drunk kid kils 4 injures 11 no jail time

[Mazulu]

Not because you are a Christian, but because of your visceral hatred and disrespect and your inability to respect and allow people to be who they are.

Well that's a funny thing to hear coming from a moderator on this science forum.

You do what you have to do (with regard to a perma-ban). But I am of the opinion that destroying people's belief in God, in an afterlife, will make our stay here on earth, more difficult and meaningless for most. It's not about assisted suicide. That's not my issue. My issue is that there is too much suffering in the world to suddenly remove hope of a God or hope of an afterlife. I think of the people suffering (I mean really suffering) world wide. I think of warlords in Africa who destroy lives and think they can get away with because there is no God and no afterlife (because they believe in atheism).

So that you understand my issue, I think that atheism is equivalent to hopelessness. I take issue with people who perpetuate hopelessness. I think that perpetuating hopelessness is evil and morally wrong. So you can ban me if you wish, but I will not budge from my position.

 

[Bells]

Well that's a funny thing to hear coming from a moderator on this science forum.

How so?

In case it has escaped your notice Mazulu, the only one baying for blood here has been you. No one here has ever wished others die, and die violently and painfully because of their beliefs or lack of belief. The only person who has been doing that here and spraying it across the forum has been you and then you try to claim that you follow God or claim to believe in God. Some message you are spreading. If any person were to peruse this forum and were unsure about whether they believed or not and they read your posts, what kind of message you spreading about God when you spread the word of God by wishing death and pain and violence and showing a desire to commit mass murder on anyone who does not believe as you do? Personally, I would question any follower and their motives if this is what they believe. If I were a theist, to me you would be the personification of pure evil, because you so desire so many people to die, because they do not believe as you do. And it is absolutely disgusting.

You do what you have to do (with regard to a perma-ban). But I am of the opinion that destroying people's belief in God, in an afterlife, will make our stay here on earth, more difficult and meaningless for most.

Tell me, how will your God judge you for your absolute hatred and desire of death and pain because they believe differently to you?

You have done a better job of destroying people's beliefs in God than any atheist could have because the message you preach is one of pure hatred, evil and desire of people to die violently.

It's not about assisted suicide. That's not my issue. My issue is that there is too much suffering in the world to suddenly remove hope of a God or hope of an afterlife. I think of the people suffering (I mean really suffering) world wide.

So you wish to add to that suffering by wishing that people die violently and spend an eternity in hell merely for not believing as you do?

You are no better than the warlords you complain about who commit atrocities because their religion (both Muslim and Christian) is not shared by all. You share the exact same ideology that those murderers share.

I think of warlords in Africa who destroy lives and think they can get away with because there is no God and no afterlife (because they believe in atheism).

There is no belief in Atheism, so stop lying.

And the warlords in Africa are fighting a religious war. They, are exactly like you. Murderous towards anyone who does not believe as you do.

Not a single atheist here has wished death and pain on others. You, a supposed believer, has spent the better part of your time here wishing death, destruction and pain and horror on others because they do not believe as you do and then you blame the victims of your violent ideology because they do not believe as you do.

Frankly, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I wonder, if there is an afterlife, what will be waiting for you. Because anyone who can spend so much of their time wanting people to die and hoping and praying for people's death and pain has to have something nasty waiting for them in their afterlife. There is no good in you Mazulu. You are the personification of pure evil because you want people to suffer and die and spend an eternity in hell because they are different to you. Your God won't save you from that. There is no absolution for that kind of ideology and hatred.

So that you understand my issue, I think that atheism is equivalent to hopelessness. I take issue with people who perpetuate hopelessness. I think that perpetuating hopelessness is evil and morally wrong. So you can ban me if you wish, but I will not budge from my position.

And wanting mass deaths and mass murder of anyone who has a different belief or lack of belief to you is not hopeless?

Let me reiterate something for you, because you have invented this new reality for yourself. You hate and this hatred has consumed you so much that you sit there and pine for people's death and pain because they do not believe as you do. If your position is one that continues to wish for death and violence towards others, then you have no place here. No one here wants pain and death of their fellow human beings like you do. There is no hope for you Mazulu. I'm not just talking about burned bridges here, but the hell that will await you for your absolute hatred and violence towards others. Your position is one of death, destruction and death. There is no God or heaven for you. There cannot be if your religious texts are to be believed because you have gone against everything your religious texts and your God teaches.

