Lately it seems that all I ever write about is gun regulation, Donald Trump, or the presidential race in general. I am tired of these topics, but they just won’t go away … every day there is something else that my conscience won’t let me leave alone. But today, I thought, is the day that I am going to take a break, write about something light and fun! But alas … maybe tomorrow, because just as I was trying to think of what might be fun for me to write and my readers to read, this crossed my desk:
“Tonya Couch, the mother of so-called “affluenza” teen Ethan Couch, had her bond lowered from $1 million to $75,000 at a hearing on Monday.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/us/texas-affluenza-tonya-couch/index.html?sr=fbCNN011216texas-affluenza-tonya-couch0351AMVODtopLink&linkId=20283485
You may remember my post of 16 December 2015 titled “The New 1% Disease” about “affluenza”. https://jilldennison.com/2015/12/16/the-new-1-disease/ The post was inspired by the story of this woman’s son who, after driving drunk and killing four innocent people, was given only a proverbial slap-on-the-wrist because it was ruled that as a result of being born into a wealthy family, he was not able to understand the concept of responsibility, and thus could not be held accountable for his actions. Then, just two years into his ten-year probation sentence, he disappeared. Poof. Vanished, as did his mother. Just over two weeks later, Couch and his mother were found in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. The mother was promptly returned to the U.S. and was being held on $1 million bail. Given the family wealth, one would not expect a mere $1 million to be a huge drain on the family coffers, but apparently it was, so during her bond hearing yesterday the bail was lowered to a modest $75,000. She is charged with hindering the apprehension of her son, who fled to Mexico after a video surfaced showing him drinking alcohol, a blatant violation of his probation. She will likely end up paying only 10% of the bond, or $7,500. Her older son claims that she is broke … a story I find difficult to believe, especially in light of the fact that she withdrew $30,000 from her bank account to fund the trip to Mexico. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have $30,000 readily accessible! Generally a higher bond is intended to keep a person in jail if that person is believed to be a “flight risk”. Apparently the Texas judge who lowered Ms. Couch’s bail does not believe that she is at risk of disappearing before trial, despite the fact that she already did exactly that back in December.
Meanwhile, back in Mexico, young Ethan, now 18 years of age, languishes in a Mexican migrant holding facility pending extradition. Why has he not already been extradited to the U.S.? Because his attorney argues that extraditing him, or “kicking him out of Mexico” would violate his rights, since he hasn’t committed any crime in Mexico. As a result, Couch’s return to the U.S. will take a minimum of two weeks and could take as long as several months. The matter now apparently rests in the hands of the Mexican immigration court. His attorney has announced that he will appeal any unfavorable decision, in which case the process could be lengthy, if not interminable. Meanwhile, what about the rights of Kevin McConnell whose 12-year-old son, Lucas was one of nine people injured by Mr. Couch? Or what about the rights of Eric Boyles, whose wife and daughter were both killed by Mr. Couch? Who has the greater right here, the criminal or the victim?
Now, I don’t understand the concept that he should not be deported from Mexico because he “hasn’t committed any crime in Mexico”. Let us think about this for just a minute. First, the U.S. does, in fact, have an extradition treaty with Mexico that was signed on 13 November 1997 and entered into force on 21 May 2001. Surely, I thought, this means that Mexico is obligated to return this young man to the U.S. to stand trial. But then, as I was researching the topic (yes, I do actually research before I make a statement), I discovered that most extradition treaties actually have a requirement of “dual-criminality” … in other words, the person must be found to have committed a crime in both countries! Upon learning of this, my first thought was “how utterly ridiculous!” But then, I tried thinking of it in some hypothetical cases completely apart from the Couch case, and I realized that simple extradition based solely on the request of one country could certainly lead to crimes against humanity and human rights abuses.
So, I have another idea. Consider the following. After the end of WWII, Adolph Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi SS officers and one of the major organizers of the Holocaust, fled to Argentina using a false passport under the name of Ricardo Klement. Many, including famed Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, dedicated themselves to finding Eichmann, as well as other former Nazis. Long story short, eventually they discovered that he was living comfortably with his family in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Argentina had a long history of denying extradition requests for Nazis, so in 1960, Mossad, Israel’s famed intelligence agency, simply kidnapped Eichmann and smuggled him out of the country, to later be tried and executed. Okay, there is a bit of a difference between Eichmann and Couch, and I’m not suggesting execution for this stupid and misguided young man, but I am suggesting that if Mexico refuses to extradite within a reasonable amount of time, say ten days or two weeks, CIA agents be dispatched to kidnap him and bring him to the U.S. to face the music.
And some music it will be, as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) are circulating a petition demanding that Couch’s case be moved to adult court. I am not sure what the protocols and precedents for such an action are, and that is research best left to the experts. But what I do know is that MADD has historically had significant influence and has been successful in the enactment of more than 1,000 new laws since their founding in 1980.
The wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly, but turn they do. I strongly suspect that Tonya Couch will ultimately plead that she is not responsible for her actions due to some mental illness and be let off with a minimum sentence, possibly only probation, although by law she could receive up to a ten-year prison sentence. And I think that eventually Ethan Couch will be returned to the U.S. I cannot predict whether he will be transferred to adult court, but I certainly hope he is. I think it will be years before this matter is fully resolved and that even then most of us will believe it wasn’t enough. I only hope that there will never again be a case where a person is not brought to justice based solely on the fact of being too wealthy to understand social and moral responsibility.
Pingback: A New ‘Affluenza’ Epidemic | Filosofa's Word
It is strange that he wants to stay in a Mexican cell…. are jails in Mexico not tougher than in the US? Or is that just another cliché? Anyway, rich kids getting away with everything just make me sick…. Especially wealthy people should know the concepts of responsibility! Mum and Dad should have taught him! … No, I am not going to go further into this… makes me too angry….
Oh, and by the way … I am not really sure about the Mexican jail vs U.S. jail thing, as I have never been a guest in either 😀 But like you, I have always heard that Mexican jails are pretty horrible. I think his reason for preferring that is that he is afraid of what will happen when he comes back here, but I rather doubt he’ll actually serve much time here, either. Money talks, and he’s got plenty.