Your Kidding,

A bleeding heart for a nice young girl. What if he was a young teenage boy, driving at 90kmh over the speed limit, killed one of his mates and injured and mamed the others. Do you think he would get 2 months, and do you think you would care?

In this society, young women are protected and put on pedistals by all those around them.

Let the law be the same for young men and women, whatever the sentance would be.

The fact is, she will go away for 2 months to a minimum security prison. No university of crime can give you a crash course in 2 months. It is probably just enough time out to make her feel better, perhaps like she has paid for what she has done, and when she gets out she can begin again. Speaking from experience, it is alot easier to put something behind you if you are prisoned and feel like you have been punished than if you are not and live with yourself.

The author is very subjective and the private school girl got a rich white girls defence.

She may not be jail material, but she was not driving material either, and being an idiot in a car risking the life of others cannot be ignored or forgiven without redress for her actions.

I'm curious.

What sort of car was it to have a computer on board? an SUV , 4WD or a V8 ?

These are the cars that kill in the hands of in-experienced drivers.

Do we have any evidence that there is a difference in sentencing - applied by the judiciary - regarding near identical first offences -involving inexperienced teenage drivers? Perhaps we do - if so, lets address it. Or are we simply assuming that sentences would be different based our broader experience of community attitudes toward teenagers of different gender, ethnicity and socio-economic circumstances. The judiciary faces much criticism from elements of society about its discretion - where that criticism often targets discretion applied to young people from challenged socio-economic circumstances. I've little doubt that this young woman will live a shattered life as a result of this accident which probably occurred amidst peer pressure. A gaol sentence would serve no more purpose for this young woman than it would for any young man - regardless of economic circumstances. The beauty of judicial independence is that popular opinion need not necessarily curb thoughtful discretion. To deny her your pity and the judiciousness of a thoughtful, independent judge where you would ask this for a young person of a different demographic is thoughtless. A sentence for any offender in this circumstance serves little purpose. Perhaps some will argue that sentencing is appropriate for repeat offenders - but for an accident caused by inexperience? No-one deserves that.

The sentence handed down for a young driver who killed one passenger and injured two others was pathetically inadequate.

People who break the law should be punished. Rehabilitation has no purpose and has no effect on lawbreakers, most of whom know full well that they are doing the wrong thing, but still go on doing it until they are caught out. These people simply need sufficient punishment to dissuade them from repeating their acts of stupidity or criminal behaviour. If the punishment doesn’t work (and it’s hard to see how the weak sentences handed out in Australia could work) then these menaces to society should be removed from society permanently.

Too many victims and families of these creeps are given a life sentence of sadness and misery. To hell with law-breakers, irrespective of age or circumstances.

Things are getting worse. We now have careless, stupid fools receiving nothing more than a good behaviour bond, if that, because they were not drunk, on drugs and didn’t do what they did out of malice! It doesn’t seem to matter that they have killed an innocent person!

Australia has already gone too far, with its interest in the lawless being far greater than that for victims. Most people do the right thing and have nothing to fear from the law being enforced to its fullest extent.

The stupid, criminal, uncaring and reckless minority deserve no mercy.

I agree with Sebastian that the girl does have an obligation to make amends for causing this tragedy and that jail will probably not be of any value. However I disagree with this incident being dubbed a mistake. Driving double the speed limit is not a mistake it is a gamble; the gambler used lives as stakes and lost. Perhaps loss of licence for life would at least ensure no repeat performance and protect others. I wonder though just would would be appropriate punishment in lieu of jail?

I agree so much with Shell. Incarceration in these circumstances is a tribal retribution and serves little purpose for the rich, or the poor.

I was troubled last week when the Oz bike society reacted negatively to the non-custodial sentence of the equally novice female German driver, a result of the death and injury of the Oz bike riders. Of course I don't know the details ...

I am sorry all round but have experienced the cowboy climate created by bike racers and their supervision on 'ordinary' roads. It seems to me that they don their bike suits and mistake them for immortality outfits. Gaol serves no purpose in these unfortunate cases. None at all but retribution ...

As Shell wrote or implied: keep gaol for the repeat offenders in such crimes - to say the least it is cheaper!

Poor young Sebastian lives in la la land, as does those that support not jailing this woman. Lets not forget that a life was snuffed out by this rich moron, lets not forget that she couldn't drive, but still exceeded the Limits. Lets not forget the injuries, costs to other, society and families of the deceased and injured, no poor young thing.

In the past jail was used as a form of retribution, but now with our intelligence, it can be used as a time of learning, reflection and education. Rehabilitation, what a joke, you can't rehabilitate someone without showing them a glimpse of the consequences for them, if they continue with their disregard for the law and the safety of others.

If you are convicted for a crime, then you should go to jail even if it is just for a week or month. When you kill someone because you are stupid, then you should go to jail no matter what. If you are under the influence of any drug and kill someone, then you should go for a longer time rather than be given sympathy because you didn't have full control.

Jail gives you time to reflect, it gives you time to see where you are at, it gives you time to understand that your actions aren't acceptable to society. It also gives you time to see how your life will be if you continue on your present path. Sure lots don't learn that, but they lack intellect, if you are intelligent you use the time to improve yourself.

You can jail someone without torturing them or harming them. If everyone knew that they would go to jail if they injure or kill because they are to stupid to follow the law. Then we would see less stupidity from people.

There is a huge bias in trhe system between the haves and have not's. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you that. If you have money you get what you want in the end. Lock her up, I bet she doesn't do it again then.

If it was up to me, and I know that it isn't, this young woman, of an age to vote, join the armed forces, sign contracts, get married and the like, would have been held to the same level of accountability as anyone over the age of 18 who had killed and maimed whilst committing an illegal act.

Let there be no doubt, by the speed that she was doing she was committing an illegal act, not just a reckless or dangerous one. I wonder what the legal outcome would have been if this had been playing around with a gun, illegally, and someone had been killed and others injured? A car can be just as deadly as a gun if misused.

