Well, unless anyone else was 'harmed' in some way by his (admittedly) stupid actions, isn't it a victimless crime??

 

At this point it is also important to note that even on those roads there are hazards like Kangaroos, old tyres and cars coming both ways..

So there is really no safe public road for insane speeds. Race tracks are designed for this type of driving and that is the only place it should be indulged.. BTW the territory police do patrol that road for excessive speed - dangerous driving still applies...


Bravo and well said too... Thanks..

 

I suggest that even that driver has at least one person that could be impacted by his actions.. There is always a victim.. That person may have a family that now has no income while he is in jail.. Check out some of the Domestic Voilence info around this sort of thing..

 

Hey...this has got to be the best "discussion" I have seen in a long time. High 5's to everyone for keeping there cool on what often turns into a big screaming match. This is what I like about this forum.

On the subject of deservedness of the punishmentI dont believe that just because no one WAS hurt/killed justifies not punishing someone. To me that just means that a Bank Robber who doesn't hurt or kill anyone doesn't deserve a harsh penalty. The penalties handed out are based ona number of issue, not just the damage to life, but the community and its values as well.

Andrew

 

Gibbo, I appreciate what you are saying and understand your view re: lack of adverse outcome so why the heavy penalty but the point I was trying to make was that there is a big difference between deliberate intent (Mr Bentley) and lack of intent (Mr Roundhouse) when comparing the criminality of a given offence to another.

Further, the law does not recognise luck as a discount factor. He was certainly lucky not to have caused some serious harm, if even only to himself. Had he run some people down we would all be baying for his blood - that he did not is no reason to smack him on the hand and send him on his way.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Its funny they got restrictions from for P platers when you got this fool

doing those speeds on a busy highway with a car with not

6 powerful cylinders but double that, 12! And not 1 turbo, 2 of them!

Where's the justice.

 

Forgot to add:

There is also no way this guy would have got jail time if he was a cleanskin. I'll bet anything you like he had a reasonable record of offences and the judicial officer obviously decided the only way this flip was going to learn was to spend some time thinking about it instead of just paying a fine, which is obviously loose change to a guy who can afford a Conti. He may also have been caught driving whille disqualified before, leading to the conclusion that licence disqualification would not be an effective deterrent.

Some of this is speculation, which just goes to show there is no substitute to reading the relevant judgment (and sometimes the evidence) if you want to have an informed discussion about the rights and wrongs of any sentencing decision.

Anyway, I've had more than my fair spray on this (occupational hazard) but thanks everyone for a good debate and not letting it degenerate into a personal thing (as mentioned previously).

 

If not justice, then at least consistency. They should impound the car - that's what they would do if it was a 17 year old in an rx3 doing an extended burnout.

(or is only South Australia that has "anti hoon" laws at the moment? - it's hard to tell which state government is being the most reactionary at the moment WRT pandering to the Nanny State)

 

Well, I think that's exactly the point -- justice ...he fought the law and the law won ( I love it when Gomez reminds me of 60's song lyrics)

 

I've not had much input in this matter, but the above $2.50 worth from Revolver is worth it's weight in gold - which would be about $2.50 btw :p
I think that without knowing ALL of the facts / details surrounding this case, it is impossible to know if the sentece was warranted. From where I'm sitting the severity of the penalty would indicate that this chap had done other "naughty" things in that past (driving related of course )
I beleive the media has blown it all out of proportion yet again...

EDIT: because my time is not as valuable as Revolver's.. that's my 5 cents worth :D

 

Don't be so hard on yourself LJ - I'd value it at least 10 cents!!! :p :D :D

 

An article in today's SMH describes him as a 'serial speeding offender' - what a shock!

 

OK I have been debating writting this so please know that I am not intending to inflame the issue.

I believe that the one thing missing from this debate is that the fact that this guy INTENDED to do that sort of speed. At the speeds he was doing I believe only luck stopped him from killing anyone. I believe he got a punishment representing seriousness of what could have been.

Andrew

 

I have read through all the debate & whilst my sentiments are displayed in the original post. I should point out what "I see" as the future. 10 years ago, (assuming the same driving record) you would have gotten a speeding fine for this. Today he goes to Jail. In another 10 years, the guy would be getting the same levels of Jail term that he coud expect for murdering his wife. Tell me how that will be considered fair I ask???

At the same time. Our fantastic reactionary Gov will lower & lower the levels required for a speeder to go to Jail. In another 10 years, I suspect there will be jail terms for doing a mere 30kph over the limit. If that seems outrageous, so would have a Jail term back in 1995 or earlier.

Makes me want to buy an electric car now.............

 

10 years ago I didn't think there were that many cars that could those sorts of speed comfortably. At least not in Australia
10 years ago, people wouldn't have been ringing up to dob him in
10 years ago the police were not in a position to respond in time to catch the sod
20 years ago the average national speed limit was higher.. I remember parts of the F2 being a 140km zone
25yrs ago you could drink and drive and there's be a good chance you'd not get a fine

10 years ago.... I was 10years younger :D

Edit: 10 years ago, the people voted for the government... they still do and in 10 years time they will still
My point is.. you can't really compare.. times are changing..

 

Ummm, I think that's what I was trying to say.

Glad you agree Andrew!

 

Well said LJ.

And just think, hundreds of years ago you got transported for stealing a silk hankie.

Actually, in medieval Japan, the only punishment for criminals was death and if you got caught harbouring one not only you but your whole family was put to death.

Today's punishments are very light in historical terms. Don't let your personal enthusiasm for driving fast (as I'm sure we all do from time to time) cloud the issue - fact is, this guy was doing something exceedingly dangerous and, with his record, needed something to let him know it's just not on. Whether it should have been a week, a month or 6 months, I reckon he's where he deserves to be.

 

Hear hear....

 

As a side note...the guy actually told the cop that pulled him over that we was late for a meeting with John Howard and that is why he was speeding.......that excuse alone deserved 6 months jail :D.

Anyway, I hope that there are other reasons why he got the 6 months jail not just a once off speeding offence. As I stated in my previous email, if he is a repeat offender then he is exactly where he should be, however if it is a once off then the law once again has got it wrong.

Who hasn't either done that sort of speed or wished they could, momentary lapse of reason is all it takes, I am not going to say that I have done that sort of speed on public roads because that would just be incriminating, however "if" I did that speed I do not beleive that 6 months jail is an appropriate punishment.

However as everyone has said, we do not know the background.

 

Ha Ha...probably did, I just like the sound of my own voice :-D

Andrew