13 June 2007

Westin v. Carney

| keithsaisell
Join the conversation
32

the westin issue – there was much clashing of teeth and howls of moral outrage re the law letting the westin girl off “lightly”.

i notice, from afar, in todays Australian, that a canberra raiders football player has also got off for the third lot of serious road/traffic offences. very similar to the westin girl.

but i have not noticed any moral outrage.

could i assume that rugby league players, ie elite sportspeople etc, are not held to the same high moral level.

regards
kazza

Join the conversation

32
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
CraigFromCurtin12:28 am 22 Jun 07

Jellen, you are way off the point and your arguments do not apply in this case. NO-ONE (repeat NO-ONE) is arguing that Westin or Carney are innocent, and ooh – let’s be light on them because they may not be guilty. There is irrefutable evidence that they did the things they were charged with and – best of all – they pleaded guilty! Any discussion of the risk of an innocent person being found guilty is just bollocks. Your misguided view that there are “plenty of nasty precedents from 20th century European history” that makes it “much better to slant the system in favour of the odd Amber or Todd” is rubbish! The precedents are irrelevant. A & T pleaded guilty! Please make some sense before you post again. Leniancy for first offenders has NOTHING to do with the issue of guilt or innocence. They are separate issues and must not be confused.

Anyway, she went down today for 7 months. Good thing too. She deserves to be banged up (pardon my pun). Like other posters, I feel sorry for the kid. People like Westin don’t plan families – they find themselves pregnant from somebody or other they probably can’t remember during a drug-induced smoke-filled “session”, and the child is the true victim in these circumstances. There ought to be a compulsory sterilisation regime for people that can’t prove that they can be responsible parents.

And let me clear this up: Her real name is Amber JOAN Westin. When she was arrested, the court had her name incorrectly recorded as Amber JANE Westin. Her legal team corrected this in court (I was there).

Jellen,

I appreciate your comments, and some are fair, however with such a lenient system in place, should first time offenders be let off? If so what is the point in putting them before court?

There will always be problems with people being charged for offences they did not commit. Thats reality. That isn’t such a bad thing though as most of those cases are based on suspicion. All I can say is that with such a lenient system in place, is there any benefit for the victims of the crime? They go through months/years/lifetime of pain. It’s fair that Westin goes to jail for 2 years when she has ruined a life time of another person. And not only that person, but the rest of the family and friends. If you kill someone whether on purpose or accident, you should pay for that crime. The poor husband left alone for the rest of his life will still be alive when this low life gets out of jail. Hardly justice.

hairy nosed wombat8:47 pm 17 Jun 07

Hmmm, I used to like the Judge Dredd Graphic Novels. “Public vis” and doing a crime used to earn the perp an extra 6 months.

It sounds like something that should be used in real life, not just graphic novels

I’d choose the ACT justice system over the USA every single time. In other words, its better to have the odd Amber situation than to have a David Hicks and Guantanamo Bay situation. That is the point of a justice system after all – it is based on the principle that it is better that the odd guilty person go free in order to protect the principle that innocent people should never be locked up by the State.
There are some very nasty precedents from 20th century European history which should remind us why it is much better to slant the system in favour of the odd Amber or Todd than to have people locked away on their first offence.
The problem with the approach of criticising ACT justice by reference to Amber’s case is that it completely ignores the outcomes for all the other people treated leniently on their first offence who do not go on to reoffend.
In the theoretical situation that you were charged with an offence that you did not commit and you were given the choice of facing ACT justice or USA justice, every lawyer on God’s earth would tell you to choose ACT justice. I know I’d choose the ACT to face my fate. We should be proud to live here for that reason. Or, as the Americans say, love it or leave it!

This comparison is just another fine example of the ACT justice system. I believe that in Westins case she should’ve been on trial for manslaughter and given a full time jail sentence. What are we teaching young people by giving her weekend detention?
And if Carney had been caught in the US, he would be serving more jail time than Paris Hilton. Its more so the ACT Justice System.

I’d be interested to think what people think each person actually deserved rather than what they got. Personally I think both people got off lightly.

Bring back the Stocks !

neanderthalsis9:39 am 15 Jun 07

Until gross stupidity becomes a capital crime, society will be plagued by pillocks such as Westin and Carney.

Despite the obvious difference of A.J.W killing someone, the crimes are quite similar and are characterised by a complete disrespect for social norms and continual flouting of the law. Maybe a few hours in a public pillory would make their humiliation complete and convince them not to re-offend.

I can’t believe the way people idolise football players

I didn’t say anything about idolising Todd Carney.

I think he is a talented rugby league player. That’s it.

Maybe it’s just me, but everyone seems to be calling her Amber JOAN Westin now. WIN news did it tonight, ABC has done it for the last few days.

She will be sentenced again tomorrow. I have heard from someone that works in the court system, that he is expecting a harsher sentence on her….. one can only hope

I have always wondered about the legal distinction between drink driving, having a crash and no one being hurt verses drink driving, having a crash and someone dying.

Sometimes I think that punishing someone more over a matter of luck is harsh, but then the alternative is to punch people the same based on their actions rather then the outcome.

Which would mean either 1)sentencing every drink driver to a lengthy prison term, regardless of weather people die, OR 2)giving everyone a slap on the wrist even if someone does die.

Unfortunately, if AJW’s case is anything to go by, we seem to already be following option 2, and I’m not so happy with that.

