Advertisement

Alleged Lawson firebug teens nabbed

By 8 January 2013 54

ACT Policing has taken two teenagers into custody after a grass fire was started in Lawson earlier today (January 8).

Around 1.30pm, ACT Fire and Rescue requested the assistance of ACT Policing after receiving a report that two teenagers were seen lighting a grass fire along Baldwin Drive.

Officers from Gungahlin general duties attended the area and located the two boys aged 13 and 14. They were taken into custody and conveyed to the Belconnen Police Station where they have assisted police with its investigation.

The teenagers have been released into the custody of their parents and will undergo a restorative justice process.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Please login to post your comments
54 Responses to Alleged Lawson firebug teens nabbed
#31
Ben_Dover10:45 am, 09 Jan 13

ScienceRules said :

You really are a cretin, aren’t you? “A severe kicking”? Really? Maybe an internet hero such as yourself could step forward (perhaps during their court hearing) and state your willingness to apply these barbaric punishments. No? Thought not…

If it had been my family, pets and possessions which had been endangered by these sh!tstains, then I would be first in line to give them a kicking, one which would remain in their minds and bodies for the rest of their wasted lives. I would be happy to do this whether sanctioned by society or not.

I think though it would be more favourable for those endangered to do it.

Do you have any point to make other than to express your sheer horror that someone may think differently to you, and to display your remarkable ineptness at predicting what others may or may not do?

I won’t even bother to insult you.

#32
Diggety11:02 am, 09 Jan 13

Postalgeek said :

Notice to all villagers:

Please bring pitchforks only. Do not bring burning torches to anti-arsonist rallies during a total fire ban.

Best comment of 2013…

#33
Zeital11:10 am, 09 Jan 13

Chop71 said :

Approx 220 years ago these kiddies may have had their hands chopped off or worse …….

sent to Australia.

well aren’t they the lucky ones now??

#34
tonkatuff8212:06 pm, 09 Jan 13

Hang on a minute, (I shouldn’t be surprised, I know) isn’t this whole thread an enormous tanty over not much really?

It sounds like (and someone with actual facts please correct me if I’m wrong) two stupid kids in their early teens who obviously have very poor examples for parents tried to light a fire on the worst day to do so in a decade. No mention of an actual fire, to me, says they were inept, half hearted or terribly unlucky in their endeavour, as a decent fart yesterday could have started a blaze.
Stupid? – Yes
Criminal? – Yes
Should they be punished and deterred from ever doing this again? – Yes
Should they have a blowtorch applied to their balls, be lynched etc etc? – Um, not really in my opinion
Should their parents be punished and sterilised? – Ok, I’ll agree with that one, but how many of you are willing to undergo screening before breeding? I bet not many.

Outstanding hand-wringing and extremist responses on this one.
And to link it to the death of a poor man in a house fire completely unrelated to this incident or bushfires in general is a fairly long, non-nonsensical bow.

To be clear, I’m not defending them or their stupid actions, I’m hoping to hold up a very small mirror that may help you see what a ranting pack of froth-mouthed banshees looks like. No doubt I have failed anyway…

#35
Girt_Hindrance12:46 pm, 09 Jan 13

tonkatuff82 said :

Hang on a minute, (I shouldn’t be surprised, I know) isn’t this whole thread an enormous tanty over not much really?

It sounds like (and someone with actual facts please correct me if I’m wrong) two stupid kids in their early teens who obviously have very poor examples for parents tried to light a fire on the worst day to do so in a decade. No mention of an actual fire, to me, says they were inept, half hearted or terribly unlucky in their endeavour, as a decent fart yesterday could have started a blaze.
Stupid? – Yes
Criminal? – Yes
Should they be punished and deterred from ever doing this again? – Yes
Should they have a blowtorch applied to their balls, be lynched etc etc? – Um, not really in my opinion
Should their parents be punished and sterilised? – Ok, I’ll agree with that one, but how many of you are willing to undergo screening before breeding? I bet not many.

