Ok, everyone sounding off about the DUI teen getting off on the 'affluenza' argument, a word please.
I don't know what happened in that courtroom, and honestly neither do you. People are flipping out about the double-standard between rich and poor and pointing to this as an example, and they totally should.
But I'm not sure the judge in this case is to blame.
I think it might just be possible that instead of being taken in by a bullshit argument and coddling a rich, white shithead, the Judge in the case looked at the odds of a minor given twenty years (the maximum sentence) only serving two and then having their record expunged (totally possible) vs 10 years probation, which puts him under the thumb of the law for a decade with no chance of shortening that term and if he breaks probation the case for harsh punishment is much stronger.
I don't know if that actually is the reasoning behind the verdict. But I hope it is the case, because I'd like to believe there a judges who pragmatically put the good of society above how their verdicts will play out in a sensationalist media.