Co-authored with Sampada Karandikar, a doctoral student at the University of Nevada, Reno.
The 2008 Oscar-winning film Milk dramatizes an incident that occurred in the United States in the 1970s in which a man named Dan White shot and killed Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (a legislative body), and George Moscone, the city’s mayor. White believed that Milk had convinced Moscone not to give White back his job as supervisor; his lawyers argued that White was depressed, as evidenced by his increased consumption of sugary foods and other changes in his diet.
These arguments were instrumental in White not being charged with manslaughter and receiving a lesser sentence. This argument became known as the “Twinkie defense” – not a legally recognized term, but a general term for White’s diminished responsibility (he committed suicide seven years later).
Source: Sora Shimazaki / Pexels
The U.S. legal system is replete with examples of “unconventional” defenses for both ordinary and bizarre cases of criminal conduct. One such creative defense has recently sparked a debate among state governments over whether or not “affluenza” should be allowed as a defense in court.
What is affluenza?
Affluenza was originally defined in the context of consumerism and materialism as a social condition that arises from the desire for more wealth and material possessions, resulting in a person constantly chasing financial success and yet feeling unfulfilled. Applied to a broader context, affluenza refers to the sense of entitlement of the economically affluent as a result of their privileged socialization, causing them to satisfy their needs in harmful ways without caring about the consequences of their actions.
This defense was first used in 2012 in the case of Ethan Couch, a young man who drove drunk and killed and injured several people. His lawyers argued that Ethan suffered from affluence disease due to his privileged socialization, which did not allow him to think about the consequences of his actions or consider them harmful. Using this defense, the lawyers were able to get his sentence reduced to ten years’ probation and mandatory therapy.
Is the flu of affluence a real defense?
If affluence disease sounds like a creatively “invented” justification to avoid responsibility for one’s own actions and their consequences, then it almost certainly is. As far as legal defense goes, it sounds like a self-serving way of putting nurture above nature: I was born with money and never had to think about the impact of my actions on others, so I never learned how to do this!
This defense may be closely tied to the social structures in which it is used. A study of Yale Law School students (who either already have elite status or are very likely to attain it) and average Americans found that the former tend to lean more toward self-interest than the latter. The main conclusion was that trade-offs between fairness and self-interest can affect career choices (and possibly life choices as well). From a creative perspective, affluence disease might score 10/10; however, from a moral perspective of individuals working for the common good, the score is negative.
Source: Burak The Weekender / Pexels
Although this defence has not yet been tried in Indian courts, there are several cases where it could be used. For example, earlier this year a 17-year-old boy killed two people in a drunken hit-and-run accident while driving his father’s Porsche. The family driver was subsequently forced to take the blame; the minor’s blood sample was switched with that of his mother; and the minor, his father and his grandfather were all taken into custody at different times. One could argue that the whole family suffered from affluence disease – an original and damaging way of justifying bad behaviour.
Disease of affluence or lenient upbringing?
As income inequality increases around the world, the financial privileges of the super-rich are only likely to increase. With them, the immoral justifications for the actions of the super-rich are likely to increase.
The attempt to blame one’s own crimes on one’s own social, financial or political position can be tragic for victims. The Couch case has given rise to numerous debates – not only on a legal level, but also from a psychological and educational perspective.
To some, it sounded like “affluenza” was a type of permissive parenting. This occurs when parents do not set boundaries for their children as they grow up, do not encourage them to take responsibility for their actions, and may not actively encourage empathy in children. The result is often self-centered individuals with a “can’t hurt me” attitude.
This brings us to the crux of this article: we argue that affluence disease is a dark, creative defense, and just that. It is a pseudoscientific justification for being mean, harmful, and destructive—and as much as it pains us to admit it, it is a rather original and seemingly effective explanation.