Mind you, I believe that someone should get two months in gaol just for going over the speed limit by that much, let alone for killing someone in the process.

Which raises the question:

This young woman may not have been 18 at the time of her crime - after all, she was in the Children's Court.

But

We don't let people under 18 run around with guns unsupervised. We restrict their activities until they are of a maturity to understand the consequences of their actions.

So, if she is unable to understand the consequences of her actions she should not have been permitted to carry out an action that she didn't understand. That is, if she didn't understand that the misuse of a motor vehicle can kill she should not be allowed to drive until she does understand.

If her level of maturity was such that she could demonstrably understand the consequences of her actions, then she should be treated the same as any adult who understands the consequences.

Young people cannot have it both ways.

The Alchemist has pretty much said it all.

Any possibility that I MIGHT (and I stress the 'might') have favoured rehabilitaion over prison went strait out the window when I read that she got off with a slap on the wrist simply because she was rich.

Society favours those who have enough money to not need favouring. Just like our government.

Lock her up. Having money doesn't give you the key to do whatever you want and it's about time the legal system reflected this.

Regardless of whether the teenager has wealthy parents or not, an appropriate sentence would be community work with disabled people, such as those who have been disabled by car accidents.

Prison is hardly a solution and will not teach the young offender anythng about the consequences of their driving. In the case outlined by Sebastian it would appear that the accident was just that and not a result of negligence.

Scout with respect, speeding is negligent, so is driving a car in a city at that speed, whilst only holding your licence for very short while and no experience.

“Prison is hardly a solution and will not teach the young offender anything about the consequences of their driving. In the case outlined by Sebastian it would appear that the accident was just that and not a result of negligence.”

Do you have any idea of what prison is like, nor how it can help those that only think of themselves and not the consequences. An appropriate sentence would be jail for at least a year, then community work with the disabled and in trauma clinics for another two years, as well as supporting the families who are the real victims. That would give her time to reflect her position and attitude to life. Jail today, except for intractables, isn't that hard. All you lose is your freedom, you can work, study, read, watch TV, get fit, experience people from varied lifestyles and economic circumstances. Many sensible people who have erred, come out with a very different and positive outlook and approach to life.

Irrelevant to her social or economic status, jail for killing someone is a must, or we will have more of the growing situation of, commit a crime, and PC nutters goes poor soul, tut tut naughty naughty you victim you. What about the poor dead person and her family,

Then again, you appear to feel that it's the perpetrator that is the victim. No wonder our society's in such a ridiculous state.

Do you have any experience in these matter, ever been to jail, or counseled those in jail, or those that have escaped jail and what their attitude is. Check court records and see how many that have been given lip service punishments and the amount of times they re- offend. These figures will show you that you live in la la land with respect to this thread.

What's one year, when you've taken 50 from someone else.

I don't think there is any dispute that the tragedy was an accident. But surely Scout, you cannot believe that because it is an accident that is okay? People are responsible for accidents - therefore they must be held accountable. The cause of the accident was disregard for safety, and as I said before not a mistake but a gamble. As for a token jail sentence being a suitable consequence, well I am not as convinced as Alchemist that it works that well in the majority of cases. However, Alchemist I rather like your suggestion that "An appropriate sentence would be jail for at least a year, then community work with the disabled and in trauma clinics for another two years, as well as supporting the families who are the real victims".

Alchemist, Coraliz

I believe in rehabilitation, especially where there is a good chance that the offender can learn something and then move on with their life and make a contribution to society.

Tossing a minor into prison will not necessarily achieve anything positive, unless the detainment separates the offender from adult criminals and includes something constructive like community service, counselling and education.

Lives have already been lost, ruining a young life as a result is just furthering the misery.

I am not talking specifically about this case - I am talking about appropriate punishment to fit the circumstances of each case. Maybe I didn't make myself very clear in the previous post.

Leigh & alchemist - the way you two carry-on is almost like neither of you have ever committed a mistake in your lives. Compassion and forgiveness are not selective concepts. They are completely universal. As Seb correctly notes, 3 young lives have already been ruined. Why is society intent on insuring we ruin a third? And Leigh – is your theory that everyone who commits a mistake in life is ‘uncaring’ and ‘criminal’ by default?

I concur completely though on the point of universal justice and note that this case does show how access to justice is heavily predicated upon weatlh. I bet anyone represented by legal aid at campbelltown local court would get at least 6 months non-parole.

But this is by no means an argument in favour of incarceration for intent-less crimes. Teach them the consequences of her actions? I’m pretty sure she has learnt her lesson via the death and injury of her closest friends. She would probably struggle to get behind the wheel again at all.

Jail does nothing for an offender. And alchemist, before you begin spouting on with crap like ‘do you have any idea of what prision is like’, yeah, I do. I have been to jails. I have been to the mental health section at long bay, to various parole hearings. You more often can’t study mate. I have been involved in matters for inmates trying to get access to the internet so they can finish their uni courses, and have had their requests denied. So when they get out, they aren’t going to have the qualifications they could, and will therefore find it more difficult to get back into society, as they are only allowed to defer for a year.

I will tell you one thing alchemist. The reoffending rates for people who go to jail are substantially higher than those who receive a non-custodial punishment (like communtiy service, bonds etc). That is a fact. If you don’t believe me, I will get you the stats from ABS. So maybe you should actually know the ‘figures’ before you begin citing them

The courts are far to easy on these crimes. While the young appear to think grog and drugs are cool,that is all they will aspire to.
There was a great noise about taking cars off offending hoons but it was for a short time and there has not been much publicity about it.
If their cars are removed for a few months for the first offence, six months for the second and permanently for the third, with publicity, we may see a change in attitude.
Smacks on the wrist do nothing except add to the crosses on the sides of the roads.

“I think she was lucky to get a minimum of two months … here was a clear-cut case where you had a little rich girl from Mosman with a QC barrister. Imagine the same scenario in the suburbs: the kid wouldn’t have had the pockets to pay for a silk (a QC) and they’d probably have thrown the book at her.”
This admittedly was my first reaction on hearing this case. And in some ways I continue to hold this view under the circumstances. But there are really two separate issues here.