 

[youreyes]

He def. needs to pay for his crimes.

 

[Mazulu]

I never wanted anyone to suffer or die, not even atheists. What I wanted was healing to humanity. I wanted to see people uplifted in spiritual light, love and compassion. But what I found instead was a hateful little scientific website filled with people who are mean and nasty to each other, and the moderators tolerate it. There is no goodwill here because you can't go 3 posts without someone calling someone else stupid or verbally abusing someone. That is the real problem here. Since day 1, I've been trying to articulate my viewpoint that spirit is something that exists within the eigenstates, within the wave-functions, as something that goes largely unnoticed by science (because how could science track such a thing). But I can't even state the idea without coming under fire with such significant verbal abuse that there is no point.

So to be clear. I openly defy the science forum's position that there is no spirituality, no spirit, no God. I will perpetuate hope in the afterlife even if it means annoying a bunch of atheists (which is all I really deserved to be blamed for). So as far as I am concerned, this website belongs to some plane in hell because it perpetuates hatred and hostility. I defy you Bells. I don't think you have the courage to ban me.

May God have mercy on your souls.

Abandon all hope all ye who enter this science forum.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Mazulu has now been permanently banned from Sciforums for continued trolling and threatening to continue to troll and abuse people after repeated warnings and bannings.

I defy you Bells. I don't think you have the courage to ban me.

Then you thought wrong. That was your last chance. You have received more than you deserved and your posts just got worse and instead of stopping, you promised to continue.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Right to determine medical care is something which should be an intrinsic right and yet even countries and states which HAVE this legislation like South Australia still have people in the health care sector who think its ok to ignore these orders. Not DNRs which are orders written by a doctor but directives written under legislation like the Consent to medical treatment and palliative care Act, written by the people themselves and even Guardianship orders which are issued by the courts.

My mother had a "no tube feeding order" on file, but the nursing home refused to honor it. They knew that we lived 600 miles away so we couldn't just drive over there and start kicking ass.

It took us two weeks to arrange the trip, and by that time she had finally expired. Ironically, it was due to inspiration of food during a tube feeding! She had already lost most of her brain power and memories. She had no idea who Mrs. Fraggle was, and called her by my first wife's name, whom she hadn't seen in 30 years. She was really embarrassed to behave that way, and it was obvious that she didn't want any more visitors to see her like that.

I have seen HCPs trying to find ways AROUND them rather than trying to find ways to honor a patients wishes and this gets even worse when you talk to HCPs in the US.

Someone told me that, at least here in the USA, DNR orders are routinely ignored because every year about ten medical professionals are successfully sued for honoring them. It's considered the worst sort of malpractice, so that doctor, nurse, orderly, paramedic, etc. will never be able to work again.

On the other hand, no one has ever been successfully sued for ignoring a DNR! And even if this happens some day, I doubt very much that it will be a career buster.

Oh and BTW, helium is supposed to work quite well and painlessly and wont harm the emergency service workers and the undertakers as long as the room is properly ventilated afterwards

The "helium balloon" technology is all the rage. There was a long article on it in the Washington Post Sunday supplement a couple of years ago, by a doctor who shows people how to do it. He had been prosecuted twice but in both cases the jury refused to convict him because he did not actually participate in the death, but merely explained it. Since then the courts have left him alone.

It involves tying a sturdy plastic bag around your neck, with a tube from a party-balloon helium tank securely fastened inside. The bag needn't be perfectly sealed, since the helium will rise and force all the oxygen out the bottom. All of the paraphernalia are easily purchased without raising suspicion, and can be kept in storage for years. And unlike most other ways of committing suicide (except guns, which in the hands of an amateur shooter might result in a painful, lingering expiration or permanent brain damage) you can change your mind right up until the last moment of consciousness. And you don't need enough helium to fill the entire room.

[Note to the Moderator: since the Stone Age U.S. legal system refuses to prosecute people for actually doing this, there can't be any risk to SciForums for allowing it to be merely discussed.]

 

[The Marquis]

I think what made so many people angry about this story is that his lawyers argued that he did not know better because he is so rich and because of the family wealth, his parents never taught him right from wrong, and the judge allowed that to stand as a valid defense...