Outstanding hand-wringing and extremist responses on this one.
And to link it to the death of a poor man in a house fire completely unrelated to this incident or bushfires in general is a fairly long, non-nonsensical bow.

To be clear, I’m not defending them or their stupid actions, I’m hoping to hold up a very small mirror that may help you see what a ranting pack of froth-mouthed banshees looks like. No doubt I have failed anyway…

Perhaps reading the article would have assisted your interpretations of the events.
The words were “taken into custody after a grass fire was started”, and “two teenagers were seen starting a grass fire”.
IMHO, that means that yes, there was a grass fire.
And yes, some responses may be viewed as being harsh, I personally don’t agree with them being injured for their idiotic efforts, but if you can relate to these two having reasonable need of punishment, you could also understand that people will be quite upset at the deliberate attempt to set a fire amongst the suburbs on the worst possible day of the last four (or more) years for it.

#36
rosscoact1:01 pm, 09 Jan 13

“Favelas exploding on inflammable spillways
Lynch-mobs, death squads, babies being born without brains”

so sayeth the messiah

#37
ScienceRules4:17 pm, 09 Jan 13

Ben_Dover said :

ScienceRules said :

You really are a cretin, aren’t you? “A severe kicking”? Really? Maybe an internet hero such as yourself could step forward (perhaps during their court hearing) and state your willingness to apply these barbaric punishments. No? Thought not…

If it had been my family, pets and possessions which had been endangered by these sh!tstains, then I would be first in line to give them a kicking, one which would remain in their minds and bodies for the rest of their wasted lives. I would be happy to do this whether sanctioned by society or not.

I think though it would be more favourable for those endangered to do it.

Do you have any point to make other than to express your sheer horror that someone may think differently to you, and to display your remarkable ineptness at predicting what others may or may not do?

I won’t even bother to insult you.

Which is exactly why we don’t have mob rule. If they were your normally good kids who made a stupid decision and genuinely regret their choice would you still be happy to have some deranged animal beat them senseless to satisfy their base revenge fantasies. Somehow I think not. We left mediaeval concepts of “eye for an eye” and violent retribution behind some time ago thankfully.

My point is that we have a system of courts/justice that, flawed though it may be, is still lightyears better than the reflexive “beat ‘em, rape ‘em, kill ‘em” idiocy that is thrown out time and time again by keyboard heros with an excess of testosterone and insufficient capacity for rational thought.

Feel free to think differently to me, feel free to shout those different opinions into the RA megaphone but expect to have your woeful thought processes pointed out to you when you do. Oh, and fill your boots on insulting me should you feel the need.

#38
Jim Jones4:33 pm, 09 Jan 13

tonkatuff82 said :

Outstanding hand-wringing and extremist responses on this one.
And to link it to the death of a poor man in a house fire completely unrelated to this incident or bushfires in general is a fairly long, non-nonsensical bow.

To be clear, I’m not defending them or their stupid actions, I’m hoping to hold up a very small mirror that may help you see what a ranting pack of froth-mouthed banshees looks like. No doubt I have failed anyway…

You’re obviously new to RiotAct

#39
LSWCHP7:00 pm, 09 Jan 13

tonkatuff82 said :

And to link it to the death of a poor man in a house fire completely unrelated to this incident or bushfires in general is a fairly long, non-nonsensical bow.

Yes, my reference to Jim’s terrible death on Monday was drawing a bow, but in my view it was a pretty short and sensible bow.

The man was burned to death, and his neighbours heard him screaming as he died. I’d seen him only a few days before, and the thought of that nice old bloke suffering like that makes me sick.

Setting fires under the current conditions could well result in others undergoing a similar appalling fate. The subjects are related, and I stand by what I wrote.

#40
screaming banshee7:02 pm, 09 Jan 13

tonkatuff82 said :

To be clear, I’m not defending them or their stupid actions, I’m hoping to hold up a very small mirror that may help you see what a ranting pack of froth-mouthed banshees looks like. No doubt I have failed anyway…

I can assure you there is no froth around my mouth when I say that if firebugs were summarily executed there would be less firebugs.