Carney got punished for his crime.. Westin didn;t.. Plain and simple. Perhaps Carney did get off light.. But Westin killed someone and has pretty much got a slap on the wrist.

The thought of those two getting together and breeding makes me sick. Their children may even be another species, scientific name….
Homo-Drunk’n’dissordilous

Prehaps we could set Westin and Carney up in some sort of relationship? Two parent family would be better for the child, and everyone knows the differnce between stay at home mum and unemployed.

Plus, in another 15 or 16 years the kid can get a licence and drive them around.

sepi, true… but which is the lesser of two evils? Stay with the no hoper mum and the kid is screwed. Go to a foster family and she may still be screwed? I would like to think the kid’s prospects would be better in foster care. Even just a bit.

I can’t believe the way people idolise football players, was it Orwell that explained sport is just distraction for the proles? Sounds right to me.

Sammy, I disagree. Society is worse off thanks to “role models” like football players.

Why should we reward and glorify people who can hurt each other the best?

A “great football player” is often a poor excuse for a human being.

Westin is a slapper, and provides no social benefit, and a large social cost.

Carney is a great football player, and provides plenty of social benefit, with little social cost.

Case closed.

Invisible_Hulk10:53 pm 13 Jun 07

Moral outrage? I am outraged that previous convictions, good behaviour bonds and suspended sentences mean nothing in the ACT – whether you’re a star or whether you’re struggling.

Consider Matthew Newton’s conviction on the same day as Carney and Westin were last in court – not that I am condoning his behaviour. He pushed his girlfriend at home and has had his contracts torn up. The judge said she had to record a conviction to send the message that high profile people do not receive preferential treatment.

He should get into training – I am sure the Raiders will eventually have an opening at half back after a few more Carney episodes.

Sadly the prospects for children placed in care are very poor. This is why judges aim to keep them with their families, even when the families are disfunctional, ala Ms Westin.

If I remember rightly, Westin repeatedly violated her bail conditions, prior to being sentenced – i.e. being before the court for the death of another person didn’t seem to slow her down.

Well guess what folks, plenty of ‘normal’ (low-profile non famous type) people have been done DUI multiple times and escaped any kind of custodial sentence (I’m aware of a chappie that’s been done either 3 or 4 times that hasn’t even been sentenced to community service).

Not saying it’s right, just how it is.

Westing is a habitual drug and alcohol abuser with a child, who has a large number of offenses involving drugs, violence and driving. After a string of offenses, she fled police causing the death of another road user.

Carney on the other hand is just stupid and immature. He doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. Hell, he might not even know what those two words mean.

My point is while Carney did get off somewhat lightly in my opinion, he has prospects. Embarrassment in the public eye, treatment for his problems and hopefully a serious threat from league bosses that he will risk his professional career will go a long way to setting him straight. Put simply, he is not a lost cause.
Westin on the other hand is repeat, serious offender whose activities are apparently becoming more serious. There is also the issue of her child. As a primary carer for a child, her actions are endangering both her life, and that of her child. Where as Carney has hope for rehabilitation as the courts put it, Westin has no hope. All that can be done now is to deal with Westin harshly and promptly for the safety of her child, and the community.

So, they were both driving erratically under the influence, both while their licences were suspended, both failed to stop when directed to by police, but by pure coincidence Carney didn’t harm anyone?

Seems to be the same level of culpability to me, just fortunate that Carney didn’t kill someone.

I’m not trying to diminish Westin’s wrongdoing, but it is strange that our criminal justice system places such a degree of influence on chance.

Wouldn’t surprise me if it was. Apparently after being told on several times he still doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong.

What a load of crap.

OpenYourMind5:29 pm 13 Jun 07

Does anyone know what car Carney drives? A white Lexus IS200 with bling wheels was seen in Bruce today – a girl I know swears it was Carney driving.

heh. so how is Carney gonna get to the game now.. mummy gonna drive him ?

loathe to bring this in, as I only heard it on the radio, but was Ms Westin’s prior for ASSULTING A 70yr old in a supermarket???
Well, sympathy runs thin

killed someone did he?
assulted them?

not actually that equivalent?
who was it then, put in a link!

If it was one of the Raiders, well, no doubt there was a fair bit of discussion on these pages but, youre right, a fair bit less outrage..probably because of the way big clubs support players, rather than the rest of society begrudgingly footing the bill for their existence and screw-ups

Indeed. One is a drug addled fiend, living on welfare, with prior convictions, who killed an innocent elderly woman, on the day she was due to appear in court (and didn’t) on another misdemeanor.

You bleeding heart muppet.

It does bear comparison, because until she killed that unfortunate lady, Amber Westin had previous vehicular charges against her. Had the punishment been more realistic one that she really felt, she may not have gone on to kill someone and devastate a family. Should we wait until the elite sports star kills someone too to impose a real sentence? It’s time we stopped idolising these guys just because they are good on a sports field and treating them as better than the rest of us!

I’d say, measure for measure, that Carney got it harder than Westin due to his public profile, not the reverse.

Growling Ferret4:33 pm 13 Jun 07

Once is a drug farked scumbag who killed an innocent lady whilst avoiding a court appearance

The other is a rugby league player who went dui and then was caught driving without a licence.

When Todd kills someone, let there be howls of outrage. He’s lost his licence forever, been publicly humiliated, is now on a rehab program, has got a job, is doing community service.

The other is a doey bitch who was busted taking pot and intravenous drug equipment into the remand centre when she was serving periodic detention.

Hardly bares comparision…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.