...Well, being a supposed victim of a made up condition because of his wealth, and because he was let off, the families of the victims are going to sue. And sue they should. While it cannot bring back their loved one's, they are doing it to teach him a lesson. He was drunk, stoned and driving 50km over the speed limit. They have every right to be angry and upset and every right to want or expect the law to hold him responsible for his actions. To claim that he cannot be because he is rich is ridiculous. The law is not written with the explicit protection of the wealthy.

Actually, Bells, this entire thing really has nothing to do with whether or not the kid was rich - defences based on "mitigating circumstances" have been at least mildly successful for years, for people from all walks of life. There are hundreds of examples. In most cases, in Australia at least, the poor are actually benefiting the most from that. All one need do, over here at least, is plead a hard luck story.

Talk about daddy or mummy not paying enough attention, or how you raped that girl because you were brought up in an environment which disrespected women, and it's a guaranteed walk. Talk about how daddy make you do things when you were little, and that's why you did that to that kid. Talk about how the priest used you for the pastry in his little game of sausage roll, and that's why you fell in with the wrong crowd and robbed that bank.

Or how about Carmelita Mathews? Religion, too. Apparently that makes you exempt from the law.
Bells... even the fact that you were on drugs or drunk is a valid defence these days. It's a valid defence that you broke the law as a result of you breaking the law. Or at least, it will lead to a sentence reduction.

Killed that girl? Cut her up and chucked her out with the trash?
20 years.
Did it while you were on a three day meth binge and "don't remember it"?
Oh... sorry. 10 years.

And while I'm on the subject, who is most likely to be on a three day meth binge? Who is more likely to use a sad upbringing and current mental issues as a defence?
Rich kid, poor kid.. or both?


So if you're going to make a statement like this:

The law is clear. It is illegal to drive under the influence. Whether his parents taught him right from wrong is beside the point, when you consider the clarity of the law in saying that is wrong.

then apply it across the board.

It is ridiculous to think that "mitigating circumstances" is a valid defence only for the poor.



While I'm here... the only reason people are going to sue his family or whatever is because they know that some judge somewhere is going to give them a multi-million dollar settlement, and because they'll actually see the money. No point doing that to a poor family, is there. Even if the bastard was given one year in jail because he threw your daughter off a balcony in rage while on drugs.

I mean, seriously. If someone does kill one of your loved ones, you'd better hope they're rich. At least then you get your mortgage paid off in exchange for your child.





How far do you think I'd get if I sued the justice system in Australia for damages, citing "unspecified mental trauma and long term psychological pain derived from decades of watching arseholes sidestep the law due to "mitigating circumstances"?
I might be able to get a QC to take that one on pro bono, just to see how far he could push it in court.
It's not my fault I turned out to be a cynical prick, is it?

 

[RickyH]

Sounds like a high school football television series. To think i have spent more time in jail than him for possession of marijuana.

 

[The Marquis]

http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...accused-not-well/story-e6frfkui-1226787101294

"The defence claimed that Elisabetta's knowledge of Lawson's supposed drug use materially affected the TV cook's attitude towards her spending."

Right. So... here I am on sciforums, waiting for someone to get all up in arms about a rich guy's credit cards being used by some poor people because.... it was ok, because his wife was on drugs.
Not guilty.

.....


Where's your outrage now?
And how far do you think Saatchi will get suing these domestic workers for damages?


This thread? Phhhhht.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Actually, Bells, this entire thing really has nothing to do with whether or not the kid was rich - defences based on "mitigating circumstances" have been at least mildly successful for years, for people from all walks of life. There are hundreds of examples. In most cases, in Australia at least, the poor are actually benefiting the most from that. All one need do, over here at least, is plead a hard luck story.So if you're going to make a statement like this:

The law is clear. It is illegal to drive under the influence. Whether his parents taught him right from wrong is beside the point, when you consider the clarity of the law in saying that is wrong.

then apply it across the board.
It is ridiculous to think that "mitigating circumstances" is a valid defence only for the poor.

The Marquis, if you actually read the whole statement, and do NOT take it "out of context" or try to "read something else into it", Bells actually states :

The law is clear. It is illegal to drive under the influence. Whether his parents taught him right from wrong is beside the point, when you consider the clarity of the law in saying that is wrong. The law also clearly says that theft is illegal and thus, wrong. He stole the beer he drank to put him over the limit. He also consumed drugs. On a prior occasion, he was found with an unconscious naked 14 year old girl in his car, he was let off then as well.

