Affluenza

You've probably heard about the rich kid in Texas who essentially skated on stealing beer, getting overly intoxicated and killing four people with his dad's truck (and completely paralyzing his friend). There has been outrage in the press and elsewhere.

First off, the juvenile court system is supposed to focus not just on retribution, but also on saving kids, to try and straighten them out. Depending on the state, when a minor commits a serious felony, there is a hearing, commonly called a bind-over hearing, to determine whether or not to try the kid as an adult or a juvenile. That, as was in this case, is often a matter for plea bargaining. Which brings me to...

Second, nobody working in the system's machinery rooms wants trials. Trials are costly and they are public crapshoots. And third....

Does anyone not doubt that a defendant who can afford a pricey legal team* and psychologists to invent new syndromes will fare better than one who is represented by either an overworked public defender or appointed counsel, who is getting paid pretty much peanuts?

Other than the term "affluenza", why the shock? Does anyone doubt that a poor or working class person who pulled the stunts of a certain actress would have been sent off to prison? How many banksters were sent to prison for looting the economy?

Frankly, I'm pretty much shocked that there is astonishment over this case.
___________________________________
* To quote Justice Scalia: "I don't want a lawyer who's competent. I want a lawyer who will get me off."