#41
Ben_Dover7:06 pm, 09 Jan 13

ScienceRules said :

My point is that we have a system of courts/justice that, flawed though it may be, is still lightyears better than the reflexive “beat ‘em, rape ‘em, kill ‘em” idiocy that is thrown out time and time again by keyboard heros with an excess of testosterone and insufficient capacity for rational thought.
.

Tell me now, if the general population were satisfied and happy with the alleged “justice” handed down by the ACT and Federal courts, would there be ;

a) More.

b) Less

of the gut reactions we see on this website?

Do you not think its precisely the failures of the justice system which have raise the ire of the general population to the point where normally happy sanguine people find themselves incensed to violent thoughts by the actions of the few?

Do you not think that if the “:justice” system in Australia meted out more punitive punishments, and less of eh sort of ” human rights, social work, counseling, restorative “justice”, slap on the wrist” that we see all too often in Canberra, then people’s level of anger with the way things are would be dramatically reduced?

Do you not think that if instead of condoning the dangerous and deadly activities of utter morons, people thought first about the potential and actual victims of crimes, then less people woudl get irate?

Why not try thinking beyond the superficial.

All said and done without insult.

#42
Spykler9:10 pm, 09 Jan 13

ScienceRules said :

Ben_Dover said :

ScienceRules said :

Which is exactly why we don’t have mob rule. If they were your normally good kids who made a stupid decision and genuinely regret their choice would you still be happy to have some deranged animal beat them senseless to satisfy their base revenge fantasies. Somehow I think not. We left mediaeval concepts of “eye for an eye” and violent retribution behind some time ago thankfully.

My point is that we have a system of courts/justice that, flawed though it may be, is still lightyears better than the reflexive “beat ‘em, rape ‘em, kill ‘em” idiocy that is thrown out time and time again by keyboard heros with an excess of testosterone and insufficient capacity for rational thought.

Feel free to think differently to me, feel free to shout those different opinions into the RA megaphone but expect to have your woeful thought processes pointed out to you when you do. Oh, and fill your boots on insulting me should you feel the need.

So , not even a tiny part of you would entertain the notion that a return to capital punishment would be appropriate if the fire they started wipes out most of a suburb and the inhabitants therein (including all your family)..?

#43
rosscoact10:42 pm, 09 Jan 13

Ben_Dover said :

ScienceRules said :

My point is that we have a system of courts/justice that, flawed though it may be, is still lightyears better than the reflexive “beat ‘em, rape ‘em, kill ‘em” idiocy that is thrown out time and time again by keyboard heros with an excess of testosterone and insufficient capacity for rational thought.
.

Tell me now, if the general population were satisfied and happy with the alleged “justice” handed down by the ACT and Federal courts, would there be ;

a) More.

b) Less

of the gut reactions we see on this website?

Do you not think its precisely the failures of the justice system which have raise the ire of the general population to the point where normally happy sanguine people find themselves incensed to violent thoughts by the actions of the few?

Do you not think that if the “:justice” system in Australia meted out more punitive punishments, and less of eh sort of ” human rights, social work, counseling, restorative “justice”, slap on the wrist” that we see all too often in Canberra, then people’s level of anger with the way things are would be dramatically reduced?

Do you not think that if instead of condoning the dangerous and deadly activities of utter morons, people thought first about the potential and actual victims of crimes, then less people woudl get irate?

Why not try thinking beyond the superficial.

All said and done without insult.

The far harsher penalties in the US have not resulted to a reduction in either moral outrage or crime so no, people would get just as irate and self-serving politicians would call for harsher penalties just the same as they do now.

#44
ScienceRules9:47 am, 10 Jan 13

Ben_Dover said :

ScienceRules said :

My point is that we have a system of courts/justice that, flawed though it may be, is still lightyears better than the reflexive “beat ‘em, rape ‘em, kill ‘em” idiocy that is thrown out time and time again by keyboard heros with an excess of testosterone and insufficient capacity for rational thought.
.

