Cross posted Totally off topic

and from the ACT:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/new...service-for-killing-motorcyclist/2358224.aspx

No booze involved, but a disgraceful example of ridiculously inappropriate
sentencing.

betty (cross posting removed)

 

Quite a bit worse alright. Should get a minimum of 5 years, IMO.

 

you flay across the thighs removing slivers of flesh and scarring for
life where it will be public , I have seen a caning and the damage is a
deterrent asuradly

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

What a load of unsubstantiated crap... a beatup!

Accepting that he did in fact hit the pedestrian and never stopped....
How was he apprehended and when?
How was his speed determined?
What was his BAC?
What was his THC level?

Failing to stop is serious, but plenty do. Assuming that's what he
was actually convicted for (the report doesn't even say) he got 10
years licence suspension and a bond, which sounds about right.

Had he also been convicted for... causing death by dangerous driving,
driving with a blood alcohol content above 0.05, imbibing an illicit
substance, exceeding the speed limit and driving unaccompanied on 'L'
plates he'd have probably gotten 10 years in the slammer.

Before I joined the lynch mob I'd also be curious to know whether the
dead man's white cane was clearly visible when he stepped out from
behind the bus and if his guide dog Tilly got out of it unscathed.

His partner being pissed off because of the lost disability pension I
can well understand.

 

Exactly, these things are very emotive,there would have been no malice
aforethought.the main problem is the failing to stop.
should the penalty for speeding round a bus without hitting any one be
the same? If so there would be a lot less drivers. I am not sure the
failing to stop bit is worth 10 years disqualification on its own.

 

Speeding around a bus, depending on how he did it, could be pretty
stupid. The fact that he hit and killed someone suggests he probably
did it dangerously. Hence the dangerous driving charge that is
usually associated with these matters.

 

I do not dispute how stupid and dangerous it is but if 100 people do the
same stupid act one of whom killed someone (without intention)it is only
the one who will get 10 years disqualification.
As I said it is an emotional subject which has to be looked on from a
distance and sentence should not depend on public emotion and the
relatives grief although it understandable.

 

That's right, it should not be judged on public emotion
But, in saying that, this kid, did not show any emotion or sorry until the
sentencing day was near,
Whether he sped around a bus, or through a red light, or even along any
road,
he did kill a pedestrian, who was minding his own business
The fact that he did not stop, made him liable for a culpable driving charge
The supposed fact that he panicked because he was under the influence of
drugs and alcohol, is another factor for dangerous and culpable driving

The charge of culpable driving usually meant a prison sentence because
someone was killed in the event, it amounted to murder, even if it was not
premeditated
In my view, premeditated murder should have been brought into it as he did
consume alcohol and cannabis and was under the effect of both .

Relatives emotions and grief is understandable and should be accepted as
they have lost a family member through the stupidity and probable bravado of
an idiot.
The offender read out an apology to the court but, who wrote this apology?
Obviously his lawyer had someone who was eloquent enough to write a heart
wrenching apology so that the judge felt sorry for this poor little "17 year
old"
And, why wait till the sentencing day, before he read the apology?

 

And another thing, if it is legal for the 17 year old to own and drive a
vehicle, then he should have been tried in a full court, not the Adelaide
Youth Court

 

Anyone who's watched "RBT" or "Highway Patrol" on TV would've seen far greater punishment imposed on people for simply driving under the influence or at excess speed.

So should the moral be, "if you're going to speed, make sure you kill someone in order to get a reduced punishment?" :-/

Of course, it all goes back to the judiciary being grossly out of touch with reality, and it's been like that for decades at least.

 

Where does the report mention the offender being charged with
'culpable driving'?... In fact under SA law the offence is 'causing
death by dangerous driving' and there's no mention of that either!
According to whom, when, and how much?

In my view it's an atrocious piece of hearsay journalism from a wet
behind the ears 20 y.o. ABC reporter who appears to have obtained the
entire story from the victim's partner... including their version of
the court proceedings. I'd seriously doubt the reporter was present
in court as most of the pertinent facts are notable for their absence.
Nor does she (the reporter) appear to have attempted to contact the
offender for his version.
Possibly an idiot, but probably is a bit rich!... And I've certainly
lost a family member (my mother) through someone else's momentary
carelessness and stupidity, which they now have to live with.
Who indeed?... The report doesn't even go so far as to suggest
someone else may have written it for him!
By yet another omission there's no mention of any lawyer in the
report. It ought therefore be equally obvious that he (the youth) may
not have had one!
Where else is he supposed to read out the apology?

How come? He could legally own and ride a bicycle if he were a 10
y.o. but it doesn't make him an adult. I'd also dare to suggest that
pedestrians have been killed or injured by errant juvenile cyclists
who weren't charged in any other court either.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:21:05 +1100

No, the parliament.

