"He was so affluent that he never learned right from wrong, and therefore it's not his fault he killed 4 people in a drunk driving accident."

-Ethan Couch’s Lawyers

"He had such a promising career that he never learned that he could get in trouble, and therefore prison would be too hard on him. Besides, why should he be punished for 20 minutes of action?"

-Dan A. Turner

By now you’ve probably heard of Brock Turner, the 20 year old Stanford student who was sentenced to 6 months of jail time for raping an unconscious 23 year old woman. The internet has been abuzz with all sorts of reactions to the ruling—outrage, anger, confusion, sadness. For me, the reaction was a little different. My first exposure to the case was in March, when the verdict was first delivered. At that point, I hadn’t heard the victim’s side of the story, and I hadn’t read much into the case or the happenings of the night. I just remember seeing the photo of this attractive boy, and reading that his crimes amounted to 14 years in jail, but he was only receiving 6 months jail time and 3 years probation. When I read that, my first reaction was déjà vu. I was immediately reminded of 2013, when Ethan Couch—or, as you may know him, the “affluenza teen”—was making headlines. As the Turner case is getting national attention now, a third case is being thrown around, the case of Corey Batey.

A little refresher for those of you who don’t know or remember Couch or Batey. Couch was a rich, white 16 year old, who drove home drunk and killed 4 people when he crashed his car. He was found guilty on all counts, and the prosecution called for 20 years in jail. Instead, he was placed in a treatment facility and given probation. Batey was a 19-year old black football player at Vanderbilt when he assaulted and raped a woman. On May 29^th, 2016, he was tried for 7 counts of aggravated rape, assault and battery, and ample evidence and testimonies by witnesses led him to be convicted on three of those. The defense used his football career and NFL aspirations as points as to why he should have a lessened sentence. The judge gave him a minimum sentence of 15-25 years in prison.

Reading back on the media coverage of these three trials, there are a lot of striking—and disturbing—similarities and differences. I’ll start by comparing Couch and Turner:

1. Both involve horrible tragedies. Couch drove drunk and killed 4 people who were not associated with him at all. Turner took a blackout drunk woman behind a dumpster and raped her, stopping not when she passed out, but when he was found by two cyclists.
2. In both cases, the defendant is white, attractive, and well off. Couch was from a well off family and lived in one of America’s most affluent neighborhoods in the suburbs of Fort Worth. Turner was a Stanford freshman, an All American swimmer, and was on track to compete in the Olympics.
3. This stance of privilege is used as part of the defense. In Couch’s case, a psychologist testified that Couch suffered from “affluenza,” a condition borne of being raised in privilege, and made him unable to know right from wrong. In Turner’s case, the fact that he was an aspiring Olympian and a Stanford student got thrown into the defense at every opportunity.
4. Both of the juries didn’t buy the defense. Both Couch and Turner were found guilty on all counts, and the recommended sentence was in line with what the prosecution was calling for,
5. However, despite the jury’s recommendation, both Couch and Turner were given incredibly light sentences, relating to back to the arguments made by the defense. Judge Perskey, presiding over Couch’s case did not give an explicit reason for the ruling, but the ruling was delivered after the psychologist gave the affluenza testimony. In Turner’s case, the judge was quoted saying "A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him. I think he will not be a danger to others."

Now let’s see how Batey’s case compares

1. It involved a horrible tragedy, aggravated assault and rape. “A woman was raped in the dorm room and then taken out in a hallway and left out there like trash.” There are photos of the instance, and witnesses who can testify.
2. The defendant was black, and a football player, from a working class background.
3. The defense used Batey’s NFL aspirations to try and reduce his sentence.
4. The jury found Batey guilty on 3 of the 7 claims made against him.
5. The Judge sentenced Batey to a minimum of 15-25 years of jail time. In an article describing the case, the statement is made “What Batey did was reprehensible. The judge and jury treated his crime as such.”

These three defendants, Couch, Turner and Batey, did things that are equally terrible. These three defendants had very similar trials, with their strong suits being used as points as to why they should have reduced or no sentence. In all three cases, the jury found them guilty of their crimes, and recommended a sentence based on that guilt. But only in Batey’s case did the judge follow that recommendation. The only difference between these three cases is the race, background, and socioeconomic status of the defendant. Why should that have any bearing on the outcome of the case? In everything I’ve learned about the American justice system, never did I learn that the traits of the defendant should determine the outcome of the trial. Never did I learn that crimes increase or lessen in their severity based on who commits them. Never did I learn that the background of a person should be a factor in how he is punished when he does something wrong.

Since Couch’s sentencing, the world has seen that his light sentencing has had no effect on teaching him right from wrong, the very lack in knowledge due to his “affluenza” that allowed him to receive such a light sentencing. On December 11, 2015 Couch was named a National Fugitive after his probation officer was unable to contact him. This came shortly after a video was released of Couch standing next to a beer pong game. As part of his probation, Couch was not allowed to drink alcohol. Couch and his mother were later found in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. Couch was sentenced to two years in jail. This shows that Couch and his mother truly did not learn from Couch’s light sentence. He instead learned that with the use of his privilege, and the right lawyers, he could evade punishment. With Turner being sentenced to only 6 months, and it being likely that his sentence will be cut to 3 months, it is frightening that our legal system may allow a situation as horrible as the Couch case to repeat itself. Turner will probably also learn that he can use his privilege to evade punishment, and with that mindset, what will he do once he is released from prison?

So, to the Judge Aaron Perskey, I now say this. Imagine your daughter was, God forbid, raped. Does the race of her assaulter make a difference in how much he should be punished for his actions? If she was assaulted by a rich, white athlete, is her suffering and pain less important than if she was assaulted by a man of color? Does her assaulter suffering from affluenza or having Olympic potentials mean that it was ok that she was raped? Justice was served with Corey Batey. Justice was not served with Ethan Couch. Justice is not being served with Brock Turner.

How many times does a white, privileged boy have to hurt people before things change?