Firstly, has justice been dispensed equally? Well given the circumstances outlined in the article you could probably argue it hasn’t been. As jkenno points out, had the defendant been represented by legal aid in the Western Suburbs it would probably have been a much harsher sentence. This too is highlighted in the article. But that isn’t the real discussion, although I’d be all for a discussion about the unequal dispensation of justice.

This discussion (and this is the main point of the article) is whether a custodial sentence was appropriate for anyone under the circumstances. My final conclusion is that it is not. Jail has a punitive purpose (although alchemist might have us believe otherwise), a purpose which has clearly been satisfied by the remorse felt for a lost friend. All too often we see jail as answer to all societial problems when it is clear it is only necessary as a last resort.

To call this crime an accident is to completely mislabel the event.

A god definition of ‘accident’ is:

1. A mishap; especially one causing injury or death

2. Anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause

Furthermore, ‘mishap’ means: An unpredictable outcome that is unfortunate.

These simply means that an 'accident' is something which is unpredictable and without apparent cause.

This incident was the direct result of an inexperienced driver exceeding the speed limit. The outcome of this behaviour is predicable, and expected and avoidable. That is why we have laws, to attempt to cause people to remain within the confines of the law for their own and others safety.

It was the result of an unlawful act that could and should have been avoided. Too long in this society we have downplayed criminal behaviour when it involves automobiles.

Let me make an analogy. If a person does a bag snatch, which is an illegal act, and the old lady from whom the bag is snatched falls and suffers injuries that result in her death, then the snatcher is charged with manslaughter. That is, an act that is carried out in contravention of the law, in reckless disregard to the victim. I am quoting from an actual case in NSW.

What is the difference between that act and the death of these passengers? Both acts required an intention to break the law – no-one does twice the speed limit unintentionally. Both acts were done with disregard to the lives and welfare of the victims. Both resulted in death, both involved young perpetrators.

So why should they be treated differently?

Lastly, I have read comments about the ruining of a young life – well, this young woman is responsible for her own fate. If anyone is responsible, she is. Any imprisonment should take into account the matters of rehabilitation, personal deterrence, and collective deterrence and punishment. That is, she should be made to be well aware of her crime, and others should be made aware of the consequences. If she gets off lightly, others will follow her example.

Wow, J kenno, you've been in the mental ward at long bay and tried to get internet access for inmates, I bet that was frightening for you. I've seen many complete uni courses in Jail, its called correspondence courses. Internet access, security requirements,. you may as well give them nights out at the pub.

Some of the jails I've been involved in, Pentridge, Cooma, Long bay remand, max, low. Goulburn max, protection and tracs, laurel hill and Tumbarrumba. I haven't been involved since the early 80”s, but know exactly what its like in there, the restriction, effects and lifestyle. I've spoken to hundreds of inmates, admin, security, parole and psych, sections, helped write appeals, paroles, transfers and personal problems.

Prevention is better than any accidental death. If people are educated properly, instead of being told they have the right to do what they want, by the PC controlled schools. If they had it drummed into them, that if they cause death or injury, rob, assault. They will go to jail to be educated in being more responsible, if they don't listen at school, then bad luck.

I went to war at 18, try being smart there. Once you can conduct your life separate from your parents in socialising, then your responsible for your actions. Anything else, your an uneducated fool.

A car is a deadly weapon, its the same as saying, I didn't know the gun was loaded after you'd aimed it and pulled the trigger. What's different, to a car driven at high speed on a road. They both kill, A car not only kills but also creates lots of collateral damage, pain and suffering. So give them guns, they'll only shoot one, not kill and maim lots or destroy property.

Make them pay for the damage they do, that'll slow crime down. Make people pay economically and personally, as their victims and families do for the rest of their lives.

Jkenno,

Something else we also disagree on is what constitutes a ‘mistake’. If you think that killing one person and maiming two others whilst driving dangerously and not in accordance with the law is a ‘mistake’, then I can safely say that I have not made such a mistake.

People don’t fall foul of the law just by making a mistake. And “compassion and forgiveness” don’t come into the law. That’s a matter for the victims and the families of this particular young lunatic.

Your question: “And Leigh – is your theory that everyone who commits a mistake in life is ‘uncaring’ and ‘criminal’ by default?” again assumes that causing death by dangerous driving – or what ever the charge that was the culprit jailed was for – was a ‘mistake’. This girl knew she was doing the wrong thing. I would say that she did not care at all about the lives of her passengers, other road users or herself. And, yes, she is a criminal, and that is why she is in jail.

“Jail does nothing for an offender”, you say. The idea is not to do something for the offender, it is to do something TO the offender. It is a punishment, pure and simple. And, if they don’t learn from deprivation of their liberty and re-offend, make the sentences longer and longer until they do learn. If necessary, bring back the lash.

Alchemist – if you follow any trends in modern education, you will know that the majority of university courses conducted by correspondence now necessitate the use of computers and the internet. Note that the prisoners weren’t allowed to even use the word processing in a low-security area. Now explain to me the rationale again? Surely we want to rehabilitate a prisoner so when they come back in to society they will have real life options so they will not commit crimes again?

I don’t doubt your experience in jails mate, but don’t patronise me. I do agree that kids need to be educated. But I see little point in not doing everything we can do to rehabilitate people who do commit crimes.

Contrary to popular opinion, the amount of jail time being given out is drastically increasing. About 1 in 600 adults in NSW are in jail, which has doubled since 1986 (NSW Dep of Corrective Services). Ever since the introduction of guideline judgements in 1998, the length of sentences have increased. Now, if jail was such a big deterrent, you’d think the jail population would be decreasing, wouldn’t you?? At 30 June 2005, 60% of prisoners in Australian jails had served a sentence prior to the current episode (ABS). A review of 111 studies which looked at the relationship between various punishments and repeat offending concluded that "harsher criminal justice sanctions had no deterrent effects on recidivism; that compared to community sanctions, imprisonment was associated with an increase in recidivism; and basically, the longer the sentence, the more likely was the prisoner to re-offend”.

