I agree we are a nanny state, but in the wrong areas. Not enough effort is put into existing laws. Take the following.
A 22 yrs old is clicked doing 225km/h in a 100km/h zone. 2.25 times the legal speed limit in a high performance vehicle. The judge stated it was at the top end of reckless driving. The guy got 10 months suspension, $1200 fine and the vehicle impounded for 28 days under the hoon laws. The judge could not give a custodial sentence due to the guy having a clean record and pleading guilty.
I don't think imprisonment was a viable option for the offence anyway, so it is "tough talk drivel" on the judge's part. What is the relevance of pleading guilty? An offence is committed and a punishment is given. IF an alleged victim decides to snub blatant evidence, in this case a speed camera, then a sentence should be given at the maximum allowable. But pleading guilty when he would've been found guilty anyway is irrelevant. Consideration for pleading guilty should be reserved for when a plea saves a victim further distress, such as a rape or abuse case, not young turks sucking up to judges.
At the worst he would've killed an innocent person and at 'best,' himself, and given his parents the grief of burying a child, when parents anticipate you burying them!
The 28 days impoundment is irrelevant, the guy has no licence. The 10 months and $1,200 is a slap on the wrist and does not reflect the dangerous nature of the offence, especially as these types of offences have been well publicised. Why didn't the judge go an even 12 months?, let alone something more appropriate like 18 months, a $2500 fine and 200 hrs community service linked to a custodial sentence if he deviated. Make it count. The guy is 22 and impressionable. The judge has taught him that taking unnecessary risks are worth taking.
These kids, and that's all they are, will keep dying.
