On June 15, 2013, 16 year old Ethan Couch drove his fathers truck along with his friends after stealing alcohol from a local Walmart in Texas. Couch, driving over three times the legal limit, lost control of the truck and struck a car on the side of the road killing four victims and injuring two more. Couch’s defense team argued that he suffered from “affluenza”. Coming from a wealthy family, Couch never learned what it was to not get his way or be responsible for his actions. Shockingly, the judge ordered Couch to attend therapy and a sentence of ten years probation with no jail time. We will be applying the self-control theory and the differential association theory to this crime in order to view it from a different perspective. First, we look at the self-control theory. Born into a wealthy family, couch was never taught that his actions come with consequences. His parents had failed to teach him right from wrong and did not rightfully punish him for any of his wrong doings. Thus, he felt no responsibility for his actions and didn’t think about consequences before doing them. If Couch was taught self control he would be held accountable for his crime or it may not have even happened. Next, is the differential association theory, Couch’s lack of self control and irresponsible behavior is a reflection of his parents. Court records show that Couch’s parents have previous accounts of traffic related crimes dating back to the late 80’s. His parents reckless behavior and lack of guidance could very well have influenced Couch. On the other hand, Couch might have felt a sense of entitlement due to his wealth which motivated him to break the law. However, It is obvious that Couch’s parents have a great deal of responsibility when it comes to Couch’s values and lack of self control.