So Leigh, in response to your assertion, the harder we get, the more crimes people are going to commit, according to the statistics. I do agree though. Punishment should do something to any offender. It should teach them the consequences of their actions to ensure they do not do it again, and rehabilitate them so when they return to society, there is little chance of them making the wrong choices again. Incarceration, it appears, does the reverse

And in the news, just in time for comparison:

From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1566900.htm

Teen in serious condition after shooting
A teenage girl is in a serious but stable condition in hospital after being accidentally shot in Sydney's south-west.

The 16-year-old received a bullet to the stomach at a house at Cartwright last night.

Blake Clifton from police headquarters says an 18-year-old man has been charged over the incident.

"An 18-year-old man from Cartwright attended Green Valley police station and was questioned by detectives," he said.

"He was subsequently charged with causing danger with firearm and a negligent act causing grievous bodily harm."

We shall see how long this young man gets in gaol. Or do all of you who want to see the killer driver walk free also want to see this young man walk free? What is the difference between a car and a gun when they both kill 'accidently'.

Hamlet

No one has wanted the young girl in this article to walk off scot-free. Where did you get this idea? Some of us see that vengeance and retribution as suitable punishment, others see that punishmnet would be more effective if it included rehabilitation and a chance for redemption.

After all, at some point in time these young people will be released back into society and expected to behave responsibly. The onus is on us to minimise the chances of recidivism and maximise the chance of redemption.

Does the Judge play golf with her father?

I've copped high range penalties for defended public transit case several years ago. I was unrepresented, indigent, and denied legal aid. The bench was overtly hostile to me, unduly sympathetic to the prosecution team, and the matter took place in the western suburbs of Sydney.

Wonder if I had access to my family's resources and had legal representation commensurate with those resources would the outcome have been significantly different.

Our whole legal system is predicated upon class bias. In St Kilda a year ago, a prostitute was murdered by a former Olympian weightlifter who broke her cervical vertebra [neck]. His defence team inferred, inter alia, that the cause of death was possibly certain narcotics present in her toxicology screening post mortem. The jury rejected a verdict of Murder, came up with manslaughter instead, and he only got FIVE (5) years.

In our society unfortunately you're worth as much money as you've got. I've learnt the same when assaulted [near William Street after midnight] with a robbery attempt in the car of a suburban Auto Industry [sales/service] worker.

I still want to know what type of car it was !!

An SUV, 4WD or a V8 ?

If we want to be serious about reducing the roll toll and the resulting cost, emotional, physical and economic the government has to adress the issue of inappropriate car size, car shape and car SPEED.

Scout said:

Hamlet

No one has wanted the young girl in this article to walk off scot-free. Where did you get this idea? Some of us see that vengeance and retribution as suitable punishment, others see that punishmnet would be more effective if it included rehabilitation and a chance for redemption.

In a previous point Scout talked about community service as 'punishment'.

Punishment should be more than a little inconvenience for one day a week for a year. It should also be rememembered that large numbers of people do community service because they want to. Your suggestion that community service is an adequate punishment is to denegrate all those who do voluntary community service.

This killer driver did not just do a little shoplifting. She didn't spray some graffiti somewhere. She didn't swear at a police officer.

BY A CRIMINAL ACT SHE KILLED SOMEONE AND MAIMED TWO OTHERS.

Just how would you tell her that this was wrong? Maybe stop her from buying new clothes or shoes for a month? Send her to bed without dinner for a couple of nights? Confiscate her i-Pod for a week? Limit her to 2 phone calls a day?

Please tell me, what can punishment can equate to driving in a criminal manner and killing someone?

Anyone can express remorse. I bet she didn't even think of the consequences as she pushed her young foot down on the accelerator, probably with a huge smile on her face and the rush of adreneline in her veins.

Then she killed someone, and you would give her a 'stay out of gaol card' because she is young and female.

Well, equality cuts both ways - if you wanted to be treated as equal, accept equality of punishment.

Jkenno, your own figures and statements show you the reality if you look. We have a growing prison population and a growing crime rate, so hand smacks and verbal retribution isn't working. Can't you see that your feely good approach to education, sees the youth of today disregarding anything but themselves and its people like you that are causing this collapse.

How can you educate people in responsibility for their actions if you have an education system that is run and operated by people that have learnt their luife experiences in a class room and have never been a part of real life, just the education system.

Look at the psychological and social sciences, you have highly educated people who know nothing, except what comes out of a book. So they have no idea how to talk to these people that have erred in life. All they can do is put forward these theories of pats on the head and poor soul approaches. I talk to these people and they haven't got a clue. They are completely useless, if they weren't then we wouldn't have the growing mental illnesses, community violence and crimes rates.

Use all the stats you like mate, they still can't mask the reality that those who are in control and direct what is done on these social fronts, are completely bereft of understanding. This shows out in all the stats you can produce.

The next thing you know this girl will be suing the car manufactures, the street lights, the road and her passengers for not stopping her from speeding or providing her with the right situations to stop her committing an offence. Then she will sue the other parents for making her sad about killing their daughter. Yep you've done a good job with your approaches. She will be out shopping within the week and will forget it quickly, those with little responsibility or care for others are like that, aren't they.

BTW, I checked yesterday, there are many correspondence courses available for the incarcerated that don't require on line study, covering all fields.

A few comments:

The car being driven by the killer driver was a Peugeot Convertible Cabriolet, probably a 206. The list price for this vehicle is around $32,000. I doubt whether this car was bought from the proceeds of weekend work at MacDonald’s or Coles. If it was the later 307 then multiply the blow figures by about 1.4.

It has a 1.6 litre engine, and is essentially a base model sports car, designed to appeal to the young driver, It has a top sped of 180 km/hr, or 70 km/hr faster than the maximum speed limit of cars in NSW and twice the maximum speed that P plate drivers can legal drive.