The judge's ruling sets a dangerous precedent. That if you are rich, then you simply cannot know better while if you are poor, then you should know better.

The Marquis, I read nothing in Bells' Post that led me to believe that she thought :

...that "mitigating circumstances" is a valid defence only for the poor.

In all actuality, it would seem, by your own Post, that you lean more in that direction than Bells :

Actually, Bells, this entire thing really has nothing to do with whether or not the kid was rich - defences based on "mitigating circumstances" have been at least mildly successful for years, for people from all walks of life. There are hundreds of examples. In most cases, in Australia at least, the poor are actually benefiting the most from that.

As for the rest of your Post...well...

It's not my fault I turned out to be a cynical prick, is it?

Well, The Marquis, you could always be a Man about it, and accept that you are responsible for your own behavior/actions...
...or continue to seek/find/Post "mitigating circumstances" that absolves you of any responsibility.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Miller called the teen a victim of "affluenza," a rich-kid syndrome that led him to believe money solved everything.

Surely a long jail sentence is the ideal cure for affluenza?

 

[The Marquis]

I would have thought, TDMOE, with reference to your last comment, that that was the thrust of my entire post. Perhaps that's on me. Sometimes I hink I'm being obvious, when really I am not.
You can blame the Bloody Marys, tonight, if you wish. Ooooh, yeah.

Does the fact that this case was worthy of an entire thread, and not the one I last quoted, tell you nothing at all?
See it? This case is one worth making a thread about.
Not Saatchi having half a million pounds stolen from him.

If I'd seen an identical post in this sub-forum about the Lawson/Saatchi case, containing the same amount of "righteous indignation" I've seen here, I'd probably have said nothing.
But there isn't one, is there? Think there will be? Think anyone cares? Or is it, perhaps, a case of "Hah! finally someone got off stealing a rich guys money"?


Do i think this kid should have been thrown in gaol with the rest of them? Yep. I do.
But if you're going to accept the decision in the Saatchi case, then accept this one too. That's the deal. That's justice. And that's the result of the justice system's acceptance of "mitigating circumstances" as an acceptable defence. You asked for it; now you have it.

To go on about a perceived miscarriage of justice while remaining ignorant or accepting of another, dependant entirely on financial standing, is utter bullshit.
Justice and law should not be concerned, ever, with financial standing.
The replies to this thread have been posted with that consideration in mind. Just read them. Soft eyes, mate. Soft eyes.

Is that clear now?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

A lot of it is a matter of luck, good or bad.
The kid could have been driving along the same road, same amount of alcohol, same amount of valium, a hundred times, and not have crashed.
If he had been caught, then probation would probably have been seen as the right punishment.

In this case he did crash, he killed people and he's responsible.
Whether 30 years is just, is another consideration.
But no prison, ridiculous.

 

[The Marquis]

So, Kremmen, why are you concerned about this kid, and not the maids in the Saatchi case?

Just asking.
Not flogging dead horses or anything, you understand.

 

[Bells]

Actually, Bells, this entire thing really has nothing to do with whether or not the kid was rich - defences based on "mitigating circumstances" have been at least mildly successful for years, for people from all walks of life. There are hundreds of examples. In most cases, in Australia at least, the poor are actually benefiting the most from that. All one need do, over here at least, is plead a hard luck story.

Talk about daddy or mummy not paying enough attention, or how you raped that girl because you were brought up in an environment which disrespected women, and it's a guaranteed walk. Talk about how daddy make you do things when you were little, and that's why you did that to that kid. Talk about how the priest used you for the pastry in his little game of sausage roll, and that's why you fell in with the wrong crowd and robbed that bank.

Or how about Carmelita Mathews? Religion, too. Apparently that makes you exempt from the law.
Bells... even the fact that you were on drugs or drunk is a valid defence these days. It's a valid defence that you broke the law as a result of you breaking the law. Or at least, it will lead to a sentence reduction.

Killed that girl? Cut her up and chucked her out with the trash?
20 years.
Did it while you were on a three day meth binge and "don't remember it"?
Oh... sorry. 10 years.

And while I'm on the subject, who is most likely to be on a three day meth binge? Who is more likely to use a sad upbringing and current mental issues as a defence?
Rich kid, poor kid.. or both?


So if you're going to make a statement like this: then apply it across the board.

It is ridiculous to think that "mitigating circumstances" is a valid defence only for the poor.

Is it?

