Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
December 12th, 2013
06:25 PM ET

Teen claims he's a victim of his wealth

CNN’s Sunny Hostin and HLN’s Jane Velez Mitchell sit down with Brooke Baldwin to discuss the controversial usage of “Affluenza” as a viable defense for a teen who killed four people in a car accident.

Post by:
Filed under: Anchors • Brooke Baldwin
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. Nathan

    Can poor inner city kids get this? They can have bad parents who don't teach them right from wrong.

    December 12, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
  2. sharon Hodgson

    I am now officially afraid of the anti-justice system in the U.S. This government is brewing a hatred between the classes.

    December 13, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
  3. K. Chandler

    I'm sure it could be arranged to remove him from the circumstances that are victimizing him.

    December 15, 2013 at 8:10 am |
  4. Mary Conseca

    If this kid suffers from a mental defect 'condition' in which his "rich parents never set limits for him and he never learned about consequences" – and if this 'condition' is deemed to be significantly responsible for this kid's action in killing 4 people (as the judge apparently determined) – then the solution and sentence can NOT possibly be to further aggravate this 'condition' by continuing to SHIELD this spoiled brat from the CONSEQUENCES of his action – given that such prior "shielding" of this kid from the consequences of his actions is precisely what cause the mental defect that is fully admitted & acknowledged by this defense.

    Stated simply, shielding this kid from the consequences of his actions NOW can NOT be in the best interests of a juvenile defendant whose lawyers, parents and hired psychologists all openly admit, suffers from a MENTAL DEFECT that was caused by the parental environment in which "he never learned about consequences." Obviously, such a 'shielding from the consequences' judicial decision would serve only to further aggravate the mental defect he suffers from.

    December 16, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
  5. WhatACrock

    Even r a p i s t s play the victim role when caught red handed.

    December 18, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
  6. teacher

    Child Protective Services should remove him from the family as he is apt never to avoid this supposedly
    undue influence of money when remaining in the home. Where will he learn there are consequences for
    your actions?

    December 20, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
  7. Richard Stanford

    if its the parents fault for shielding him why arent the parents being charged??

    December 21, 2013 at 8:02 pm |
  8. george haley

    This "afluenza" thing may be real. But who (except his defence lawyers) says this brat suffers the syndrome. Who says he wasn't taught right from wrong, or that one is responsible for the consequences of one's actions. Seems to me, if you want to vaccinate this kid against afluenza (if indeed he suffers this defect) keeping him in the same environment, i.e. home is not going to do the job, any more than it did a year ago, to pick an arbitrary time in the kid's past

    December 22, 2013 at 11:15 am |
  9. Regis

    This is a complete load of crap!!!!! He's a victim of his wealth .... you have got to me kidding for the judge and jury who let this kid off, SHAME ON YOU for letting this person get off after being intoixicated and killing four innocent people, and then trying to play the blame game.

    December 31, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
  10. Theleo

    If his parents had even ACCIDENTLY left a loaded weapon laying around even HIDDEN in a nightstand drawer, and the result was a juvenile/child harming himself or some one else then those parents are usually charged with negligence. This kids parents ALLOWED him to take the vehicle that transported him to the scene of the theft of the beer and the accident. Point made is they let him have access to the truck and that was negligent even if the child had merely had an un-fortunate incident where there was no drugs/alcohol involved as a factor. Simply speaking they can't be held responsible for the deaths but they SHOULD BE held responsible for providing the truck!

    December 31, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
  11. GrannyRN

    What kind of fools (on a jury) would actually buy this?
    This kid and his parents/lawyer need to ALL go and live on the streets.
    This is nothing more than a spoiled BRAT with a lawyer who has been paid too much. Probably has been getting him out of trouble for his whole life.

    January 1, 2014 at 11:51 am |
  12. Ghost

    Give me a break. This PERSON doesn't understand that killing four innocent people is heinous? Good lawyers, lots of money, and crap for parents does not release his conscience for being a killer. Rot in a place too awful to describe.

    January 2, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
  13. Karma Holic

    The bad karma here is too overwhelming and the Defendant, family, defense attorneys as well as the Judge will all get what is coming to them.

    January 3, 2014 at 11:50 am |
  14. Alan

    At first I was a bit blown away by the affluenza reasoning for allowing the son to do no jail time. However, what I feel the judge did is squarely point the cause of the accident at the parents. So, while in the criminal suit the boy gets off, in the civil suit it will show the parents are to blame, and the parents are the ones with the money. In the long run, if other rich parents are afraid their kids can cost them a huge settlement, they'll pay more attention to what their kids are doing. I hope the families of the victims here take the parents for most of what they have, then the kid will be cured of his affluenza.

    January 4, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
  15. glenda

    How stupid! The only thing this kid is, is a drunk and murderer, at 16. Go to jail!

    January 8, 2014 at 7:35 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.