It is not basic transport, but more of an ego boosting ‘toy’ vehicle. The perfect present from rich parents to a spoilt child.

The defence barrister in this case, Mr Clive Stern SC, is a very able advocate. He can be more often seen as defence counsel in murder trials, or trials involving basic issues of law rather than in traffic matters in Local Court.

And what would I consider to be an adequate punishment for this driver?

Maybe two years weekend detention, so that she would be isolated from her weekend social life for two years, whilst still being able to work or study. Would that meet the requirements of the ‘rehabilitation’ fans here? She would not be in the general prison population, and would still have opportunities to study whilst in detention.

And one other thing.

In my opinion she should be prohibited from ever holding a drivers licence – for life. So each day that she cannot simply get into the drivers seat to go out or go shopping, or drop her children off at school, she will be reminded of the dead friend who she deprived of the opportunity to live, to go out, to go shopping, to have children.

This may make her reflect on the fact that she killed someone.

Lastly, look at where Sebastian De Brennan’s article was originally published: The Mosman Daily: Playing to the audience!

She is of legal age to drive a motor vehicle. She is of legal age to vote. She is of legal age to do a number of other things. She is of legal age to be punished as an adult.

I do not feel sad for her. She is a criminal.

She killed and maimed.

In gaol she will have many comforts, and a heap of time to reflect on her negligent behaviours.

Community service for this young woman would be a joke.

Let her do her time in gaol - and then do community service as her rehab time.

I have no time for the snivel libertarians
Kay

1. The girl in question was a minor at the time of her negligence.

2. I believe that we all make mistakes in life and the very young, especially, need a chance to turn their lives around.

3. I believe in rehab for both male and female - Hamlet

4. It would appear that certain posters here are SO perfect they have never made a mistake or regretted anything in their lives. I can only stand humbled at your glorious superiority.

5. Kalweb, for a mental health nurse I would thought you were above nasty little insults such as "snivel libertarians". How pathetic, because I believe that people can be redeemed their lives turned around and you don't? So you resort to insult? I am so disappointed in you - it is one thing to disagree with a POV, but a professional like you claim to be resorting not only to childish tactics but not believing that someone can make a change to their lives, leaves me very saddened. I'm really sorry for you Kay, I had always thought better of you.

Why not just hang all these dreadful youngsters in case they make any more mistakes or do something wrong.

We can't have any one ever doing any thing wrong now can we? Hang 'em all. In fact why don't we have pre-emptive death penalties?

ANyone see Minority Report.

Anyone one here have an imagination?

I guess if you're perfect you don't need to imagine the possibility of a better world.

Scout, she may have been a minor at the time of her criminal activity - not negligence - driving at twice the speed limit is not negligence.

Negligence would be not keeping a proper look out, or driving a car that the driver knew was unsafe.

This young woman was carrying out an activity which society has for some strange reason of expediency deems to consider that a certain amount of adult responsibility is required for, that is, we don't let 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds drive, even though they are physically capable of doing so and would have the relevant coordination to do well.

This society has assessed that it can trust that a 17 year old has sufficient judgement to be able to drive safely. This killer driver has abused that trust. She wanted to carry out an activity that requires an adult level of judgement and maturity, but now wants to walk away saying that she wasn't an adult.

Well, if this is to be accepted we should ban all 17 year olds from driving, because this girl proves that 17 year old cannot be trusted.

Or is it just her? Just her who cannot be trusted? If the others can be trusted she should be judged by the standard of those of her age who act responsibly every day, and not just adults.

By claiming that she was only 17 when she killed someone she is condemning herself further.

What was she doing driving if she could not be trusted? Can we ever trust her again?

She didn't make a mistake, unless you call making a deliberate choice to drive dangerously is a mistake.

She committed a crime, let her pay for it. If she wants to be considered an adult, by carrying out an adult activity, then let her be considered an adult.

Just a note

The age of 'criminal responsibility' in NSW is 10.

This is tempered by the idea of Doli incapax, (quoting from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi106.html)

Doli incapax means a presumption that a child is "incapable of crime" under legislation or common law. Recent Australian reviews (Bradley 2003 and Crofts 2003) have discussed amending the doli incapax presumption, including reversing the onus of proof and changing its application to ages twelve and under.

In NSW this age of Doli incapax is from 10 to 14, in other words, a person aged 14 and over is capable of being held responsible for a criminal act with the defence needing to prove that the person was not able to form an intention to commit a crime for anyone over 14.

This young woman was 17, so is able to be held criminally culpable.

Hamlet

I think your suggestion of weekend detention for two years is a good one. And she certainly should lose her licence for a substantial period of time.

As you say, she could still maintain her studies Monday through to Friday. And she could hold down a job during that time if that is her preference.

Anyone can say that they are remorseful. She needs time to demonstrate that she is truely remorseful. She could attemd rehabilitative counselling during the week, and have the weekends to reflect upon her dangerous and criminal actions - and to reflect upon the grieving families that she alone has created. Clearly a slap on the wrist is not good enough. For anyone to suggest that her actions were only a "mistake", for me is onerous.

Scout

I wasn't referring to you or anyone else on this Forum when I used the term snivel libertarians. It was a general hit at wider society. As you can see, I have had a re-think as above.

Cheers
Kay

Seems to me Kalweb & Hamlet, that you've both done a bit of a 180 (within the speed limit I hope) and are now advocating rehabilition.

Excellent. Now we do not have a failure to communicate.

Hamlet you ask how can we trust her/him/whoever the culprit is. How long is a piece of string? We can never know, but we as a society are responsible for all our citizens and the best thing we can do is care for people when they really need help. A teenager who has killed through culpable driving certainly needs an awful lot of help to turn their life around.

BTW The reason I am such a believer in a person's ability to redeem and rehabilitate themselves (at any age) is because:

I HAVE

Scout, yes I believe in rehabilitation, however true rehabitation starts with acceptance of the consequences of a person's actions.

