The juvenile justice system is based upon the premise that youths lack an understanding of “right” and “wrong” due to their immaturity. Young offenders are thought to lack mens rea (criminal intent)...

The juvenile justice system is based upon the premise that youths lack an understanding of “right” and “wrong” due to their immaturity. Young offenders are thought to lack mens rea (criminal intent) and the focus of the juvenile justice system is to treat and rehabilitate offenders rather than punish them. The ability to know right from wrong is thought to develop as one grows older. A novel argument regarding the lack of mens rea is the case of Ethan Couch. When Couch was 16 years old, he and a group of friends stole beer from a store, had a party at this parents’ house, and went for a drive. During the drive, Couch, who was DUI, ran over and killed four pedestrians and seriously injured a passenger. Couch’s defense was that he suffered from “affluenza.” He claimed that his affluent upbringing and permissive parents resulted in him not knowing right from wrong. The juvenile court judge Jean Boyd agreed and placed Couch in a long-term treatment facility while on 10-year probation. The prosecutor had asked for 20 years in prison. Can a person be so rich and spoiled that they do not know right from wrong? Does Couch’s sentence set a precedent for other young, rich offenders?