Well, he didn't successfully defend the case- from what I gather, he was found guilty. Here's the thing- it seems to be during the punishment phase where the judge considered testimony about his 'basic good character despite of the fact' when considering the penalty. That's what happens in criminal trials after the verdict when they calculate what should be done. So for punishment, rather than prison, he got probation and had to check in to some resort clinic or something. It's a slap on the wrist. Apparently local laws there gave the judge considerable discretion. There's no minimum sentencing rule, unlike drug cases in many jurisdictions where if someone is caught with a controlled substance, there's minimum sentencing laws that don't let judges have as much room to do that.

Now certainly if you were a victim or related to them, you wouldn't think this is cool. You'd have to be privileged in the first place to argue that privilege was to blame, it's not like that defense is available to just anyone. It sounds a bit Marie Antoinette, doesn't it? Let them eat cake. Sure.

But then again, it's a legal system, not a justice system. There's probably no such thing as a justice system. It's not 'justice' in the sense that you intuitively know it's wrong and the penalty does not square up based on what happens to others in this same situation, but we know that money matters, among other things. People really ought to be objecting to this, I don't know if anything could be done about it. It's not like people don't have First Amendment rights to state their opinions, and if the court bought it, that's the problem with the court. Was it an elected judge in a rich county or something? Maybe that has something to do with it. That certainly can impact what judges think when they have to please the community when they're up for re-election.

The legal team didn't seem to opt for a jury trial, so they knew what they were doing. A jury with families and things like this probably would be moved more emotionally by the prosecution to lock up this kid. With a judge, well, you want to consider a more technical application of the law without the emotions, sometimes that's the way to go.

Seriously, advance a better idea why this happens. They argue 'affluenza'- and that's exactly what happens. It's even a self fulfilling prophecy, because they argue that it doesn't give the kid some kind of firm grounding, and just as predicted- they let him go again, and look what happens. You don't see it?

It requires enablers or it doesn't work. If people did not enable other people, they don't act like this. And this is why many attractive women can get a sense of entitlement- from the royal treatment men give them by putting them on a pedestal. They get it each and every day from the moment they leave the house, several times a day, day in/day out, men's gazes don't avert, their eyes are scanning them and their heads follow them, men often don't even realize it, the men twitch, their body language indicates they are aware of the presence of an attractive woman nearby, they modify their behavior, and women notice that, so they get sense of what men think of them- like a lot of men have never even seen a woman before. I have seen far fewer males open doors and get out of the way of and stare at unattractive women and other people than they do attractive women, and it shows- it shows to women. So that affects their thinking. Don't do this, and watch the difference. They even respect it more. Act indifferent towards them, that is, don't do these things, and they will start to notice you.

Why does the king walk in and look regal- because that's the treatment he's given and what he's used to. It's the same with anyone- the behavior they receive from others is the way they're going to act, so if these people get a slap on the wrist and even let go because they're too affluent, it's no wonder they still keep acting the same way, because why wouldn't they- it works and that's what they're used to.