This young woman lost any chance of rehabilitation when her parents showed that they were willing to do almost anything to save their daughter from the consequences of her action, and theirs.

This young woman has probably wanted for nothing, but now she wants for punishment.

The two years weekend detention that I have suggested is the maximum that can be imposed in NSW. It is what I would consider to be a balance between society imposing punishment, and the idea of the imposing a period of penitence on offenders.

Ever wondered why some prisons are called 'penitentiaries'? It has to do with causing inmates to be penitent for their wrongdoings. To have them sit and ponder the harm that they they have caused others. This young woman will never be caused to feel penitent for the death that she has caused. Her parents have ensured that.

I would venture that after all legal processes are over this young woman will be sent on a long overseas trip so that she 'can put all of it behind her'.

This girl is beyond rehabilitation. Any chance of rehabilitation ended when this woman's life of privilege began.

It is easier for a poor down and out to be rehabilitated, than someone who has been literally spoiled since childhood, as evidenced by the car that she was driving.

Hmmmm.
Why didn't the car protect it's passengers from serious injury? Didn't it have airbags and other safety equipment? Was the road adequate to prevent a crash? Why are motor vehicles so badly made? Why are they designed to go so much faster than is safe? Why aren't the makers and sellers and those who register these vehicles held to account, for they are partly culpable too. Shoddy cars, shoddy roads, poor driving standards, a vicious eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth community that blames victims and those that make errors- humans beings. All a recipe for continued mayhem and pain.

Barfenzie asked:

"Why didn't the car protect it's passengers from serious injury?"

Go back to the SMH article:

"The teenager, who had had her P-plates for 10 days when she was driving her new Peugeot convertible, pleaded guilty to three dangerous driving offences after data from the car's computer showed she was travelling at 90 kmh, nearly twice the speed limit.

The car crashed when she lost control on the wrong side of Raglan Street, a divided street, hitting the kerb and a stone wall before overturning"

Then take a look at the official Peugeot web site on the 206 cabriolet.

http://www.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/cgi-bin/ppkfcwebuk/ppplp1101_02.jsp?_strLCDV=1pt1dc&BV_SessionID=@@@@1272253395.1139832596@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddgljmdhgecefecfgmdfgodfko.0&_strModeHTML=1

The car has some safety features when it comes to rolling, but there is no overall roll bar, probably because this would be 'ugly' and distract from the attraction that the car would have for young drivers. Most modern cars would be stable enough that given even some amount of foolishness they would not have rolled, but this was more than some amount of foolishness.

No car can be 100% safe, that is why we have laws which regulate how we use the roads. Anyone who is either foolish enough, or criminal enough, or both, can arrange to kill someone else in their car without too much difficulty. This woman pleaded guilty to three offenses.

Now lets us look at the street, Raglan street is basically straight with a 90º turn. It was easy to navigate for anyone driving reasonably.

The report of the DEAD girls parents words are interesting:

"Ms Graham's parents were not in court yesterday but had said in victim impact statements that they believed the driver had shown no remorse."

And finally the remark of the beak who sentenced her:

""I'm satisfied that your driving on that day was so serious that the law requires me to impose a custodial penalty," he said."

Lets not get this wrong, the driver of this car put some real effort into this crash.

Scout baits us with “In fact why don't we have pre-emptive death penalties?”

Indeed we do – these are called abortions and are administered by prospective mothers themselves who grow up from teenagers such as these. They seem to be raised to believe that their honest mistakes should be of minimal consequence (to themselves).

This young woman seems destined to accidentally sleep with the wrong guy or marry one. Guess who’s going to be responsible for any resulting consequences. That’ll teach the parents.

Seeker

I don't know where you get the link between this topic and abortion. This young woman is no more or less likely to have an abortion than any other. Abortion is not the sole provence of the rich.

I would strongly prefer for abortion to be unnecessary, either through improved education, contraception and support for potential mothers, as well as by having the value of human life instilled in children from an early age.

However I also recognise that laws will not stop abortions from happening. The best that I can hope for is for third trimester abortions, or at least abortions of near viable foetuses, to be stopped by a combination of action by the community, the medical professions and the judiciary working with law enforcement.

I would hope that this same groundswell may be able to convince moron, selfish drivers that the road rules are in place to keep people alive, and that we should stop treating our road deaths as anything less than manslaughter and murder.

Hamlet, I beleive seeker is trying to swing the discussion in a religious direction.

In Tasmania recently we had a young bloke caught doing 165 kl in a 60 zone, unlicensed, drunk and driving an unregistered car. He had his licence suspended for 18months. Just the other day another bloke was caught doing the same but only 140kl, it will be interesting to see the outcome of that. Then we had the young bloke on P's who was dragging and went through a red light, flattened a car and killed someone. He received a suspended sentence and 9 months loss of licence.

I believe they should be charged with murder and treated accordingly. Rehabilitation comes after you have learnt your mistake, not before and you can't learn that through community service or suspended sentences. If it was mandatory that you lost your licence for life and your car confiscated permanently plus the cost of the case, the insurance and the cost to the victim, if you injure someone whilst breaking the law, then people may begin to take notice.

The problem we face is that the feely good tut tut people have no idea so we are currently faced with people saying, well what will happen if I get caught speeding or yahooing, can't drive for a short while or have to turn up for a few weekends. I have yet to see anyone that has really learnt from counseling if they commit these crimes. They act as though they have when in the sessions, but as soon as they walk out the door, its, who gives a stuff as they go to the pub or ego trip with their friends about how cool they are to have got away with virtual murder.

O bet the woman in question would have thought twice if she knew that she would suffer greatly because of her actions before hand, as would most people. The rest who never learn, lock them up permenantly

Scout made me go off on a tangent. My point is about teaching our children some responsibility – rich or poor, male or female.

