16 yo DUI kills 4 & gets 10 yrs probation

 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/12/250490841/probation-for-teen-who-killed-4-heres-the-judges-thinking

Mark Memmott from NPR reported about a 16 yo boy from Texas whose DUI led to a crash killing 4 people. The judge ordered the youth to a long-term inpatient facility for treatment. The judge stated that the youth was responsible for his actions, not his parents. The judge did not sentence the youth to a state run facility due to the ineffective outcomes from those facilities. The judge allowed for his parents to pay $450k/yr for a private facility since the family has the finances to foot that bill. The standard sentence would have been 20 yrs but the teen could have been out with in 2 yrs. The feedback from this ruling have been both positive and negative. On the one hand the youth will be under supervision for 10 yrs compared to the 2 yrs in juvenile detention & have the opportunity to go through intensive therapy to address the substance problem but on the other hand others perceive his sentence to not be enough for the crime, especially in light of the financial security the youth's family has.

This article brings up heated topics for discussion i.e. the idea of "Affluenza", juvenile vs. adult sentences, rehabilitation vs. incarceration, and effectiveness of state run facilities. Everyone does not have an equal opportunity to be treated in a private facility due to financial/insurance constraints. Thus, does this youth's financial stability create an unfair advantage? If the judge acknowledges the difference in outcomes from state run vs. private facilities why is Texas still ordering the less fortunate to these facilities (if they even have that opportunity to seek rehabilitation instead of incarceration?) The outcome of this case brings up the debate whether all juvenile offenses, regardless of nature,  should seek rehabilitation first before incarceration. My opinion is that this youth's access to financial resources does create an unfair advantage by opening up more effective resources to avoid incarceration. If Texas' state run facilities are not effective then the funding for these program should be funding evaluations on ways to improve this resource and make it a more level playing field. Also, the state could also research and compile a list of private facilities that take medicaid or cases on a sliding fee scale in order to help with opening up access to different facilities. I like that the youth will be under supervision for the next 10 years and any violations will lead to incarceration however, I would prefer for this to be treated like a bench mark case. The outcome of this case should be used as the standard for similar cases regardless of the demographics of the juvenile offender.