicely with recent findings by Piff & Keltner. As one blogger summarizes their findings,

A research team including Berkeley psychologists Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner have been examining the way social status and wealth affects morality. Their findings — which are getting a lot of media attention — broadly show that wealthier, higher-status individuals are, essentially, more likely to cheat.

So here we have a new mental abnormality that renders people less able to control their behavior and regulate themselves in prosocial ways.

As it turns out, we have a long legal history that deals with problems of this sort. People who either cannot recognize the wrongfulness of their acts or, even thought they understand the wrongfulness, still cannot conform their actions to the requirements of the law, are said to lack criminal responsibility. This is, in essence, the so-called "insanity defense."

If one is found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect ("insanity&quot , one is then generally ordered into a secure institution, essentially a prison hospital, for treatment. One will remain there until those in charge of care deem one safe to return to society.


I find that it makes a lot of sense not to merely fine banksters and similar criminals or sentence them to probation or short prison terms (the Enron Gang comes to mind), but to raise the issue of their lack of criminal responsibility as victims of affluenza. Affluenzic offenders could then be placed in hospital confinement until they respond to treatment and no longer show signs of the disorder. If the disorder turns out in some or all cases to be incurable, the confinement could be of lifetime duration.

The legal system would need a few tweaks to make this work. Most importantly the issue of criminal responsibility is currently raised as a defense, and the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish that he does indeed lack criminal responsibility due to insanity.

Since there would likely be few cases in which the defendant would choose to raise the affluenza issue as a defense due to the potential for lifetime hospitalization as opposed to a potentially much lighter ordinary criminal sentence, it might be necessary to restructure the system so that the prosecution could raise the affluenza issue and press for treatment, while the defense would have the burden of establishing that their rich client is not so afflicted.

By this means, we would be able to not only punish wealthy wrongdoers where appropriate, but would have a chance to treat and rehabilitate those whose affluenza renders them most dangerous to the social order.

[Scuba]

1. Maybe some of the banksters are growing pot in their basements and could be prosecuted for that.

[Myrina]

2. Interesting concept but I prefer to call 'em what they are: greedy selfish asshole narcissists.

Toss 'em into the general population & see how special they are.