Goafer Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 He's been sent to a long-term in-patient facility with no contact with his parents so he's not going to be out and about driving again so he's no danger to the public there. Of course he should have been sent to prison but he's not walking about scot-free right now. Ah, fair enough. Didn't realise it was that sort of place.
MoogleViper Posted December 18, 2013 Author Posted December 18, 2013 But the fact still remains that his defence was that he was unable to fully understand the consequences of his actions, as he was used to getting away with everything; so they've decided not to punish him fully...
bob Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 Surely you can't send a 16 year old to prison though whatever they did wrong? Don't you have to wait until they are 18?
MoogleViper Posted December 18, 2013 Author Posted December 18, 2013 Surely you can't send a 16 year old to prison though whatever they did wrong? Don't you have to wait until they are 18? In this country you are criminally responsible from aged 10. There are separate sentences, and different prisons for people under age 18. But are you seriously suggesting that a 16 year old shouldn't go to prison, no matter the crime? Are you suggesting that a 16 could brutally murder people, but shouldn't be held responsible?
bob Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 No, i just meant that maybe that was the reason they were sent to the detention centre rather than hard prison.
MoogleViper Posted December 18, 2013 Author Posted December 18, 2013 No, i just meant that maybe that was the reason they were sent to the detention centre rather than hard prison. Ah right. He should have been sent to Juvenile prison until 18 (or maybe 21).
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 If the kid goes on to cure cancer or make hangover-free alcohol then hey, sure, why not... but the potential for his contribution to society is already tampered by his actions already, so I do kind of agree he should've been thrown to the dogs a little and forced to make some form of retribution... Justice isn't about "throwing somebody to the dogs" though, is it? It's not about that. It's about the boy taking some sort of responsibility for his actions. In this case, he would be doing that by going to prison and serving the time that he is due. He's committed a crime, a serious one: Four people lost their lives. They can't have their lives back. He still has his and, from what we've read, he can almost do whatever the fuck he likes. That's not justice.
jayseven Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 @Goafer yeah that's a fair point I didn't consider fully -- If I was in his shoes then... well four more people would be alive right now! @Fierce_LiNk I completely agree - justice should be served, and it doesn't seem to have been. Forgive my phrasing about dog-throwing! I would certainly not condone literally letting the public have a go at him, which is what my previous comment seemed to insinuate.
jayseven Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 To further the 'justice' discussion, does this video attest or alter anyone's views?
Recommended Posts