[luc4sdreyer]

The term became very popular during Ethan Couch's trial, because the judge bought it.

> Couch was indicted on four counts of intoxication manslaughter for recklessly driving under the influence. In December 2013, Judge Jean Hudson Boyd sentenced Couch to ten years of probation, subsequently ordering him to undergo therapy at a long term inpatient facility. Before sentencing, Couch's attorneys had argued that Couch had "affluenza" and needed rehabilitation instead of prison, arguing that Couch had no understanding of boundaries as his affluent parents had never given him any. Couch's sentence, judged by many as outrageously lenient, set off what The New York Times called "an emotional, angry debate that has stretched far beyond the North Texas suburbs".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza

[jacquesm]

It's interesting that this pretty much codifies the 'rich people have it easier in court' phenomenon, if 'being rich' is something that you can use in your defense no matter what the crime then that's an end run around justice. The discrepancy when dealing with rich vs poor in court is already tremendous, this acts like a force multiplier. I'd like to see that same judge looking at someone who is poor to give poverty as a defense being equally lenient. But I'm not too optimistic about that happening.