By Stacey Wells ‘15

This past December, a teenage boy in Texas drove drunk and murdered four people. Instead of serving the recommended 20 years in prison, he got off easy with only 10 years of probation. The defense argued that the boy suffered from “affluenza,” which is a ‘psychological problem’ that can affect privileged children. In other words, this teenager received barely any punishment for his irresponsible behavior due to the fact that he was raised by a rich family.

First off, the disease “afflueneza” isn’t even recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. This affliction is based off the belief that children who grow up in a privileged environment have delusional ideas about what is allowed. However, wealthy parents are not the only factors that influence a child’s development. Both media and friends affect individuals, meaning that privileged children should still be able to decipher right from wrong even if their parents spoil them rotten. Teachers also influence and discipline students, which means that even the most privileged individuals would receive punishment and understand the effects of their actions.

If affluenza was an actual psychological disorder, does that mean that there should there be a disease invented for under-privileged children as well? If a child grows up in an under-privileged environment and never received any guidance from his parents, does he also get to skirt jail time for not knowing what’s right? Or would only wealthy teens get to avoid jail?

If a rich teenager can skirt 20 years of jail time because of a made-up disease, then others may use similar excuses to avoid prison. Someone could easily claim that their glasses led them to be bullied, which led them to kill someone. The only factor that should make a difference in court is the crime in question, not an individual’s wealth, race, gender or past experiences. The teenager in Texas committed a horrendous crime and he should face the full sentence, no matter what “rich-child disease” he may have.

Furthermore, America has a wonderful thing called rule of law. This means that all citizens must follow the same set of rules regardless of who they are. Way back when rule of law did not exist, members of royalty, religious leaders and rich citizens were able to avoid the law while the poor would get heavily punished for minor crimes. Citizens were not seen as equals; if one individual had an abundance of money then he was able to avoid punishment. Nowadays, in the United States, everyone is supposed to be punished equally, but that is not the reality. Wealthier citizens are able to buy better lawyers, while the very poor can only accept whoever is assigned to them. Even if rule of law is not always perfect, it is still the basis of equality in America and should be an ideal that America tries to achieve.

The judge’s sentencing of the teen to probation suggests that some people have the right to get away with murder. Being privileged should not grant an individual the right to skirt jail time. If this “psychological problem” is eventually accepted as truth by the courts, then our court system will only become more unequal in its application of justice.