...and you never made any stupid decisions prior to going on your mission?

Actually... Justice is exactly what it would bring. If you want to say we should show these kids some mercy because they came forward, that's one thing...

But don't try to tell me that avoiding the law is somehow the "just" thing to do.

I think people often mix up justice, fairness, practicality, and mercy.

I honestly believe the kids should get in front of a judge and if guilty get a misdemeanor charge with a withheld judgment or a plea in abeyance (assuming it's a 1st offense).

The charge/conviction would be just, the sentence can be merciful.

Any takers on a bet of whether this 19 year old is ever convicted of a non-traffic offence in the future?

They're probably feeling bad enough about this as it is, I don't know why everyone else feels some need to label them as thieves. You think they'll ever stop asking themselves if they would have found her in time if they hadn't taken the bike? I kind of doubt it. They did something stupid, and it's come back to really bite them. Frankly, I feel kind of bad for them. That's going to be a lot of guilt to shoulder.

They didn't avoid the law, bro. They submitted to it. It's the DA's decision not to prosecute, probably because the time and effort spent is not worth it.

Justice is about harmony ... about correcting a wrong. I'd wager these kids have learned their lesson. Now if they do it again, I'll be a lot less concilliatory.

Oh, I feel sorry for them too. But they are still thieves. What bothers me is the bald-faced attempt to dress it up as a simple abandoned bike salvage exercise. What BS.

He stole the bike, and justfied it, and said he didn't really steal it, and this is the evidence that he "learned his lesson"?

Well I'm sure that's how he justified taking it in the first place. There's no question he shouldn't have been out cutting locks to take stuff he deemed abandoned, but really they don't sound to me like they're such evil bad people. Just kind of dumb.

Here is a good example of a confusion of justice and practicality. The "just" thing to do would be to prosecute all crimes regardless of their nature or degree. Fortunately, along with our desire for justice we (as a society) also value efficiency and pragmatism.

No, justice is about blind equality. Two things may co-exist in harmony without achieving equality. While this is desirable, to call it "justice" would be a misuse of the word.

Think of how justice is defined in a scriptural sense... Everything owed must be paid, every sin (no matter how small) must be paid for in order for the demands of justice to be satisfied.

As Leb says, I agree the story he gave is lame, and it's probably the lawyer speaking by proxy. But you have yet to demonstrate how society would be served by making public examples of them, especially given their public contrition, and the fact that in all likelihood no permanent harm was done.

And where's Arch in all this? Shouldn't he be accusing Mike Waters of a "bad ass M.F." image by now? Shouldn't we be hearing about how if Mike Waters were in a bishopric, we'd see a lot more excommunications?