Sentencing guidelines are the legislature's fault.

You'll find that heavy sentences for speeding are in many cases
mandatory.

With many other offences, the range of sentence available is mandated
by law and is often not as high as you think.

Without knowing the actual circumstances of the fatal (as in what the
court heard, not what's in the papers) we can't know what legislation
the offence came under, and without knowing that you can't know what
sentence can be given or in what range it is.

Heavy sentences for deaths require intent, the person had to intend to
hurt. If that can't be shown then you are looking at much lesser
offences and so lesser sentences.

Don't like it, then lobby your MP to make death by vehicle an offence
with a much higher sentencing range and a much lower guilt threshold.

Then expect juries to not convict for it. BEcause it's well known
that they don't convict in cases where there's a heavy penalty and
it's a driving offence and they think "that could be me". (In other
words in cases of negligence or inattention rather than drunk driving
or intent to cause harm)

Zebee

 

It doesn't, and if you had read what I said, which was that the charge of
culpable drive used to be the usual charge when someone was killed by an
errant driver, regardless of his or her age.

According to the ABC reporter:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-09/teen-driver-walks-free-over-high-speed-hit-run/1936354
"""The car hit and killed John Swindell, who was walking his dog Tilly.

The boy drove off without stopping to help.

The court was told he panicked and was under the effects of alcohol and
cannabis.

Judge Kelvyn Prescott gave the boy a suspended sentence, a bond for two
years and fined him $1,000.

Mr Swindell's partner, Sarah Bridge, said she felt the crime had warranted a
jail term.

"I just wanted him to know that you don't just kill someone and then walk
away," she said.

The teenager read an apology in court, but Ms Bridge said she felt he had
not shown any remorse.

"""

Probably because of the privacy act, which would have barred her from
interviewing a minor

So, you are a heartless bastard who doesn't give a flying **** about the
loss of your own mother at the hands of someones careless actions??
You would rather let the person who killed your mother go free
"which they now have to live with."
Do they ?
Do you really think they think about her every day of their life?
Not one fucking chance in hell Sunshine !!

Wake up Sunshine, you really need to get out into the open air occasionally
and see how life really progresses

Wake up again Sunshine, have you ever been to a court?
If so, then you must have missed the duty solicitor waiting around asking
each and every person if they were legally represented.
You make the idiotic suggestion that someone on a charge of driving and
killing a pedestrian, would not be legally represented ??

How about to the family of the man he killed?
and before the court case came up.

This 17 year old driver, was not riding a push bicycle,
he was driving a car, which in my opinion, should place him in an adult
court liable to adult sentencing

 

Try reading what I wrote... there is no such offence as culpable
driving in SA. The equivalent offence is 'causing death by dangerous
driving'. There is absolutely no suggestion in the report as to that
being the charge against the offender. and nor is it tantamount to
murder even if it had been.
Murder requires proof of intent. Consumption of alcohol and cannabis
(even if he had) isn't proof of intent to kill.

Not disputed, though why mention the dog's name other than for maximum
emotive impact?

Accepted, and most likely what he was charged with!

Hearsay, with no supporting evidence cited.

Which would seem to be an appropriate penalty for failing to stop, in
view of the outcome (ie the death of a pedestrian)

So she told the reporter... which has no relevance to the court's
findings whatsoever and she probably wasn't even a witness to the
incident.

Ms Bridge's personal opinion, which isn't relevant to the outcome. In
my opinion the survivors always claim they didn't get the justice they
deserved, just as the perpetrators claim their treatment is overly
harsh.

It's never stopped a reporter in the past, although he may well have a
case against her for defamation should he be able to afford the legal
representation.

You wouldn't have a clue George, and should you wish to make an even
bigger fuckwit of yourself feel free to continue down that path!

They didn't exactly get off free! The responsible party was fined the
maximum amount under the law as well as being pursued by us, the
family, in the civil courts... at which point you very quickly find
out just how little a human life is worth under the law.

Your low opinion of others no doubt reflects your own character
George! Can I therefore ask whether a gaol sentence, or a flogging,
would make you anymore remorseful?

Yep, and there's no obligation whatsoever to be legally represented in
court!

Unless he has means, a 17 year old will very likely be represented by
a court appointed advocate who's only there for practice!

In my mother's case no one involved was allowed to even discuss the
incident with our family, under their own legal advice, let alone
tender any sort of apology prior to court.

In your opinion!!! A legal precedent for sure. )

 

I just can't work out your logic or reasoning and I am sure there are others
as well.
So, you can have your argument with yourself because you certainly appear to
have a spilt personality