Mitigating circumstances usually apply in cases of abuse or illness for example. Being drunk and slamming your car into others and blaming it on being too rich to know better does not cut it, nor should it ever cut it.

While I'm here... the only reason people are going to sue his family or whatever is because they know that some judge somewhere is going to give them a multi-million dollar settlement, and because they'll actually see the money. No point doing that to a poor family, is there. Even if the bastard was given one year in jail because he threw your daughter off a balcony in rage while on drugs.

I mean, seriously. If someone does kill one of your loved ones, you'd better hope they're rich. At least then you get your mortgage paid off in exchange for your child.

Which is the entire problem in this case. The families of those who lost loved ones in that crash had said that had he been punished or given a jail sentence, had the judge acted responsibly and not allowed his affluenza defense to stand, then they probably would not have sued. Since the court used his family's money as a defense, then it stands to reason to go after said money.

How far do you think I'd get if I sued the justice system in Australia for damages, citing "unspecified mental trauma and long term psychological pain derived from decades of watching arseholes sidestep the law due to "mitigating circumstances"?
I might be able to get a QC to take that one on pro bono, just to see how far he could push it in court.
It's not my fault I turned out to be a cynical prick, is it?

Good luck with that.

"The defence claimed that Elisabetta's knowledge of Lawson's supposed drug use materially affected the TV cook's attitude towards her spending."

Right. So... here I am on sciforums, waiting for someone to get all up in arms about a rich guy's credit cards being used by some poor people because.... it was ok, because his wife was on drugs.
Not guilty.

Different thread and different circumstances. And they should have been found guilty. It was clear fraud. So why are you so obsessed about the two maids and offended their case is not being discussed in this thread?

 

[The Marquis]

Again, I thought I'd made that clear.

Posters on sciforums chose to make this case a thread for discussion, and not the other example, of the same defence.

You replied to this thread because you were angry a rich kid kid got off. You didn't even notice another example of the exact same "justice" being applied in similar circumstances.

So how does it go, Bells. Justice is only worth discussion when it has relevance to what your prejudices are?

 

[Bells]

Again, I thought I'd made that clear.

Posters on sciforums chose to make this case a thread for discussion, and not the other example, of the same defence.

You replied to this thread because you were angry a rich kid kid got off. You didn't even notice another example of the exact same "justice" being applied in similar circumstances.

So how does it go, Bells. Justice is only worth discussion when it has relevance to what your prejudices are?

Soooo you want me to troll the internet looking at what famous people are doing in the entertainment pages to comment on on this site?

Do you think these cases are someone similar?

Is it prejudiced? Am I prejudiced because I am not commenting on what famous people are doing? Firstly, I don't read the entertainment pages, so I didn't even know that Lawson had legal problems with her staff. Secondly, if you feel so strongly about it, there is nothing stopping you from opening a thread about it. Thirdly, from what I had read in the link you provided, no, the cases are nowhere near similar and mitigating circumstances apply differently in each case and finally, one is in the UK (I would presume) and the other is in the United States, which means different laws.

So I kindly suggest you stop putting words in my mouth because you want to talk about famous people and the trouble they have with their staff.

 

[The Marquis]

Heh. "Trouble with the staff". Says... everything. About you. About every other poster in this thread.

I think, Bells, that you don't have the ability to put yourself in their shoes and understand where the miscarriage of justice actually lies.
And isn't this what this thread is about, at its core? A miscarriage of justice? Isn't that what we're talking about, here?

I'm not going to open a thread about it. I'm only going to observe what other people open threads about, by comparison with what they might have opened a thread about, if they had any sense of balance. Do you not know that, by now?

A hundred threads about why this kid should be in gaol. Not one about why the maids should be.
I don't care about justice, Bells. Only about why you think one case is more important than the other.

And, so far, not a single poster who even gets what I'm on about.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I would have thought, TDMOE, with reference to your last comment, that that was the thrust of my entire post.

Is/does what you "would have thought" more important than/take priority over what you actually think, or Post?

Perhaps that's on me. Sometimes I hink I'm being obvious, when really I am not.

Oh, The Marquis, you are being quite "obvious" in regards to what you "hink(sic)".

You can blame the Bloody Marys, tonight, if you wish. Ooooh, yeah.

I do not "wish" to "blame the Bloody Marys". Do you "wish" to "blame the Bloody Marys", The Marquis?
If so, whom do you "wish" to "blame" for being responsible for The Marquis imbibing "the Bloody Marys, tonight"?