It should be a well-known fact that our teenagers can be amongst the most selfish and irresponsible people on this planet, and as futile as it may seem, it would be worthwhile to attempt to teach them awareness and respect for others and the law, to rehabilitate their habits and attitudes, before they make the really serious mistakes. It may save a life – even their own.

When an accident occurs while breaking the law, it should be treated more seriously. When it leads to loss of life, even more so.

There are people in our society whom we wish to protect beyond what is good for our collective self. We could happily continue to spread blame so thinly to the point that individual responsibility becomes optional. For example, we could take a big chunk of it and throw it at the dead and maimed people who chose to ride with such irresponsible friends. Then we can blame the car, the street, its signage, the driver’s experience and state of mind during a high pressure HSC year, and general difficulty of being a girl (teenage or otherwise) … etc. etc.

It is unlikely our youth (or anyone for that matter) can be rehabilitated with such social attitudes and criminal justice. What sort of messages do we send along with these judgements? It is OK to make the mistake of ignoring the law, more so if you are a woman, and absolutely so, if you are a young, rich woman who happens to manslaughter a dear friend.

Seeker

You can start with yourself with regard to responsibility. I and no one else on this forum can make you do anything - tangents or otherwise.

You are responsible for your reactions and actions - no one else.

Suggest 10 hours per week at nursing home.

;0)

So Scout, did you see this article?

P-plater four times over speed limit
By David Braithwaite
February 24, 2006 - 1:13PM

A P-plate driver has been charged with driving at a dangerous speed for allegedly racing through thick fog at 163kmh.

The 17-year-old Pambula Beach man was detected speeding through a 40kmh road works zone on the Snowy Mountains Highway near Nimmitabel about 2.30pm yesterday.

Police said there was heavy fog in the area at the time.

His licence was suspended and he has been charged with exceeding the speed limit by more than 45kmh and driving at a speed dangerous.

The man will appear at Cooma Local Court on March 22.
(SMH 24/2/2006)

I guess that this young man just made a mistake, and rehabilitation at all costs must be applied, in fact, as he didn't have an accident would you suggest that he should not be punished at all? Maybe he should be given his urestricted licence now instead of having to wait.

After all, he is only 17 on P-Plates, and anyone can make a mistake, and he was only doing 163 km/hr, in heavy fog. I guess if he gets a barrister the wig will claim that the fog was so thick that he could not see the speed signs and that he was concentrating so hard on the road that he could not look down to look at the speedometre.

But then again, any excuse will do for a 17 year old to get away with anything.

Scout,

The last time I looked, doing tangents was perfectly legal and no less moral than pre-emptive terminations. As for the incitement, we’ll have to leave that to our learned colleagues to decide. My legal advice is that aggravated assault with a tangent can at best earn me a warning :-)

Hamlet,

Yes I saw this report. I wonder if the Pambula Beach or the Nimmitabel communities will rally around to support this young man and his parents. Perhaps raising some money for a silk would be appropriate in his case.

Hamlet

How can people bleed bloody hearts for people of any age who kill others because of their lack of responsibility whilst driving a motor vehicle when they are driving 20k or so over the speed limit?

How can the bleeding hearts of any age group cry when they were DUI - no matter what state in this country, when they are the cause of another person's death?

Even so, I remain committed to saying that this young woman should be gaoled!

The "do-gooders" want rehabitation for this young woman. Rehabilitation occurs after punishment - not before.

I will be hated now for this post
Reality
Take responsibility for your own actions!
Don't blame others for your selfishness
Stop blaming others because you are a selfish f*wit

I am sad for the family whose young daughter was killed by a horrible egocentric yuppie!

Kay

kalweb

I don't hate you for your post.

I agree with you

Seeker

Suggest you read my posts instead of blindly reacting.

You stated "Scout made me go off on a tangent."

I stated in response: "I and no one else on this forum can make you do anything - tangents or otherwise."

Now I will try to state this clearly - If you want to do so, you may go off on as many tangents as your little heart desires - just don't blame other posters for this. It is your choice, your responsibility. No one MAKES you do it.

AND Responsibility is much of what this thread is about. How we deal with it varies.

I believe that if there is a chance for rehabilitation then it should be offered.

Apparently this make me a 'selfish f*wit'.

Apparently posters here know just from media reports whether someone deserves rehab or not.

I guess they must know a lot more than I.

In my ignorance I believe that each case should be judged on its merits as to whether a criminal has a chance at rehab or not.

However it seems that Hamlet & Kalweb are privy to much more information than I and always know when to give up on a young offender and throw away the key.

I wish I could be a wise as you.

As for the cases you reported, Hamlet - I don't know if there is hope for rehab or not. However if there is hope it would be better for our society if the criminals can be rehabilitated rather than turned into useless crims with no hope.

I am aware that these POV's make me irresponsible, selfish and a f*wit.

See how pointless name calling is

Scout wrote:

However it seems that Hamlet & Kalweb are privy to much more information than I and always know when to give up on a young offender and throw away the key.

- - -

I do not want to lock up the offender and throw away the key:

I would like to lock up the offender for a period of time, I have suggested two years of weekend detention, but the magistrate, who had heard the case and does have more information than you or I, wanted to lock her up for 18 months, full time.

I would throw away one key though - her car key - and prevent her from ever having the right to use a car key ever again.

This woman is appealing her sentence - that is her right - what most people don't realise is that she has already received a discount on her sentence for pleading guilty - usually around 30%. She would have received further consideration for good character and the support that her family has given to her. This was also a tactical move, as no one whom a barrister thinks has a chance of being found not guilty ever, or very rarely, pleads guilty.

This matter could, if she had not pleaded guilty, easily have gone before a jury in the District Court, yes, people under 18 face juries in District Court, and if she had been found guilty there she may have received an even heavier sentence.

There would have been twists and turns in this matter that you could not imagine. There would have been long negotiations between the DPP and her legal team. It is odds on that she was originally facing greater charges, or if not then the evidence was simply irrefutable.

She killed whilst carrying out a criminal act. Punishment comes first, then rehabilitation when she has learned her lesson.

