As word of the successful application of the "affluenza" defense (which holds that spoiled rich children have a diminished capacity to understand right and wrong and can't be held criminally liable for crimes up to an including killing strangers) spreads, there's been lots of commentary on the subject. But as is often the case, Lowering the Bar has some good and timely words, from a satirico-legal perspective.

Notable Replies

  1. Hardly a disorder so much as an empirical observation that people like them get away with everything.

  2. This is a good argument for much more heavily taxing the rich: to save their children from the scourge of affluenza, and also to make the highways safer.

  3. The insane part is where it crossed over from being an observation that they get away with everything and turned into an argument that he should also be allowed to get away with this thing; because the poor dear has always gotten away with everything in the past.

    The obvservation, while unfortunate, is unimpeachable. The argument is insanity. Apropos of the case...

  4. Yes, exactly, you put that just right.

  5. The thing is that they are right, it makes sense that the privileged rich white kids should be helped, not punished. What doesn't make sense is that the unprivileged who commit crimes should be punished, not helped.

Continue the discussion

31 more replies