In 2013, Texas judge Jean Boyd sentenced a teenage drunk driver, who had killed four pedestrians, to just 10 years’ probation. Why? She agreed with a diagnosis of ‘affluenza’ as reducing the defendant’s responsibility. Basically, the judge accepted that because of his family’s wealth, the teenager could not be expected to understand the consequences of his actions. Can this be right?
You may already be aware of criticisms of psychiatric diagnosis:
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