Tell me now, if the general population were satisfied and happy with the alleged “justice” handed down by the ACT and Federal courts, would there be ;

a) More.

b) Less

of the gut reactions we see on this website?

Do you not think its precisely the failures of the justice system which have raise the ire of the general population to the point where normally happy sanguine people find themselves incensed to violent thoughts by the actions of the few?

Do you not think that if the “:justice” system in Australia meted out more punitive punishments, and less of eh sort of ” human rights, social work, counseling, restorative “justice”, slap on the wrist” that we see all too often in Canberra, then people’s level of anger with the way things are would be dramatically reduced?

Do you not think that if instead of condoning the dangerous and deadly activities of utter morons, people thought first about the potential and actual victims of crimes, then less people woudl get irate?

Why not try thinking beyond the superficial.

All said and done without insult.

Ben,

Firstly, you are quite right, civil discourse without insults is far more productive than name-calling. I apologise for my lapse in my original response.

Now, to your points. I can’t say if the general population is happy or otherwise with the justice system and I suspect that you can’t either. Certainly people feel angry and aggrieved (as did I) when callous, unthinking acts such as this are perpetrated but the instinctive call for violent solutions doesn’t serve the community well. I’m pretty sure that none of us want to live in a society where physical retribution is meted out by the state or self-appointed representatives of the state, regardless of how justified we might feel it is at the time.

No, I definately do not think that a more punitive justice system would be more effective. We’ve tried this in the past and countries like the US and dictatorships across the world still practice it and it simply doesn’t work. There needs to be a balance between protecting the community and punishing/rehabilitating offenders.

This case is a good example. As I’ve stated before we don’t know these boys. They might just have done that once in a lifetime mindbogglingly stupid thing that some people (including me) have done. They may be good kids who will benefit from counselling, sensible sanctions and rehabilitation and go on to live productive lives. I’d much prefer that than to chucking them into the criminal cess pit that is AMC or the junior equivalent and creating lifetime hardened crims.

That’s all I’m saying.

#45
Ben_Dover10:07 am, 10 Jan 13

rosscoact said :

The far harsher penalties in the US have not resulted to a reduction in either moral outrage or crime so no, people would get just as irate and self-serving politicians would call for harsher penalties just the same as they do now.

Arguments based on what happens in the USA are non-starters, apples and oranges, you may as well have said ; “Tougher penalties in Somalia have not reduced public anger.

ScienceRules said :

Ben,

Firstly, you are quite right, civil discourse without insults is far more productive than name-calling. I apologise for my lapse in my original response.

Thank you, my faith in Riotact is restored. That is a very welcome.

ScienceRules said :

. I’m pretty sure that none of us want to live in a society where physical retribution is meted out by the state or self-appointed representatives of the state, regardless of how justified we might feel it is at the time.

You are right, BUT;
a) Some people like myself have little faith in our justice service delivering justice.
b) Due to this, we would act on our normal human reactions.
c) As I say, if the actions of these kids, for whatever motivations, had caused distress or damage to my family or property, I would not hesitate to administer punishment, as I have no faith in ACT justice (restorative or otherwise.)

But as rational adults we can agree to disagree on the rightness or morality of that, can’t we?

ScienceRules said :

No, I definitely do not think that a more punitive justice system would be more effective.

I believe it would, I believe our justice system is weak, unfeared, not at all in any way punitive, and a plaything for the criminal fraternity.

ScienceRules said :

We’ve tried this in the past and countries like the US and dictatorships across the world still practice it and it simply doesn’t work. There needs to be a balance between protecting the community and punishing/rehabilitating offenders.

See my reply re the USA above.

We “tried this” in less civilised and enlightened times, we can retry it now.

#46
ScienceRules10:42 am, 10 Jan 13

Ben_Dover said :

rosscoact said :

The far harsher penalties in the US have not resulted to a reduction in either moral outrage or crime so no, people would get just as irate and self-serving politicians would call for harsher penalties just the same as they do now.

Arguments based on what happens in the USA are non-starters, apples and oranges, you may as well have said ; “Tougher penalties in Somalia have not reduced public anger.

