‘Affluenza’ meet your fellow culprit ‘povertyza’
The press in all media have been repeatedly telling the world about Affluenza, a condition in which children of wealthy parents should be forgiven for various otherwise criminal activities, even including killing four humans, because of the wealth of the parents.
In such conditions it is not expected, according to a judge, that the parents teach the children right from wrong, and therefore those children should be forgiven for committing criminal acts. That makes me wonder about Povertyza, perhaps the opposite of Affluenza, a family situation where there is no wealth.
Would this be similar to Affluenza, where the same excuses apply? Or would it be the opposite of Affluenza, a family environment in which the parents teach the children right from wrong, and therefore the children are responsible for criminal acts?
It seems to me that the courts have determined that Povertyza is the opposite of Affluenza, so Povertyza children are responsible for criminal acts, and when such acts are committed they pay the appropriate penalty. I’m not sure how I can rationalize this difference in responsibilities, especially when my childhood would have qualified me for Povertyza. Do we need to fix some laws? Or do we need more prudent judges?
Ed Urie, Pawleys Island
This story was originally published January 14, 2016 at 9:13 PM with the headline "‘Affluenza’ meet your fellow culprit ‘povertyza’."