One of my favourite shows this year has been the second series of Mr Mercedes. Love me a brilliantly acted screen adaptation of anything by Stephen King.

Who knew, though, that we would have a "Ms Mercedes", aka Rouxle Le Roux, of our own?
Despite the difference in the body count of each example, the fact remains that a Merc was the weapon in both crimes.

This case has, dare I say it, also made me rethink my position on bandwagon's as I rushed to sign the petition for a tougher sentence, commenting - "Finally, a worthy cause!"

Read more: Kate Stewart: A politically correct dictionary of in-vogue vocabulary
Kate Stewart: Killing off of the Christmas spirit seems to have become mandatory

Advertisement

Whilst the judge was quick to question the benefits of a custodial sentence, over 150,000 rightly questioned the benefits of such a lenient punishment for a crime that resulted in the loss of a precious young life.

A learner driver she may have been, however, pics on Instagram suggest she was a well-seasoned drinker.

The court heard, how free on bail, Ms Mercedes continued to post prolifically on social media, appearing happy as Larry and without a care in the world.

And why should she care, when she has a $500 - 800 an hour Queen's Counsel, one that is adamant she doesn't come from privilege, to fight her battle for her?

The sentence currently imposed could be viewed as a testament to the old adage, money talks.

In her defence of Ms Mercedes, I was struck by the almost throwaway line of Counsel ... "At the end of the day, this was an accident."

Granted, the death may have been unintentional, but Ms Mercedes actions before and after were anything but.

She very deliberately chose to consume alcohol and drugs. She then deliberately opted to put herself behind the wheel and she deliberately chose not to stop after the "accident".
No one was holding a gun to her head.

Advertisement

We're also meant to believe that Ms Mercedes was unsure whether she'd hit something or not. I would have thought a human body landing on your bonnet would have been a bit of a giveaway, or the visible damage to the vehicle that resulted in yet another deliberate act ... the one where a visit to the panel beaters was prioritised over handing herself in and that only happened the following day after she deliberately sent friends to scout out the exact scene of the accident she supposedly wasn't sure she had.

Every one of these deliberate actions was self-serving, vile and centred around her own self-preservation.

So now what? She gets to live her life, with all the comforts of home. Where, if she so chooses, she can continue to party, drink alcohol, partake in drugs, bedazzle her ankle monitor and post countless selfies.

Had her weapon been a gun, she would have lost her firearms licence and been forbidden from ever having a gun in future ... instead, Ms Mercedes gets to drive again - it's a bit of a double standard.

Why are driving related deaths nearly always viewed as "accidents", when the actions leading to the crime are an almost predictable consequence of selfish acts.

As much as we may not want to believe it because rigged stats suggest it, rehabilitation is possible while incarcerated, if the offender is truly remorseful and wants to change.

Actions speak louder than the words of an expertly spoken Queen's Counsel and Ms Mercedes actions before, during and after court proceedings strongly suggest the intended lesson is wasted on this convicted crim, who is now being portrayed as a victim, due to public backlash.

It's insulting.

It's also somewhat ironic that in the fight for PC justice, both social and legal, we are inadvertently causing a greater injustice to someone else ... usually the true victim and their loved ones.

Looks like this "snowflake" has been gifted the dream of a White Christmas.
A timely reminder not to drink and drive.

Merry Christmas Y'all!

investik8@gmail.com