Strange Defense: Affluenza Defense

While we were covering the case studies we were introduced to strange defense used by the defendants, and showed there were loopholes in this justice system. All the cases were eye opening but especially the affluenza defense stood out to me. The whole concept of the affluenza defense was that his lack of moral and ethics was based on the lavish life provided by his wealthy parents, and thus couldn't differentiate the right and wrong when killing the people while driving his vehicle with DUI. Considering DUI factor Couch would've been easily charged with at least an involuntary manslaughter, however the verdict was Couch being hospitalized in a mental hospital not facing any criminal charges. This disappointed the majority of people including myself since Couch had got away with the felony, and should've faced the charges. Moreover after the incident happened Couch acknowledges the fact he committed something bad, and admits his accountability to the incident while he was walking down the road from the scene. Therefore I believe the affluenza couldn't have been applied, and the court had made a terrible decision. What are your guys thoughts?