In the justice system, certain rulings attract great media coverage and controversy. In 2013, the Ethan Couch case sparked outrage over the criminal justice system. The reason for it is that the defendant had received a seemingly lenient sentence as compared to that of Eric Miller, another defendant accused of the same crimes nine years prior to this. The two cases were similar in that both boys committed murder while driving under the influence of alcohol. However, Couch killed four people and injured twelve while Miller killed one person. Given how similar the circumstances surrounding their cases are, the question of why they got vastly different verdicts arises.
Based on the cases, the defendants could have each been charged with other crimes. Miller was charged with murder and failure to stop and render aid. He could have also been charged with a felony because the vehicle he was driving was stolen. Additionally, he could have been charged with the intent to cover up a crime. When he was caught, he attempted to shift blame to another teen and did not admit responsibility. On the other hand, Couch could also have attracted additional charges. For one, the defendant had consumed stolen alcohol, which is a misdemeanor, and was also doped on valium, which could have attracted a drug charge (Bult, 2015). In addition to this, his fast driving speed on the road probably caused the chain of collisions, thus, he could have been charged with reckless driving. Finally, both defendants could have been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
The two perpetrators could have employed certain lines of defense. Miller could have argued that he had a mental health problem that caused him to behave in a manner that was unlike him. His mother suffered from behavioral and psychological issues, such as bipolar disorder and depression (Mitchell, 2013). He could argue that these conditions could have been passed down from his mother to him, and his mental health was exacerbated by an unstable childhood. On the other hand, Couch’s defense could have argued that he should receive a compassionate ruling because he was remorseful. He readily admitted responsibility and showed a willingness to undergo both probation and therapy. The defense teams of both boys could have argued that they were teenagers who did not know any better.
Considering the facts of the case, the verdicts were given were unfair. Miller was punished beyond his crime while Couch received a lenient ruling that was unfair to the victims. Miller received a twenty-year sentence, which is the maximum amount of time possible for intoxication manslaughter under the Texas Penal Code. After being released, he had run-ins with the law again, which shows that his first conviction only punished him rather than rehabilitated him (Mitchell, 2016). When juxtaposed with Miller’s case, it is evident that Couch received a lax judgment. Not only had he killed more people, but his drug level was also significantly higher than Miller’s. It is important for the justice system to give verdicts that are both reasonable and consistent for them to be considered fair.
The two cases demonstrate a fundamental flaw of criminal law in that it is subjective. Depending on the defense, different litigations with comparable circumstances may receive dissimilar judgments. This may bring up issues of fairness in the justice system since people feel that such suits should be handled in a similar manner. By listening to the intricate details surrounding each case, judges can hopefully deliver rulings that are fair and consistent.
References
Bult, L. (2015). Family of Texas man who got 20 years for fatal drunk driving crash by same judge who sentenced Ethan Couch outraged ‘affluenza’ teen is on the lam. New York Daily News. Web.
Mitchell, M. (2013). Fatal crash in 2004 drew different sentence from Tarrant judge. Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Web.
Mitchell, M. (2016). Judge who gave Ethan Couch probation gave another teen 20 years behind bars for fatal DWI crash. Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Web.