ScienceRules said :

Ben,

Firstly, you are quite right, civil discourse without insults is far more productive than name-calling. I apologise for my lapse in my original response.

Thank you, my faith in Riotact is restored. That is a very welcome.

ScienceRules said :

. I’m pretty sure that none of us want to live in a society where physical retribution is meted out by the state or self-appointed representatives of the state, regardless of how justified we might feel it is at the time.

You are right, BUT;
a) Some people like myself have little faith in our justice service delivering justice.
b) Due to this, we would act on our normal human reactions.
c) As I say, if the actions of these kids, for whatever motivations, had caused distress or damage to my family or property, I would not hesitate to administer punishment, as I have no faith in ACT justice (restorative or otherwise.)

But as rational adults we can agree to disagree on the rightness or morality of that, can’t we?

ScienceRules said :

No, I definitely do not think that a more punitive justice system would be more effective.

I believe it would, I believe our justice system is weak, unfeared, not at all in any way punitive, and a plaything for the criminal fraternity.

ScienceRules said :

We’ve tried this in the past and countries like the US and dictatorships across the world still practice it and it simply doesn’t work. There needs to be a balance between protecting the community and punishing/rehabilitating offenders.

See my reply re the USA above.

We “tried this” in less civilised and enlightened times, we can retry it now.

First off can I say that your masterful use of nested quotes is truly mind boggling. I can barely figure out how to trim ONE quotation so I tips my hat to the guru.

Now, I disagree with your observation about the US experience. Of course it’s relevant. They have a famously punishing legal system and yet still manage to fill their jails to bursting. If their system created the fear that you think it does, they would have a lower crime problem than here, not higher. And on that, we don’t bring back failed mediaval policies now because of a perceived lack of effectiveness of the current system. Why would we do that? Are you proposing dungeons and thumbscrews? If so, what purpose (other than satisfying revenge fantasies) do you think it would serve?

I suggest to you that almost no one determines their behaviours based on the severity of the punishment. At least not as a primary consideration. If that were the case then there would be no murders in the US, would there? People are generally good because that’s how we fit into society. We don’t steal, rape or maim because of the penalties, but rather because we are good people and know such behaviour is wrong.

Some people don’t have the capacity to make these choices and when that happens we rely on the justice system to punish them and protect us. Making this system more fearful would achieve nothing in my view.

If we make a stupid mistake (as I’m prepared to accept might be the case with our firebugs) then us good citizens need to have a system to determine the reasons for that mistake and if rehabilitation is warranted. And before you say it, I do accept that it sometimes gets it wrong.

But if you were to assault these boys because your property was damaged then you would rightly find yourself in front of the bench. I guess that would be the time to hope that you’re right about the inherent leniency in the system, eh? However I really hope that even with that provocation, your inherant goodness and ethics would stop you from taking extra-judicial revenge this way.

#47
Ben_Dover12:37 pm, 10 Jan 13

ScienceRules said :

First off can I say that your masterful use of nested quotes is truly mind boggling. I can barely figure out how to trim ONE quotation so I tips my hat to the guru.

Now, I disagree with your observation about the US experience. Of course it’s relevant. They have a famously punishing legal system and yet still manage to fill their jails to bursting. If their system created the fear that you think it does, they would have a lower crime problem than here, not higher. And on that, we don’t bring back failed mediaval policies now because of a perceived lack of effectiveness of the current system. Why would we do that? Are you proposing dungeons and thumbscrews? If so, what purpose (other than satisfying revenge fantasies) do you think it would serve?

I suggest to you that almost no one determines their behaviours based on the severity of the punishment. At least not as a primary consideration. If that were the case then there would be no murders in the US, would there? People are generally good because that’s how we fit into society. We don’t steal, rape or maim because of the penalties, but rather because we are good people and know such behaviour is wrong.

Some people don’t have the capacity to make these choices and when that happens we rely on the justice system to punish them and protect us. Making this system more fearful would achieve nothing in my view.

