this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
36 points (95.0% liked)
Australian News
779 readers
12 users here now
A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- Keep discussions civil and respectful
- Exclude profanity from post titles
- Exclude excessive profanity from comments
- Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with
[satire]
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Banner: ABC
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As someone in the !adelaide@aussie.zone thread said, once could be explained as an impulsive stupid kid. Two separate occasions shows deliberate intent to cause serious harm or death.
While I wouldn't say they're totally irredeemable, this is easily serious enough to warrant a significant gaol sentence, not merely a therapist while being otherwise on his own recognisance.
I support radical reform of our justice system, to follow something more like the Nordic model.
But in the meantime, violent offenders can't just be set free. The justice system should seek rehabilitation, yes, but also prevent reoffending. And someone who has already reoffended after the dangerous consequences have been revealed has clearly demonstrated that there is a need to prevent reoffending. This isn't a non-violent offence like theft. The offender (whether it's the arrested 18-year-old or not) needs to be prevented from harming, or potentially killing, someone more than he already has.
This goes extra if, as is likely the case, the crime was committed with hate against a vulnerable group as the motive.
It's also the message it sends to society about how much a cyclist's life is valued. If this young man gets a slap on the wrist it's essentially saying cyclist's are fair game. It's no big deal if you put their lives at risk. Is that really the message we want to be sending?
It's sheer luck that nobody died. If they shot random people on 2 separate occasions, but nobody died, would you say no prison time, just make him replace the blood soaked clothes?
I don't think you understand the danger of what they did if you think this is a false comparison. Please take a minute to look into what an impact you would experience if that cyclist hit the ground head first. People die all the time in fights because their head smacked into the ground.
I agree that putting people in prison often puts them on a worse path in life. But I think that is true for all crimes. What I disagree with is you trivialising this particular crime saying it's unlikely to kill someone. That is not true. If you hit a wire at 30kph it's very likely to kill you.
Small sample size. Hard to draw conclusions. Let's end our disagreement here. All the best
The "kid" is an adult.
He would have fucked up multiple lives if not stopped. Where's the compassion for his future victims?
Brains don't stop developing until 20-something. He should know better, but he's young enough to be correctable.
But he hasn't fucked up multiple lives, because he was thankfully caught. His 'future victims' don't exist, so having compassion for them is a strictly emotional response that shouldn't determine how to act here.
This man needs to be corrected. Long sentences don't correct people, it increases recidivism and creates a higher risk of future criminality, especially when done at a relatively young age. Meaning you increase the chance of creating future victims, so where's that compassion of yours now?
What is most effective and best for society usually doesn't line up with an emotional response demanding harsh punishments.
Brains never stop developing. Most 10 year olds would know ths is dangerous.
What is best for society and what is best for those who are perpetrating these kinds of crimes might not align like you suggest. It is possible that what is best for the perpetrator and what is best for the larger society are entirely different.
I mean, the best case scenario actually does align. It's putting this guy somewhere that he can get both good mental health treatment and be prevented, physically, from reoffending in the meantime. It's the Nordic justice model.
You can imprison someone while explaining why you are imprisoning them. This adult tried to kill people. They are not a child and frankly I would bet most 10 year olds know this is extremely dangerous. They are 18 they are not a "stupid kid".
They shouldn't be permitted to exist in civil society without some kind of attempt to determine if they really can function in society. I would argue multiple attempts suggests they might need to be removed from society.
Sometimes we have to consider impacts on the victims of the crime and the society around them rather than focus our concerns on the perpetrator of the crime and what the results are for them.
Yup, we should ruffle his hair, call him a little roughian, and send him on his way. Afterall no real harm was done... Luckily.
(link to that comment for convenient clicking: https://aussie.zone/comment/14281715 )