Urban Survival Syndrome and Affluenza Defenses

Urban Survival Syndrome and Affluenza Defenses
The Urban Survival Syndrome is a form of defense used in the American jurisprudence to justify or excuse the defendant’s act of crime. Individuals residing in crime-prone places tend to have an attitude of “kill o be killed” due to the resultant and constant fear of risk (Rosner 2012). This fear makes these residents feel there is no another alternative to safeguarding themselves from violence or crime than through murdering those who harass or intimidate them. This form of mentality results from extended livelihood in crime-prone or violent neighborhoods, mostly urban areas (Rosner 2012). Affluenza theory s a defense mechanism used to justify or excuse a defendant’s act of crime. The theory argues that an individual’s from wealthy and highly privileged upbringing sometimes tend to have difficulties in differentiating what is wrong or right because of their background nature. Also, Dart (2014) indicates that persons with this syndrome tend not to understand the consequences of their acts due to their economic privileges.
Daimion Osby and Ethan Couch’s Cases
The Urban Survival Syndrome defense was unsuccessfully used in Daimion Osby’s case in 1993. Daimion Osby, an 18-year-old African-American man, was accused of capital murder for taking the lives of two unarmed males who during shooting, were being held by Osby’s friends. Osby confessed to killing both victims but claimed it was in self-defense (Find Law n.d). Osby claimed that the victims had repeatedly threatened him and his action was due to fear that they might have killed him.

Osby’s attorney used the Urban Survival Syndrome suggesting the Osby’s action was in self-defense that if he had not killed them, then the assailants would have come back to threaten or murder him. Although this defense theory succeeded in the first trial where the jury did not agree on a verdict, the second trial found Osby guilty since they could not repeat the Urban Survival plea and was sentenced to life incarceration (Find Law n.d). Ethan Couch who murdered four people while under the influence of alcohol was given ten-year probation instead of imprisonment on claims that he had Affluenza syndrome condition. Couch’s attorney successfully argued that the defendant’s privileged and wealthy background clouded his understanding of the effects of his acts (Padnani 2015).
Circumstances, where one’s Criminal Act may be Justified or, Excused
Both the Affluenza and urban survival defenses can be applied efficiently but only in justifiable instances. It is important to note that ignorance of the law is not an excuse to justify one’s actions of crime. For example, the Affluenza defense can be applicable in instances where the offender has never had any exposure to the outside world like learning institutions, media and social gatherings among others. If the defendant lacks an education and have zero interactions with the world then using the theory can be justifiable since they lack knowledge about the law. On the other hand, the use of urban survival method can be legitimate in instances where an individual has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the assailant means grave harm to them. The example of Osby’s case appears he acted extremely given that he killed the attackers while they were unarmed and with the assistance from his friends. However, if indeed he had proof that the victims had planned to grab a gun and meant to fire at them, then the theory would have been applied justifiably.
Are the Affluenza and Urban Survival Syndrome Good Defenses to Delinquent Activities?
Both defenses are not legitimate arguments for delinquencies. In Osby’s scenario, its use was unsuccessful despite sharp disagreements in the jury between its supporters and those against it. It appears the syndrome was not an enough excuse for the crime. On the other hand, the successful use of affluenza theory was a misjudgment especially following Couch’s behavior of violating his probation and even fleeing the country. The court ruled that Couch’s wealthy upbringing clouded his judgment on right or wrong. However, is the affluenza syndrome still responsible for his violation of probation and fleeing the country? Most likely not which implies that as much as he knows he should not violate a court order, he knows murder or manslaughter is wrong.

References
Dart, T. (2014). Texas teenager suffering ‘affluenza’ avoids jail for the second time. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/texas-teenager-affluenza-escapes-jail-second-timeFind Law. (n.d). Osby v. State. Findlaw.com. Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1020984.htmlRosner, R. (2012). Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, (2nd ed., p. 236). Florida:
CRC Press.
Padnani, A. (2015). Ethan Couch, ‘Affluenza’ Defense Fugitive, Is Reported Captured in
Mexico. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/us/affluenza-texas-teenager-ethan-couch-mexico.html?_r=0