Affluenza: The Leona Helmsley Defense

On April 15, 1992, a private jet landed at Standiford airfield in Louisville, Kentucky. The plane’s destination was a closely guarded secret. Most of the world expected the hotel executive to arrive at the Blue Grass airport about 80 miles away. Reporters missed the moment as she checked into her new location. The fantastically wealthy Leona Helmsley became known simply as 15113-054 at Lexington’s Federal Minimum Security Facility for Women.

“We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” When Leona Helmsley spoke those words, she had no idea her views on position and privilege would go public. Those words followed her for the rest of her life. But that was not the worst of it.

That casual utterance, spoken in private, became an item of interest during the court proceeding that finally placed her in prison. The phrase made her a household name, but it probably made little difference in the verdict. By that time, the case had been pretty much cast in amber and sealed with superglue. Paper and numbers put her away.

Leona Helmsley had a solid reputation of screwing around with those little people, the ones who pay taxes and live by rules. This time she picked on the wrong people.

The Helmsleys bought a huge luxury mansion as a summer home, then refurbished it to a fabulous new level of glamour. Those of us who own 21 room summer homes might still envy the addition of an enormous new ballroom for occasional dance celebrations.

Of course, they short-changed the contractors who had worked on the project. The tactic was tried and true. If you don’t accept our unexpected new terms, you can sue us. You might even eventually win. Just keep in mind that we have terrific lawyers, and you will be tied up in court until your great grandchildren have their own great grandchildren.

But these contractors didn’t just go to civil court. They went to the feds. They produced bills, invoices, check stubs, and account ledgers. Federal authorities didn’t care who owed money to whom. They did care about federal tax evasion. The Helmsleys were paying for their fabulous new home as a tax deduction, billed through their hotel corporations as a series of disguised business expenses.

What can we suppose would have been the popular reaction if that unfortunate statement, that Leona Helmsley had honestly felt that rules were only for little people, had been introduced at her trial, not as part of the prosecution, but rather as a defense.

I thought about Leona Helmsley as I read about the “affluenza” kid, arrested with his mother in Mexico. Young Ethan Couch drove recklessly while drunk and killed a stranded motorist, her daughter, and two people who had stopped to help them. He got put on probation. He broke probation at a drinking party, recording it and posting it on line. As authorities closed in to arrest him again, he disappeared along with his extremely protective mom.

It was a seeming confirmation of yet another stereotype. The rich kid had been taught from an early age that rules are for other people, the lessor ones, the under achieved, the middle class, or even those who struggle against poverty, the losers.

What made the case unusual, and famous, was that the Leona attitude had been presented by the teenager’s lawyers as a defense at his original trial, back when he was guilty only of killing the good Samaritans and those they were helping. An expert psychiatric witness for the kid used the term “affluenza” for what he described as a mitigating mental condition.

The idea was that young Mr. Couch had been taught from childhood that bad behavior produces good results. Rules are for lessor folks. Every time the kid broke rules, those who caught him were threatened or cajoled into silence by the lad’s doting parents. He had never learned that it matters that some actions are wrong. He had never been held accountable.

So it would be unfair to hold him accountable now for partying to a stupor, borrowing his dad’s pickup, speeding down a small road at 70 miles an hour with 7 jubilantly yelling buddies, and smashing through 2 automobiles until he reached and killed 4 innocent people. Because of his doting upbringing, he had no idea he should not do what was wrong.

To one uninitiated in criminal psychiatric defense, it might seem that a tautology had been proposed, one that could be used by anyone who was obviously guilty of a serious crime. You should not punish me because I honestly thought I could get away with it.

Judge Jean Boyd, sentenced the wayward youth to ten years probation. No drinking. No partying where drinking was happening. Also included was a stint in a private rehabilitation facility. The stay would be paid for by his dad.

The public anger at the 4 deaths, the affluenza defense, and the light sentence of probation, combined into a cold fury when details about that rehab center itself went public. Turned out that the rehabilitation of Ethan Couch would include horseback riding, martial arts, cooking lessons, basketball, a swimming pool, and …. private massages.

The judge is retired now, a good career move. The screams for her head grew louder after the young misguided man recorded himself breaking his probation, drinking and partying. Still, he is unlikely to get a meaningful stint in prison, even after his capture in Mexico with his mom. Seems prison time for the probation he broke is covered under Texas law for juveniles, and cannot extend beyond the age of 19. Such was the degree of judicial wisdom as practiced by this member of the judiciary.

In fairness to Judge Boyd, she has always defied the stereotype of a harsh Republican judicial appointee. In fact, she has a history of looking for rehabilitation for young offenders where circumstances warrant. She has tried to turn lives around rather than simply punish bad behavior. And she still insists she found the affluenza defense without merit and disregarded it. It had nothing to do with the sentence she pronounced.

I wonder if she ever regrets that. A non-professional observer, you know – like me, might conclude that a youngster taught from infancy that there are no consequences for him, that rules are for losers, that such a youngster might benefit from a new and harsh education. One part of that core curriculum that comes to mind might have helped: the lesson that consequences are real and that they do apply to him.

Rather than ignoring the unusual defense, the judge might better have considered the obvious after hearing about affluenza. She could have administered the beginnings of a cure to the Leona Helmsley defense.

Published with permission of FairandUNbalanced.com.

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %