Gillett's life is worth $2000 + 8 months driving suspension
- Thread starter endroll
- Start date
J
Jules
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Jules Wrote:
>
>>
>>ahh.. It's the title of the article.
>>
>>Never mind then ;-)
>
>
> You be careful about attributing!
>
>
yeah.. erm.. oops. It was late... I had cycled (struggled) on a full
stomach... etc etc ;-)
> Jules Wrote:
>
>>
>>ahh.. It's the title of the article.
>>
>>Never mind then ;-)
>
>
> You be careful about attributing!
>
>
yeah.. erm.. oops. It was late... I had cycled (struggled) on a full
stomach... etc etc ;-)
S
Spiny Norman
Guest
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:25:19 +1100, endroll
<[email protected]> wrote in aus.bicycle:
>
>..it would appear...
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ajynz
Isn't it a question of justice not the value of life? If she had been
an experienced driver with an appalling negligent driving record then
gaol might have been appropriate but she was just a kid with a new
licence and no experience. Tragic for all concerned.
There but for the grace of god...
Regards
Prickles
Timendi causa est nescire
This message only uses recycled electrons
<[email protected]> wrote in aus.bicycle:
>
>..it would appear...
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ajynz
Isn't it a question of justice not the value of life? If she had been
an experienced driver with an appalling negligent driving record then
gaol might have been appropriate but she was just a kid with a new
licence and no experience. Tragic for all concerned.
There but for the grace of god...
Regards
Prickles
Timendi causa est nescire
This message only uses recycled electrons
B
Bleve
Guest
EuanB wrote:
> dewatf Wrote:
> >
> > The fact that in this case there happened to be a bunch of cyclists
> > instead of a car on the other side of the road it just bad luck and a
> > terrible tragedy. If the girl makes the same mistake and runs of the
> > road into paddock how should she be punished?
> > Should her punisment for identical accidents be dependant on random
> > circumstance, on how unhappy they make someone else.
> >
>
> You're confusing actions with consequences.
One could suggest that there is a difference between intention and
accident.
It's not a popular suggestion around here though ...
> dewatf Wrote:
> >
> > The fact that in this case there happened to be a bunch of cyclists
> > instead of a car on the other side of the road it just bad luck and a
> > terrible tragedy. If the girl makes the same mistake and runs of the
> > road into paddock how should she be punished?
> > Should her punisment for identical accidents be dependant on random
> > circumstance, on how unhappy they make someone else.
> >
>
> You're confusing actions with consequences.
One could suggest that there is a difference between intention and
accident.
It's not a popular suggestion around here though ...
P
Plodder
Guest
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
> >
> > Same old response - think of the family. But family responses vary
> > enormously from a recent case here of someone pleading for leniency for
> > the
> > driver of a car in which their son died in a street drag racing crash
> > to
> > other families baying for blood. OK, you might think it's ineffective
> > and
> > lopsided, but all you're really saying is that if it was you in that
> > situation you'd react in a certain way. You can't know how any other
> > family
> > is or would react.
>
>
> Apologies to Jock if this is out of context, but his wife was run over
> in March 05 by a driver on a clear roadway. To you, his opinion may not
> have legal standing or it may not change the situation, but he's bloody
> well entitled to his POV.
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
Agreed. But it's HIS POV and his alone. My gripe is that people (often but
not always) erroneously judge 'justice' and misplaced sympathy for family;
perhaps in an effort to justify their view of the court's determinations. By
all means express, hold, argue and debate a POV but own it. Attributing the
feelings engendered by a personal POV to others is misplaced. "If I was in
that situation, I'd feel such and such" is OK. "They are in that situation
and will/should be feeling the same as I would" is not.
I have sympathy for Jock - it would be a shocking event to have to deal
with. I would have a lot of trouble working a similar situation through. My
heart goes out. Nevertheless I will always try (not always succeed - I'm no
more perfect than anyone else) to let him have his feelings without
pronouncing how he should feel. I know the hurt that can produce.
Cheers,
Frank
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
> >
> > Same old response - think of the family. But family responses vary
> > enormously from a recent case here of someone pleading for leniency for
> > the
> > driver of a car in which their son died in a street drag racing crash
> > to
> > other families baying for blood. OK, you might think it's ineffective
> > and
> > lopsided, but all you're really saying is that if it was you in that
> > situation you'd react in a certain way. You can't know how any other
> > family
> > is or would react.
>
>
> Apologies to Jock if this is out of context, but his wife was run over
> in March 05 by a driver on a clear roadway. To you, his opinion may not
> have legal standing or it may not change the situation, but he's bloody
> well entitled to his POV.
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
Agreed. But it's HIS POV and his alone. My gripe is that people (often but
not always) erroneously judge 'justice' and misplaced sympathy for family;
perhaps in an effort to justify their view of the court's determinations. By
all means express, hold, argue and debate a POV but own it. Attributing the
feelings engendered by a personal POV to others is misplaced. "If I was in
that situation, I'd feel such and such" is OK. "They are in that situation
and will/should be feeling the same as I would" is not.
I have sympathy for Jock - it would be a shocking event to have to deal
with. I would have a lot of trouble working a similar situation through. My
heart goes out. Nevertheless I will always try (not always succeed - I'm no
more perfect than anyone else) to let him have his feelings without
pronouncing how he should feel. I know the hurt that can produce.
Cheers,
Frank
Spiny Norman said:
The issue of justice, the aftermath of the incident being accurately reflected in sentencing, is at the nub of this case and indeed the Eugene McGee case. Most of us know it's naive, insensitive and offensive to suggest a life is worth any financial value.
But that's how, inadvertently, our adversarial legal system sees it. As does the media it's usual attempt to convey news via attention grabbing headlines.
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
jim wrote:
> Responses peppered with poorly contextualised latin do not make them
> more credible. On the contrary.
"Au contraire" would have had more cred.
Theo
> Responses peppered with poorly contextualised latin do not make them
> more credible. On the contrary.
"Au contraire" would have had more cred.
Theo
Whilst normally my small and inexperienced brain matter would fail to comprehend the deep and insightful reply, which only contains subtle emotional undertones, I might do so with the use of the Oxford dictionary and the help of a linguist. The phrase knucle-head defeats me, however, as I only seem to be able to find reference to knuckles as pertaining to the metacarpophalangeal joints in the hands, and apparently having very little to do with the much more cranially located "head". I am, of course open minded, and thus open to suggestions as to the redefinition of these bony structures. Perhaps knuckle-head pertains to the other phrase "knuckle-down" or "work-hard" in which case I would presume that your statement is actually a praise as to my hard working nature, and my general lack of time to partake in these lengthy discussions - of course this should fill you with pride at being taken so seriously and being generously endowed with my time and patience. Of course, I would never ask for such formal recognition.
To finalise, my statement consisted of the words "it would appear" and made no remarks as to the appropriatness, or otherwise, of the ruling nor the punishment. My belief, which I have drawn and stated in the nature of free speech (a basic tenet of our society), is that one conclusion which may be construed in the face of the punishment is as the title of the thread states. Being a bike rider (and perhaps we share this pursuit) I have not noticed any significant change in the behaviour of fellow motorists since these "famous" bike accidents. An example is the obnoxious fool in the 4WD at the Australia Day triathlon at Coogee who drove past the cyclists (some being 14, 15....years old) and yelled that the "road is for cars not for *&*&**& bikes).
I rest my case and await your response as to my interpretation of your statement.
Yours in biking spirit.
To finalise, my statement consisted of the words "it would appear" and made no remarks as to the appropriatness, or otherwise, of the ruling nor the punishment. My belief, which I have drawn and stated in the nature of free speech (a basic tenet of our society), is that one conclusion which may be construed in the face of the punishment is as the title of the thread states. Being a bike rider (and perhaps we share this pursuit) I have not noticed any significant change in the behaviour of fellow motorists since these "famous" bike accidents. An example is the obnoxious fool in the 4WD at the Australia Day triathlon at Coogee who drove past the cyclists (some being 14, 15....years old) and yelled that the "road is for cars not for *&*&**& bikes).
I rest my case and await your response as to my interpretation of your statement.
Yours in biking spirit.
jim said:
B
Bleve
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Spiny Norman Wrote:
> >
> > Isn't it a question of justice not the value of life? If she had been
> > an experienced driver with an appalling negligent driving record then
> > gaol might have been appropriate but she was just a kid with a new
> > licence and no experience. Tragic for all concerned.
> >
> > There but for the grace of god...
> >
>
> The issue of justice, the aftermath of the incident being accurately
> reflected in sentencing, is at the nub of this case and indeed the
> Eugene McGee case.
Is it though? It seems to me that justice in these cases, seems more
about emotional satisfaction for a number of agrieved parties - ie:
revenge by another name.
I'd have thought that the core issue is about prevention of future
similar incidents. ie: deterrance and/or change in infrastructure &
culture such that the roads are safer for everyone. Deterrance *only*
works if there's a strong chance of being caught doing something
illegal. The size of the deterrant is mostly academic (this is why
places with death penalties still have murders ... it doesn't work).
Throwing some kid in gaol for 10 years won't stop another kid doing the
same thing by accident. Amy's dead, you can't bring her back, no
matter how long this kid gets locked up for.
> Spiny Norman Wrote:
> >
> > Isn't it a question of justice not the value of life? If she had been
> > an experienced driver with an appalling negligent driving record then
> > gaol might have been appropriate but she was just a kid with a new
> > licence and no experience. Tragic for all concerned.
> >
> > There but for the grace of god...
> >
>
> The issue of justice, the aftermath of the incident being accurately
> reflected in sentencing, is at the nub of this case and indeed the
> Eugene McGee case.
Is it though? It seems to me that justice in these cases, seems more
about emotional satisfaction for a number of agrieved parties - ie:
revenge by another name.
I'd have thought that the core issue is about prevention of future
similar incidents. ie: deterrance and/or change in infrastructure &
culture such that the roads are safer for everyone. Deterrance *only*
works if there's a strong chance of being caught doing something
illegal. The size of the deterrant is mostly academic (this is why
places with death penalties still have murders ... it doesn't work).
Throwing some kid in gaol for 10 years won't stop another kid doing the
same thing by accident. Amy's dead, you can't bring her back, no
matter how long this kid gets locked up for.
P
percrime
Guest
Faww#$$ I 'almost' agree with Bleeve. Make note.. see quack.
Yeah the fine doesnt do much.
On the other hand she did screw up and clobber 6 people. It seems to me
we should either be fairly satisfied she wont screw up again (and maybe
she won't its at least possible she will be as carefull a driver as is
possible in future.) Or we should make sure that if she does she is
likely to be the one hurt.
I really like (sorry to push this barrow again) the idea of a system
where those who have stuffed up and hurt other people are the ones
placed in harms way in future when they stuff up.
So either take her licence of her... really really carefully evalulate
her over a long period before giving it back. Or force her to ride a
bike.. The fine is irrelevent.
Mind you if revenge is a consideration... perhaps have one 10th of the
broken bones she inflicted er inflicted on her. Can;t say fairer than
that. And I bet one tenth of those injuries would focus your mind on
car control in future. No I,m not serious. Mind you if she hits me...
Dave
Yeah the fine doesnt do much.
On the other hand she did screw up and clobber 6 people. It seems to me
we should either be fairly satisfied she wont screw up again (and maybe
she won't its at least possible she will be as carefull a driver as is
possible in future.) Or we should make sure that if she does she is
likely to be the one hurt.
I really like (sorry to push this barrow again) the idea of a system
where those who have stuffed up and hurt other people are the ones
placed in harms way in future when they stuff up.
So either take her licence of her... really really carefully evalulate
her over a long period before giving it back. Or force her to ride a
bike.. The fine is irrelevent.
Mind you if revenge is a consideration... perhaps have one 10th of the
broken bones she inflicted er inflicted on her. Can;t say fairer than
that. And I bet one tenth of those injuries would focus your mind on
car control in future. No I,m not serious. Mind you if she hits me...
Dave
Bleve said:
No, that's you projecting what you *believe* other people are thinking. Hasn't this aspect been previously discussed in this thread?!?
Bleve said:
Then get involved with advocacy, don't just sit on the sidelines endlessly pontificating via a newsgroup. I have plenty of contacts/links if you want to know more.
Bleve said:
The greater issue isn't about throwing people in jail - it's about the justice system accurately reflecting the incident that occurred.
B
Bleve
Guest
dave wrote:
[chomp]
> Any one who believes that we don;t have
> natural selection for luck is kidding themselfs.
Spend much time in casinos, Dave?
[chomp]
> Any one who believes that we don;t have
> natural selection for luck is kidding themselfs.
Spend much time in casinos, Dave?
S
Stuart Lamble
Guest
On 2006-02-06, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>> Any one who believes that we don;t have
>> natural selection for luck is kidding themselfs.
>
> Spend much time in casinos, Dave?
Or have you read "Ringworld"? Interesting idea there: limit the
population to two kids, but put names into a lottery for a third child.
Repeat over many generations. Pick out those who came from the Nth
generation of lottery-produced children for a dangerous mission ... hm,
why can't I get in touch with any of them? They all seem to be out of
the office, or on holidays, or just left, or ...
Interesting to hypothesise on the logical conclusion of that particular
line of thought.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
> dave wrote:
>
>> Any one who believes that we don;t have
>> natural selection for luck is kidding themselfs.
>
> Spend much time in casinos, Dave?
Or have you read "Ringworld"? Interesting idea there: limit the
population to two kids, but put names into a lottery for a third child.
Repeat over many generations. Pick out those who came from the Nth
generation of lottery-produced children for a dangerous mission ... hm,
why can't I get in touch with any of them? They all seem to be out of
the office, or on holidays, or just left, or ...
Interesting to hypothesise on the logical conclusion of that particular
line of thought.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
B
Bleve
Guest
Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-02-06, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > dave wrote:
> >
> >> Any one who believes that we don;t have
> >> natural selection for luck is kidding themselfs.
> >
> > Spend much time in casinos, Dave?
>
> Or have you read "Ringworld"?
yes
In the science "fiction" section, if I recall correctly
Your genes don't control where lightening strikes.
> On 2006-02-06, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > dave wrote:
> >
> >> Any one who believes that we don;t have
> >> natural selection for luck is kidding themselfs.
> >
> > Spend much time in casinos, Dave?
>
> Or have you read "Ringworld"?
yes
In the science "fiction" section, if I recall correctly
Your genes don't control where lightening strikes.
B
Bleve
Guest
percrime wrote:
> Faww#$$ I 'almost' agree with Bleeve. Make note.. see quack.
> Yeah the fine doesnt do much.
Have a look through the Aust institute of criminology - it's quite a
good place to have a look.
http://www.aic.gov.au/
Oddly enough, the nature of crime, deterrance and punishment/revenge is
nothing new.
> Faww#$$ I 'almost' agree with Bleeve. Make note.. see quack.
> Yeah the fine doesnt do much.
Have a look through the Aust institute of criminology - it's quite a
good place to have a look.
http://www.aic.gov.au/
Oddly enough, the nature of crime, deterrance and punishment/revenge is
nothing new.
D
dewatf
Guest
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:00:47 +1100, EuanB
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You're confusing actions with consequences.
The point of legal system is punish people for their free willed
actions, not to hand out punishments based on the luck of the outcome.
The girl wasn't charged with speeding recklessly. It was, as far as
has been reported, simply an accident where she lost control of the
car because she was an inexperienced driver.
You bump into someone and they fall over, strike their head on the
ground and die doesn't mean you should be gaolled just because the
consequences turned out to be bad.
>If I take or fail to take an action that has undesireable consequences
>I'd expect the consequences to be a large factor in determining
>sentence.
Legal systems don't work like that all the time.
dewatf.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You're confusing actions with consequences.
The point of legal system is punish people for their free willed
actions, not to hand out punishments based on the luck of the outcome.
The girl wasn't charged with speeding recklessly. It was, as far as
has been reported, simply an accident where she lost control of the
car because she was an inexperienced driver.
You bump into someone and they fall over, strike their head on the
ground and die doesn't mean you should be gaolled just because the
consequences turned out to be bad.
>If I take or fail to take an action that has undesireable consequences
>I'd expect the consequences to be a large factor in determining
>sentence.
Legal systems don't work like that all the time.
dewatf.
D
dewatf
Guest
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:18:28 +1100, cfsmtb
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>dewatf Wrote:
>>
>> Gillet's parents are never going to be satisfied, no matter how much
>> the girl's life is ruined for an accident.
>
>Oh dear God, and why should they? You're a heartless troll dewatf.
There I was having a go at the emotive reponse in the subject heading
and the posts in this news group (which was also the way tabloid
papers went using Gillet's mother's opinion as the arbitor of
effective justice).
dewatf.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>dewatf Wrote:
>>
>> Gillet's parents are never going to be satisfied, no matter how much
>> the girl's life is ruined for an accident.
>
>Oh dear God, and why should they? You're a heartless troll dewatf.
There I was having a go at the emotive reponse in the subject heading
and the posts in this news group (which was also the way tabloid
papers went using Gillet's mother's opinion as the arbitor of
effective justice).
dewatf.
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
>> Throwing some kid in gaol for 10 years won't stop another kid doing
>> the
>> same thing by accident. Amy's dead, you can't bring her back, no
>> matter how long this kid gets locked up for.
> The greater issue isn't about throwing people in jail - it's about the
> justice system accurately reflecting the incident that occurred.
Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that would
1. be just
2. reflects the incident accurately
3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the questions
again.
Theo
> Bleve Wrote:
>> Throwing some kid in gaol for 10 years won't stop another kid doing
>> the
>> same thing by accident. Amy's dead, you can't bring her back, no
>> matter how long this kid gets locked up for.
> The greater issue isn't about throwing people in jail - it's about the
> justice system accurately reflecting the incident that occurred.
Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that would
1. be just
2. reflects the incident accurately
3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the questions
again.
Theo
Similar threads
