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.