If we make a stupid mistake (as I’m prepared to accept might be the case with our firebugs) then us good citizens need to have a system to determine the reasons for that mistake and if rehabilitation is warranted. And before you say it, I do accept that it sometimes gets it wrong.

But if you were to assault these boys because your property was damaged then you would rightly find yourself in front of the bench. I guess that would be the time to hope that you’re right about the inherent leniency in the system, eh? However I really hope that even with that provocation, your inherant goodness and ethics would stop you from taking extra-judicial revenge this way.

The US experience is irrelevant due to them not being able to organise a p!ss up in a brewery, look at their legal and judicial system, and when you’ve stopped laughing get back to me.

Outside of the intellectually incapacitated or disabled, EVERYONE has the capacity for choice, to claim that people act without choice ifs to deny their fundamental humanity.

Anyone who through their own actions reduces their capacity for reasoned choice, such as taking drugs or drink, should live with that choice, and subsequent ones and receive no dispensation or allowance.

You call what these boys did, “a stupid mistake”, sorry but they are still culpable of the consequences of that choice and should be treated accordingly. Acting stupidly is not a get out clause.

Nice debating with you BTW.,

#48
ScienceRules4:01 pm, 10 Jan 13

The US experience is irrelevant due to them not being able to organise a p!ss up in a brewery, look at their legal and judicial system, and when you’ve stopped laughing get back to me.

Outside of the intellectually incapacitated or disabled, EVERYONE has the capacity for choice, to claim that people act without choice ifs to deny their fundamental humanity.

Anyone who through their own actions reduces their capacity for reasoned choice, such as taking drugs or drink, should live with that choice, and subsequent ones and receive no dispensation or allowance.

You call what these boys did, “a stupid mistake”, sorry but they are still culpable of the consequences of that choice and should be treated accordingly. Acting stupidly is not a get out clause.

Nice debating with you BTW.,

I’ll have a go at chopping this thread down a bit – fingers crossed!

I’m confused. You seem to be saying that the US system is broken and yet we should be more like them. Not sure how that balances out.

Perhaps it would be instructive to give examples of how you feel the above incident should be resolved if the offenders were:

a) basically good kids who have made a huge mistake and are willing to accept responsibility for their actions and

b) ratbags with a history of bad behaviour who don’t give a stuff about the rest of us.

I agree, everyone has the capacity for choice, but even “good” people make bad mistakes. Driving is a good example of this. Most people consider themselves better than average drivers, yet we know this isn’t so. We’ve all stuffed up driving to some extent or another, just like we stuff up elsewhere in life.

Yes, people should (and do) live with their choices and most folk do. But to disallow any mitigating circumstances seems unusually cruel to me.

Agreed, being stupid isn’t an excuse and I don’t think I suggested that it was. I’m saying that doing something stupid in the context of an otherwise good life does allow for mitigation of society’s response.

Ditto, I’ve enjoyed this immensely. You’ve made me think through my position and I hope it’s come across as somewhat comprehensible!

#49
LSWCHP9:50 pm, 10 Jan 13

ScienceRules said :

Ditto, I’ve enjoyed this immensely. You’ve made me think through my position and I hope it’s come across as somewhat comprehensible!

I’ve been lurking around this discussion, and it’s got me thinking about all sorts of things, and challenging a few of my fixed ideas. Nice work chaps. Maybe there’s hope for the internet yet. :-)

#50
DrKoresh11:13 pm, 10 Jan 13

rosscoact said :

“Favelas exploding on inflammable spillways
Lynch-mobs, death squads, babies being born without brains”

so sayeth the messiah

Such a good song! Such a damn good album! Henry’s Dream is probably the most influential music of my life.

#51
screaming banshee1:06 am, 11 Jan 13

Can we get a summary for those that think its TFL;DR.

I really should toddle off to bed so if someone could sum it up for me that would be tops!

#52
Ben_Dover7:41 am, 11 Jan 13

ScienceRules said :

I’ll have a go at chopping this thread down a bit – fingers crossed!