Does the fact that this case was worthy of an entire thread, and not the one I last quoted, tell you nothing at all?
See it? This case is one worth making a thread about.
Not Saatchi having half a million pounds stolen from him.

It tells me quite a bit, actually.

The Marquis, it tells me that you seem to find that "Saatchi having half a million pounds stolen from him", is somehow as bad or worse or more important than a person killing 4 people, and injuring another 11 people.

The Marquis, do you honestly consider "half a million pounds" as valuable/important or more valuable/important than the lives of 4 people and the suffering of 11 more people?

If I'd seen an identical post in this sub-forum about the Lawson/Saatchi case, containing the same amount of "righteous indignation" I've seen here, I'd probably have said nothing.
But there isn't one, is there? Think there will be? Think anyone cares? Or is it, perhaps, a case of "Hah! finally someone got off stealing a rich guys money"?

The Marquis, your "If I'd seen...", "I'd probably have..." or "perhaps..." only seem to make your position more obvious.

Do i think this kid should have been thrown in gaol with the rest of them? Yep. I do.
But if you're going to accept the decision in the Saatchi case, then accept this one too. That's the deal. That's justice. And that's the result of the justice system's acceptance of "mitigating circumstances" as an acceptable defence. You asked for it; now you have it.

What I "think" about either of these cases is not the issue.

I have no choice but to "accept the decision" of both cases. It is not within my power to change either "decision".

To go on about a perceived miscarriage of justice while remaining ignorant or accepting of another, dependant entirely on financial standing, is utter bullshit.
Justice and law should not be concerned, ever, with financial standing.
The replies to this thread have been posted with that consideration in mind. Just read them. Soft eyes, mate. Soft eyes.

The Marquis, I am not going "on about a perceived miscarriage of justice while remaining ignorant or accepting of another".
You Posted a question:

It's not my fault I turned out to be a cynical prick, is it?

I responded to it by Posting :

Well, The Marquis, you could always be a Man about it, and accept that you are responsible for your own behavior/actions...
...or continue to seek/find/Post "mitigating circumstances" that absolves you of any responsibility.

The Marquis, I am simply trying to respond to your queries directed towards me.

Is that clear now?

The Marquis, as I stated prior in this Post, I find your position obvious. You have made your position very clear.

 

[Undefined]

A general observation only! In my opinion, there is a natural staged-division when I consider such human/criminal events:

Stage I: Each case should be considered/discussed in the context of the specific/peculiar circumstances in evidence/involved, and apply common law/natural justice when considering persons/levels for determining/assigning culpability.

Stage II: When Stage I is completed, and IF the defendant is found culpable/guilty to whatever degree the law/trail resolves to, then similar past cases and other relevant precedents should be compared/consulted, and community/natural justice expectations/outcomes taken into account in order to inform better the decision as to 'sentence' and/or reparatory requirements to be imposed.

Stage III: Cases of all sorts involving claims of 'mitigating factors' can then be compared/discussed (as is being done now in this thread ), so that further action may be considered by the community to change (if necessary) the laws so that better discrimination can be made between the various KINDS/GENESIS of these 'mitigating factors', and whether any one or other such factors are actually legitimate or contrived.


Hence the discussion in this thread expressing opinions that 'poverty/indoctrination' etc may be legitimate. But then arises the question of whether 'being rich and being let off too often etc' is a legitimate 'mitigating factor for behavior leading to terrible tragedy. It has also been pointed out that IF the person gets away with the defense of 'being rich and let off too often' by/because of his PARENTS' wealth/failure to instill reasonable values of personal/social responsibility/limits, then it AUTOMATICALLY INVOKES the reality that the pARENTS are the culpable parties in all this.

NOW if the parents claim defense of "nothing to do with us or our wealth" etc etc, then it comes BACK to the child in question, and whether the child should face retrial based on an appeal made by the prosecution NOW IF the parents are 'let off' and so making the childs' defense of "affluenza" as mitigating circumstances effectively null and void and invalid IF the parents are acquitted of their responsibility/culpability as the contributing factor resulting in their child's actions in this tragedy!

Sorry, ran out of time. But I trust you get the drift? Cheers; and good luck to all of you, and may you NEVER find yourselves in any situation where the question of 'mitigating circumstances' need be considered by anybody, especially a court/jury!