This proposal's primary goal is to decrease or end instances of hooning among young people, particularly those in the age group unrelated to car ownership. Most hooning-related deaths involved people in their teens, which is a sizable proportion. The likelihood is high that the vehicles involved in the crimes are not the offenders' or are not immediately registered in their names. Because of this, laws that penalize offenders by suspending their licenses or seizing their vehicles have little effect in discouraging such behavior. (Simpson, 2002). In addition, individuals within this age are likely to be legally ignorant The policy targets the adult owners of vehicles used in
hooning activities by non-adults. It aims at imposing fines and point demerit schemes beyond impounding and striking out the vehicle. The proposes that the owner of the vehicle used in hooning should meet all the economic expenses of the incident besides having their impounded and confiscated. This policy starts with sensitizing the owner on the consequences of their car being involved in hooning activities at registration
Introduction
This policy proposal is aimed at combating hooning occurrences among the very young people who do not have cars registered to their names. These are individuals who do not own cars but may borrow from their friend or relatives. This policy is not limited to the lower age bracket but rather any hooning activity undertaken by someone other than the owner of the car. These individuals account for almost one quarter of the hooning cases. According to Armstrong and Steinhardt (2006), young people between the ages of 16 and 25 account for most of the cases of illegal street racing. Between 1999 and 2004, a total of 169 registered accidents resulting from hooning were associated with young people aged between 12 and 24 years. Most of the people within this age bracket do not own cars. Therefore, the vehicles used in the hooning activities either belong to family members or friends. Though the owners may claim that the young people took the vehicles without permission, it is their responsibility as car owners to ensure that their vehicles do not put the lives and property of other road users at risk (Beckett & Harris, 2011). Most of the anti-hooning legislations targets the individual involved in the activities and the car. These legislations do not seem to appreciate the fact that the car owner has a role to play in ensuring that their vehicle is only used for legal activities that do not risk the lives of road users.
Penological Principles Underlying the Topic
The penological principles on which anti-hooning legislation is based brings out the whole process as punitive. The effect of the legislation on deterrence is only limited to the first offenders (O'Malley, 2009). However, there is a manner in which anti-hooning legislation can make car owners more cautious about how their cars are used. This proposal targets the owners of the cars used in hooning activities on the basis that these individuals have a major role to play in preventing the occurrence of hooning incidents by the individuals who do not own cars, especially the young ones. The managerialism principle aims at dealing with the effect of reduced accountability on an offence. However, the current legislation does little in making owners of cars, who are not directly involved in hooning activities, more accountable (Shoham, 2007). From Bentham’s perspective, any punitive action should be worth the positive social effects that it produces. This proposal is aimed at enhancing the process of deterrence by the car owners. It is likely that once familiar with the policy, any car owner will be cautious about who gets to drive their car, their skills and the likelihood of their vehicle being involved in hooning activities.
Envisioned Strengths of the Policy
The existing policy mainly targets the offender (Graham & White, 2007). However, it is important to note that many offenders are underage drivers whose behaviour can be controlled by bringing in their parents, relatives and friends. There are no serious states or property that can be forfeited by the underage offenders. Therefore, the only way is bringing in the adults. One of the key practical ways of holding the grown-ups to account when their cars are directly involved is by placing some of the punitive consequences on them for their failure to ensure the safety of their car and the young ones. The strength of this policy is that it will make car owners more cautious about handing their vehicles to young people who are likely to misuse them. The individuals will also be careful with adult drivers and be curious to inquire about their qualification and experience in handling cars. The young people do not associate hooning with any serious consequences because they neither have driving licences nor cars. However, putting penalties on their older relatives or friends is likely to make them more cautious as they will associate their actions with some serious form of forfeiture.
Possible Weaknesses of the policy
It is likely that this policy may affect car owners that have little to do with the offences in which their cars are involved. For instance, young people may take away cars belonging to relatives and friends without the permission of the owner. In this case, the owner must prove that thy had taken sufficient precaution against misuse of their car and that it was taken away without their permission. However, the overall effect of this policy will be that car owners will be more conscious about who gets access to their car.
Policy Recommendations
Any person found guilty of hooning activities should first meet any costs associated with damages from their activities. If this person demonstrates that they do not have the ability to meet the costs, they will be forwarded to the car owner. The licence of the car owner will be suspended until they meet the costs.
Fines related to hooning activities will be imposed on the offender. In case an offender is not a licenced driver or their licence has expired, the car owner will also have to pay a similar or higher fine, depending on the circumstances which the offender got hold of the car, as determined by the court.
If it is found that an unlicensed driver took an individual’s car without the latter’s permission, the car owner will have to pay a fine equal to that of the offender. If it is determined that the car owner handed their car willingly to an unlicensed driver, the former should pay a higher fine than that of the offender, as determined by the court.
References
Armstrong, K. A., & Steinhardt, D. A. (2006). Understanding street racing and'hoon'culture: An exploratory investigation of perceptions and experiences. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(1), 38-44.
Beckett, K., & Harris, A. (2011). On cash and conviction. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 509-537.
Graham, H., & White, R. (2007). Young people, dangerous driving and car culture. Youth Studies Australia, 26(3), 28.
O'Malley, P. (2009). Theorizing fines. Punishment & Society, 11(1), 67-83.
Shoham, S. G., Beck, O., & Kett, M. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook of penology and criminal justice. CRC Press.
Simpson, S. S. (2002). Corporate crime, law, and social control. Cambridge University Press.
