North Carolina’s Affluenza Amendment

[saynotoplutocrats]

Last year, 16 year-old Ethan Couch slammed his Ford F-350 pickup truck into four pedestrians, killing Brian Jennings, a 43-year-old Baptist youth minister; Breanna Mitchell, 24; Shelby Boyles, 21; and her 52-year-old mother, Hollie Boyles. He was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit. Authorities said the teen and friends were seen on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a store a short time before.

Today, the future is looking bright for Ethan, thanks to his multi-millionaire Republican fund raising daddy. When Ethan was tried by Texas Republican Judge Jean Hudson Boyd, his attorney offered the “Affluenza Defense”, stating Ethan was just raised too rich to know it was wrong to kill poor people. Judge Boyd loved the defense, and gave Ethan no jail time.

Republican Speaker of the House Thom Tillis started salivating like Pavlov’s dog as soon as he heard the “Affluenza Defense” bell ring. “If kids of rich Republican donors can get away with murder in Texas, why not in North Carolina?” Thom asked. So this fall, Tillis’ Republican NC Legislature have placed the Affluenza Amendment to the NC Constitution on the NC ballot. Rich Republicans facing felony charges can now forgo a pesky jury (that may be interested in “justice” or some such nonsense), and have their sentence handed down solely by a Republican Judge bought and paid for by rich Republican donors. And unlike most states that allow non-jury felony trails, North Carolina would not require the consent of the State Prosecutor. A Republican Judge and a Republican defendant are all that are needed to sign off on a jury-free trail. If the State Prosecutor feels a jury trial would better serve the interests of justice, there is nothing he can do to stop jury-free trail and the “Affluenza Defense” by a Republican Judge and a Republican defendant.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/27/4184576_nc-voters-will-decide-whether.html

[littlewolf]

1. I really hope this fails big time. such stupidity. nt

[FBaggins]

2. You didn't fall for the fiction of the OP did you?

If you read the actual article... you'll note that NC is the only state in the union that doesn't already have this.

[littlewolf]

3. I admit I did not read the article. guilty as charged. I ask for mercy. nt

[saynotoplutocrats]

4. "Most states require the consent of the prosecutor"

Not true. As the article states, "Most states require the consent of the prosecutor". Democrats argued for prosecutorial consent, but were overruled by the Republican majority. It is the absence of prosecutorial consent that makes this a Affluenza Amendment, as it removes all oversight.

[FBaggins]

5. So?

Consent of the judge would necessarily be subject to abuse of authority charges if the prosecutor disagreed with the decision.

Not sure why you put your post in quotes... since it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.