Unless he’s mentally disabled he’s more than old enough to know this will hurt people, and badly. It should be charged as attempted murder. And if you think that’s too much you should know putting a wire across the road or trail to disable gunners and other people standing out of a vehicle, is literally a military ambush tactic.
Comment on Teen denies twice setting wire traps on bike path despite alleged video
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 1 month agoIt’s horrible but he’s 18. This isn’t some unredeemable monster, just a stupid kid who’s done something awful. A long imprisonment is like the worst thing possible, killing him would be kinder, cheaper, and less likely to lead to future crimes.
Again he’s 18. Hooking him up with a social worker and a therapist is likely the best for society and the kid.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 month ago
JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 month ago
18 is at least 8 years older than I tend to expect someone to know this level of right and wrong. This is potentially deadly. This is serious. He’s an adult.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 month ago
As someone in the !adelaide@aussie.zone thread said, once could be explained as an impulsive stupid kid. Two separate occasions shows deliberate intent to cause serious harm or death.
While I wouldn’t say they’re totally irredeemable, this is easily serious enough to warrant a significant gaol sentence, not merely a therapist while being otherwise on his own recognisance.
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 1 month ago
What do you anticipate the likely outcome of a gaol sentence early in life to be? If it’s not recidivism I would suggest you study criminology some. Fuck even my bastard of a BIL cop prosecutor recognises that sending kids to gaol just gets them coming back again and again.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 month ago
I support radical reform of our justice system, to follow something more like the Nordic model.
But in the meantime, violent offenders can’t just be set free. The justice system should seek rehabilitation, yes, but also prevent reoffending. And someone who has already reoffended after the dangerous consequences have been revealed has clearly demonstrated that there is a need to prevent reoffending. This isn’t a non-violent offence like theft. The offender (whether it’s the arrested 18-year-old or not) needs to be prevented from harming, or potentially killing, someone more than he already has.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 month ago
It’s also the message it sends to society about how much a cyclist’s life is valued. If this young man gets a slap on the wrist it’s essentially saying cyclist’s are fair game. It’s no big deal if you put their lives at risk. Is that really the message we want to be sending?
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 month ago
The “kid” is an adult.
He would have fucked up multiple lives if not stopped. Where’s the compassion for his future victims?
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 month ago
Brains don’t stop developing until 20-something. He should know better, but he’s young enough to be correctable.
But he hasn’t fucked up multiple lives, because he was thankfully caught. His ‘future victims’ don’t exist, so having compassion for them is a strictly emotional response that shouldn’t determine how to act here.
This man needs to be corrected. Long sentences don’t correct people, it increases recidivism and creates a higher risk of future criminality, especially when done at a relatively young age. Meaning you increase the chance of creating future victims, so where’s that compassion of yours now?
What is most effective and best for society usually doesn’t line up with an emotional response demanding harsh punishments.
Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yup, we should ruffle his hair, call him a little roughian, and send him on his way. Afterall no real harm was done… Luckily.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You can imprison someone while explaining why you are imprisoning them. This adult tried to kill people. They are not a child and frankly I would bet most 10 year olds know this is extremely dangerous. They are 18 they are not a “stupid kid”.
They shouldn’t be permitted to exist in civil society without some kind of attempt to determine if they really can function in society. I would argue multiple attempts suggests they might need to be removed from society.
Sometimes we have to consider impacts on the victims of the crime and the society around them rather than focus our concerns on the perpetrator of the crime and what the results are for them.
Baku@aussie.zone 1 month ago
(link to that comment for convenient clicking: aussie.zone/comment/14281715 )