I understand the point of Victim Impact Statements in regards to letting the victims feel as if they are being heard – but I don’t know if it works as a blanket rule across all situations.

Two points:

1. The purpose of reading out the victim impact statements in court is to involve victims in the court process and make them feel heard. Its also supposed to benefit the judge.

2. Its natural to assume that everyone has your goodness. They don’t. This guy may be wracked with guilt and go on to live a blameless life; he may not.

Not only are none of us familiar enough with the circumstances to do anything other than speculate about these kinds of details, but this pointless speculation also distracts us from the deeper, more important issue here. Time spent establishing blame is time wasted. Working out the best way in which to proceed from here in order to quell intense post-crash suffering is time worthy. There has to be a better approach than the one that was adopted in this situation. A public space in which all those affected by the crash can share their stories whilst on an equal footing is a good way to start.

Andrew is spot on, both the victims and perpetrators have to stand on equal grounds. But in this case I think the line between the perpetrators and victims are blurred. Yes, the kid did speed and ended up killing his mates and hence the responsibility for their lives, but in this he is also a victim to a car accident. If no deaths were involved and only the driver was seriously injured, he would have came back from 3 years of physical therapy and people would be giving words of encouragement and support, not berating him.
I feel the problem we have here is that everyone is a victim. The driver is the easiest to blame and as Sam said we are quick to accept the Eye for an Eye compensation. There is no right or wrong. Everybody does stupid things, it’s when it affects our lives that we take notice of our stupidity.

For the Court to arrange such a hearing after such a long period of time will only open up old wounds for both the parents and the driver. If this is a public exercise to create controversies at the expense of both parties I think the court has succeeded

I think a dose of empathy would do the world some good. Andrew’s suggestion, that both parties need to have a say, is spot on.

I think everyone needs to remember that this was not an attack – a young man did not approach four others and kill them, with pure murder as his intention. A young man was driving a car with his four friends and an accident occurred. The same way a mother drives her car and has an accident and her two children die. The boys’ accident occurred because they were being foolish and reckless. We can only imagine them all spurring each other on, to drive faster, to speed more. It doesn’t matter how much you want to paint the driver as horrible, there is no way in hell he locked his four mates in a car and took them on a joy ride, unwillingly. They were all in the car, participating in this mess. Yes, the driver was the person in “control”, but don’t tell me four other young men could not have stopped the situation, had they have thought about it a little more. This has happened many times before, and will happen again. The real problem is that people don’t learn. Maybe if people respected their lives, and others, a little more, these situations would be greatly avoided.

SJ, I agree that the driver should pay for what he has done. He must. I would expect nothing less if my friend, or son, had died. But I don’t believe he is evil. I don’t believe he is the only person at fault. I don’t believe such Court methods achieve anything, if they are one-sided, as Andrew pointed out.

What I do believe is that people can learn from their mistakes. People can change. People can evolve. For all we know, with the right assistance, the driver could grow to do something truly wonderful for this world. Everything happens for a reason. That is the only truth that I firmly believe. We just don’t know what it is yet.

My first thought is that this kind of “punishment” (in every sense, for the driver and for the family) is similar to the debate over the death penalty. The penalty allows victims to feel a sense of retribution but is arguably a less harsh punishment than life imprisonment. We’re still in a world where people who are emotionally wounded are quick to accept “an eye for an eye” as a form of emotional compensation. However, this case is different in that the driver is obviously affected by the tragedy to a very similar degree and that should be taken onto account when putting him through organised trauma.

I’m sorry, but if someone told me someone I loved had been killed by someone else’s thoughtless actions, I would never be able to feel pity for their guilt. Being involved in an accident is quite different to endangering people, which is what I see this as.

Personally I just don’t feel there should be such a sob story for someone responsible for killing others via reckless behaviour. (NOT a blameless accident) I hear and understand all these points of oh how awful, he has to live with it for the rest of his life, nobody understands it like he does, he was there, but you know what, there is a simple method of avoiding such torment and guilt, don’t kill your friends in a high speed stunt.