I’m confused. You seem to be saying that the US system is broken and yet we should be more like them. Not sure how that balances out.

No I’m not. You are the one saying that any attempt to be more punitive would be being like the USA, we don’t have to be. We are a different nation with different ethos and perspectives., We could be more punitive, but in an Aussie way, we do not have to be like the USA, who frankly I wouldn’t trust to run a welk stall.

Ben_Dover said :

Perhaps it would be instructive to give examples of how you feel the above incident should be resolved if the offenders were:

a) basically good kids who have made a huge mistake and are willing to accept responsibility for their actions and

b) ratbags with a history of bad behaviour who don’t give a stuff about the rest of us.

Why should the punishment be different? It’ s the actions we would punish, not the personal background. It’s only fair. If Jim Bloggs burns my house down because he’s being a silly b* gg*r, do I have more house left than if Joe Bloggs who is a nasty pasty burns it down? Nope.

That is why the prospect of more punishment may make Jim Bloggs think a bit more.

Ben_Dover said :

But to disallow any mitigating circumstances seems unusually cruel to me.

That is where we disagree. “Mitigating circumstances” are the tools by which solicitors and barristers (who have sold their morality to Mamon) use to make crimes less serious. If I am run down by a drunk driver and lose the use of my legs, will I be less crippled if he has just split up with his wife and lost his job?

Ben_Dover said :

Ditto, I’ve enjoyed this immensely. You’ve made me think through my position and I hope it’s come across as somewhat comprehensible!

Very much so, my thanks!

#53
GrumpyMark9:22 am, 11 Jan 13

I’ve just read this thread.

Firstly, in adding my tuppence worth (yep I’m that old!), I should state my credentials. My wife and I never had children, so I don’t have any emotional attachment to children or memory of raising teenagers. An important distinction as we can only speculate on the stress (if any) which the parents of these boys are experiencing at the moment.

So … Resorative Justice! WTF does this term actually mean? To whom is justice restored? Perhaps a better term would be Touchy Feely Justice.

In my simplistic (possibly jaundiced) view of the world we must all be responsible for our actions – yes, even 13yo boys. To say that they may not have fully understood the consequences of their tom foolery (if that’s what some people think it is) is myopic to say the least. We are 1 week short of the 10th anniversary of arguably the most horrific natural disaster to hit Canberra – no I don’t mean Kate Carnell (she was a bit more than 10 years ago) I mean the 2003 bushfires. With all the publicity about that plus what is going on in Tasmania, I think even 13 yo’s would understand the potential devastation of a bushfire
.
So instead of making these lads take responsibility for their actions and be held to account through the judicial system, in essence they are going to be sat down and given a very stern talking to and told they are naughty boys. Now I don’t want to be judge and jury on their case, I’m happy for them to get off with community service or whatever, but I believe they need to understand the enormity of their crime (and I do think it’s criminal what they did) and face the harsh reality of being charged.

Again my simplistic view is that when a crime is committed the person found guilty receives a (hopefully appropriate) punishment for their action but that punishment is also meant to serve as a deterrent to other would be transgressors. What sort of a message does this Restorative Justice approach send to the thousands of other teenagers in the ACT?

An earlier poster (#18 Girt_Hindrance ) who has had some experience in this Restorative Justice model said that they had seen several of the kids who go through it would “… brag to others about ‘getting off’ …”.

I’m not saying that these boys should be hung, drawn and quartered, but at least make them face the formal justice system and hopefully that experience would scare the daylights out of them so they don’t want to reoffend. Furthermore they won’t be bragging to their mates about how they were sh**ing bricks through the process.

In my view (agaand I acknowledge this is an unsubstantiated generalisation) the justice system seems to be more about the poor offender and the difficult life they have had than bringing about justice for the victims. OK nothing will bring back that dead relative or restore that burnt out property

#54
GrumpyMark9:26 am, 11 Jan 13

ooops hit submit too early – was going to add

… but it doesn’t help the healing process for the victims and their families when the perpretrator gets away with a slap on the wrist!

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.