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.