It was inevitable, really. Some lawmaker, surfing the outrage stoked by the wrist-slap handed down to 16-year-old Ethan Couch for drunkenly running over four people in Burleson last summer, was bound to propose a law attacking his novel "affluenza" defense. It's just weird that it would happen in California.
On Tuesday, California Assemblyman Mike Gatto filed a measure that would ban such a defense or, as he puts it, "provide that an act committed by a person is not less criminal by reason of his or her having been raised in an affluent or overly permissive household."
"People often think of the Legislature as too reactive," Gatto told the Los Angeles Times, which refers to his measure as "groundbreaking." "Up until last year, for instance, it was not illegal to commit rape if the victim thought the rapist was her husband or boyfriend, and people said how did you let this stay on the books so long? We're trying to be proactive."
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to the Observer's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Dallas's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
How the rape analogy fits into the debate isn't clear. Also unclear: how passing a law based on a single anecdote could possibly be considered "proactive."
Needless to say, Gatto's proposal is dumb, not just because it treats the outcome of a single case in Texas as a pressing epidemic but because the legislature shouldn't be meddling in criminal defense strategy. Let attorneys trot out the affluenza defense all they want. It's the judge and jury's job to call bullshit.
Expect an equally dumb proposal to surface when the Texas Legislature reconvenes next January.
Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.