Scout

You really are emotive re this adult criminal.

Sometimes you call her a young offender, and other times you call her a criminal.

You seem to think that Hamlet and I are heartless. That is not so. Rather, we are objective. That is quite different.

Are you saying that it is OK to kill another human being - without any recompense?

I am not privy to any knowledge about this case, any more than you are. I am using commonsense.

Hamlet has extensive experience as a legal person, vis a vis, from what I have read of his postings on other threads. That does make him heartless.

This young woman deliberately chose to disobey the law of the land. She deliberately made that choice.

Hamlet and I have both said that she should not be gaoled forever - we have both agreed re weekend detention and counselling during the week.

I find it interesting that via her parents and her legal team, she has not made a public apology for her actions.

The parents of the person that she killed have said that she has not shown any remorse. What so you think about that?

If she had killed your daughter, would you be as compassionate?

Rehabilitation occurs after punishment for a crime. That is the reason it is called rehabilitation. Note that the key word is crime.

The notion of rehabilitation for illness related issues is an entirely different scenario.

I did not disparage you by name calling. Please re-read my previous post.

It seems that your personal experience is blurring your logic. In a previous post you said that you have been rehabilitated for something. Good on you.

As you say on other threads
Keep the balance
Cheers
Kay

Kalweb, Hamlet

It is only when I have become passionate that either of you have referred to rehabilitation - until then all you have spoken of has been vengeance.

Until your last two posts you have given the impression that there is no hope for these foolish young people. Yes, they have done wrong and yes there should be punishment, However, locking them up with hardened criminals without rehabilitation is just wasting more young lives.

And rehab should work in conjunction with punishment - it is not a reward it is a part of the process. The reward is re-entering society and becoming a functional member of it.

I do find you very judgemental - surely you have done things you regret. I know I have and, as such, do not judge people from media reports - I investigate as much as possible and keep an open mind as much as possible.

For example I would regard someone like Ivan Mulat (backpacker killer) as beyond redemption. But a young foolish person who has caused misery due to stupidity rather than intent deserves support - not vengeance.

Kalweb, stating things like "If she had killed your daughter, would you be as compassionate?" is a cheap shot. Of course I would be upset, however I have experienced enough life now to know that compassion is the best gift I can give any one and that vengeance only begats more vengeance - doesn't solve anything. This is why we have feuds between families and on a world scale why we still have wars. Simply because we can't sit down and work out a compromise.

I repeat - I do not know if this young woman can be rehabilitated or not. I do not know her. I do know that setting myself up as judge on a minimum of information is stupid. While I am not the smartest person to have lived I do try hard to be the best person I can be. I'll never be perfect - in fact I don't want to be (how boring!).

Scout, a hardened criminal is one that commits a crime of violence without remorse or fear of prosecution and recrimination. Fits pretty well with this woman and many others that use a car as a deadly weapon. Weekend detention, sorry I've dealt with people that have undergone that, in 90% of cases, they think of it as only an inconvenience and resent their time being restricted. So it rarely works.

However locking someone up, as soon as they are charged with causing death and keeping them them there for a period before trial, certainly makes them think about their actions. On the outside, they only think of themselves, never what they have done nor the consequences that may eventuate. Rehabilitation starts in jail, or its worthless.

As to them being locked up with real criminals, it appears to me that you are discriminating as to what a real criminal and violent crime is. I violent crime is when someone is hurt when they shouldn't have been in the act of someone breaking the law. Anything else is social and economic discrimination, but the PC's of the world support that, as they are the worst for prejudice and discrimination. Whats the difference between shooting someone and killing them with your car. Any difference is according to your prejudice and discriminating outlook.

Statistics saying the majority jailed become repeat offenders, is only because most that are locked up, are economically disadvantaged and resent the systems refusal to support them, as with the massive support the system gives to the economically and socially advantaged

Alchemist

I agree with what you say.

PLease read my post. I said: "And rehab should work in conjunction with punishment"

I have never stated that the young offenders should not be incarcerated. Sheesh!

I am concerned that their punishment will consist of being locked up with career criminals.

I only used Ivan Milat as an extreme expample to make a point about intent.

Clearly I must appear very ignorant and stupid. I will endeavour to make my posts so clear in future that even 3 year olds can follow them

Kay, Mostly I find your posts are a fair minded viewpoint, and agree with much of what you have said re this matter; I don't think that Scout's viewpoint is so very different. However you did write,
"You seem to think that Hamlet and I are heartless. That is not so. Rather, we are objective. That is quite different"
Yet in a previous post stated
"Stop blaming others because you are a selfish f*wit......I am sad for the family whose young daughter was killed by a horrible egocentric yuppie!"
If that is objective then I have missed something

Prisons need to be a place of rehabilitation. If there are no opportunities for rehabilitation, counseling and education taking place, then those entering prisons will be exposed to an environment conducive to negative conditioning.

Furthermore, when prisoners finish their sentence they will probably be more likely to re-offend, or be unable to re-adjust to society, placing further bourdon on the wider community.

As for the traffic laws, I think there's a lot of people out there breaking the rules, hooning around and taking no responsibility for their actions. To this I can only suggest a more preventative approach such as subsidised driver training and education programs, higher road-worthy standards, limiting the kind of vehicles teenagers can drive, introducing a driving curfew and getting a bit more serious about confiscations for even minor offenses such as burnouts.

My belief is that our legal system needs an overhaul. As a youth support worker, I see many young people getting hefty fines for offences that are more silly than dangerous, while dangerous actions get lighter fines. For example: a young person ( 2months under 18yrs)walking the street in possession of alcohol but not misbehaving got a fine for $247.00. A drink driver in the same court got a fine for $120.00. Where is the fairness in that? One could have killed or maimed people andd the other was just being a typical young person and not at risk to anyone but himself?
I dont condone underage drinking but am a realist about its occurence. How can the judsge decide the youth required more of a penalty than the adult?just doesnt sound anywhere near like justice to me.