Did US teen drunk-driving killer avoid prison because of family wealth?

Wealth has never had a stigma in the affluent suburbs of Fort Worth, a town on Forbes' list of America's most affluent neighbourhoods last year with a median income of US$250,000.

But in recent days, the implications of being rich have set off an emotional, angry debate, after a juvenile court judge sentenced a 16-year-old from a well-off family to 10 years' probation for killing four people in a drunk-driving crash.

The judge, Jean Boyd, last week declined to give the teenager, Ethan Couch, the punishment sought by Tarrant County prosecutors - 20 years in prison - and instead ordered him to be placed in a long-term treatment facility while on probation. The order came after a psychologist called by the defence argued that Couch should not be sent to prison because he suffered from affluenza - a term that dates at least to the 1980s to describe the psychological problems that can afflict children of privilege.

Prosecutors said they had never heard of a case in which the defence tried to blame a young man's conduct on the parents' wealth. If the boy continues to be cushioned by his family's wealth, another tragedy is inevitable, prosecutor Richard Alpert said.

The use of the term affluenza and the sentence have outraged the families of those Couch killed and injured, but whether the judge had in any way been influenced by the psychologist's testimony remained unclear.

Scott Brown, Couch's lawyer, said that the word affluenza was never at the heart of the case. His client had already pleaded guilty to the four deaths, and the word came up during three days of hearings regarding punishment. "I never used the word affluenza, and never would have used such a cute word in such a serious, tragic case," Brown said. "That's just been blown completely out of proportion."

Brown said Couch could have been freed after two years if he had drawn the 20-year sentence.