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.