« Fun | Main | Blokes »

Comments

I think consideration given to juveniles for their crimes should only apply to silly mistakes and also be limited to a small number of chances. Serious and habitual criminals should be treated and sentenced like adults ... if children commit adult crimes, they should be getting adult punishment. From what I've read these girls were out and out thugs, and I would have liked to think their concessions for being young and foolish would have run out well before this.

If you are old enough to commit the crime, you are old enough to face the consequences.

When you set out down the path of giving 'discounts' for any circumstances, you are both guaranteeing that more and bigger discounts will be given in future (til we get to the absurd point we have now reached)and you are giving a virtual licence to groups that carry the 'discount card' to behave like barbarians.

Incarceration doesn't cure criminality, it promotes it. Neither does incarceration serve as a deterrent for people who come from crimanalised backgrounds - they regard it as a badge of honour.

If rehabilitation doesn't figure in the equation then there's no point in locking people up at all.

Sorry to hear that you have the same problems with Abuse on Taxi drivers like here in the UK. Also I think you must have some of our Old Judges giving sentences like that! The only time you get life is if you steel from the Government or Banks!

Yes, Griff, there is a very simple point in locking people up even without rehabilitation: crims who are behind bars cannot go out and kill an innocent cabbie trying to provide for his family or anyone else. And in any case how these kids, who seem like amoral hardened thugs and sociopaths, coul d be changed in 3.5 years is beyond me. This isn't giving a kid a generously fair shake over a youthful error in judgment (Christ knows we all made a few of those), it's simply about protecting the community. These girls didn't steal a slab of beer for a party, they took a man's life, a man with a family. If incarceration promotes criminality, then keep them in until they're 40 or 50 and and have mellowed out.

Adrian, I too noted the driver's medical state and was concerned about that. Doesn't seem exactly like whom I'd want behind the wheel, either as a passenger or another driver on the roads.

Who said anything about wanting to 'cure' criminals? Drop the pretense that 'rehab' works and get back to punishing them.

griff makes a good point. Incarceration is now viewed by the criminal class much the same as a university degree is viewed by the non criminals.

There is little real deterrent to the idea of serving time by habitual criminals either.

So, when someone proves themselves to be unfit for life in common society the only remaining choice is for execution.

If folk cant behave then there's no reason to keep em around.

No recidivism at least.

I agree with griff, dead scum commit no new crimes.

These little cows should have been caned, Singapore style.

With one slight twist. Bahamas style, corporal punishment should be administered half on the first day in gaol, & half on the last day.

Gives them something to look forward to during the term of the sentence, AND something fresh on release to remind them about the consequences of reoffending.

Griff: One may not be able to see the rehabilitative properties of a very hard punch on the jaw, however delivering same to a street thug seems to impart to the recipient an immediate and long-lasting modification of behaviour. (at least, when in the presence of the punch-deliverer, or a representative or snitch thereof)

Just saying.

Remove all the BS and what remains is that two people killed another person. Took his life, murdered him, cut him short. Regardless of the excuses, reasons or legal wriggling, a good man is dead and two girls are headed for a three-year indoctrination course in how to become even more efficient and callous criminals. Sad, terribly sad, when excuses overrule fact and reason.

One has the terrible feeling that we'll be hearing about these young girls again in the future. Their parents are pretty piss poor, really. Having said that lots of people grow up in bad families and emerge as decent people. Mind you, there's also a lot of damaged people out there. Too complicated for sure.

In relation to the comment about punishment, that's all very well, but if they're not rehabilitated what the hell is going to happen when they get out. Kneejerk nonsense is great fun to post on blogs, but if there's not some sort of positive intervention to teach these girls empathy, decency and how to be decent human beings someone else is going to suffer down the track.

Who said anything about letting them out? They killed a man with no reason.

I'd lock them in a cell and never let them out. I'd also install hanging points in that cell, just in case they want to save the taxpayer a back or two.

Thanks for that Harry. Made me feel like I was listening to the worse kind of talkback radio. But good on you for feeling all big and strong.

darlene i hope your father never meets some scum like these 2 animals maybe then your outlook would change.

We could jail them for 1000 years and it still won't do jack to either the kids themselves, the dead taxi driver or any future would be killers..
It appeals to our base instincts of revenge to lock up those who commit crimes for as long as we can get away with, but the hard reality is that it does nothing to prevent future crimes.
Those who continue to lock people up in what are nothing other then crime universities are probably more responsible for increasing our crime rates then the criminals themselves...
If we want to drop crime rates we need to actually rehabilitate rather then punish (granted there are some that are beyond rehabilitation) and secondly do something about our cities shocking alcohol problem. If we are serious about making our city safer, then why do we keep supporting an approach that has done nothing but breed crime?

"Alan Jones", my father has been dead for over a decade. Thanks for that. James, thanks for injecting a little common sense into the discussion.

The judgment came up pretty quickly, though I can't now remember exactly whether it was Thurs or some time on Friday.
See: Open document

Incidentally, your question 4 assumes a wrong answer to 3. The reduction is for the child from the bad family (to use your term), not the good family.

Thanks for the link Marcel, I'll study it later. The judgement hit the news on Friday, around 1pm. So full publication would have been sometime after.

Regarding question 3, this was theoretical, as I don't see how a distinction can be made relating to merit. For different reasons, I'd imagine both backgrounds would have merit, re influence on sentencing. Thus, at the risk of discriminating against accused from well-adjusted backgrounds, reductions would be granted automatically for juveniles, regardless of their family circumstances.

Sorry if that's not very clear, time for bed.

I think the "student discount" on sentences is fair and reasonable.

But the "discount" should be served by the culpable party - the parents. Isn't that the whole rationale for "diminished responsibility" - that the parents are actually still partly responsible for the actions of their child. So it makes sense to me that we still find someone completely responsibility for the crime, we just apportion it partly to the child, partly to the guardian.

The comments to this entry are closed.