Last week Sunday Star-Times columnist Michael Laws said it was wrong for the family of four-year-old Nayan Woods to forgive his killer, Ashley Austin, because it kept him out of jail. Nayan's mum Emma Woods responds.

EVERYONE HAS the right to express an opinion. But if you are going to express strong opinions, you have a responsibility to learn as much as you can, particularly if you are publishing those thoughts.

Michael Laws' piece contained many inaccuracies. Even the opening sentence was wrong. It was not "a clear Christchurch day", it was almost dark and had been grey and drizzling all day.

.

There had been little rain for months but that week it rained and the roads were slippery. I remember the weather because I bought the boys new rain jackets on the Monday before the accident and the reason we walked to the mall that day was because they wanted to wear them for the first time. I remember being at the mall and saying to the boys we had to head home. It was almost 5pm and it was starting to get dark.

Within four days of the accident it was reported that we didn't "blame" Ashley and that I had "forgiven" him. Both statements were untrue and unsaid.

Of course he was to blame, he was driving the car. I said I wasn't angry yet and that I understood how an accident like that could occur. That was based on first-hand knowledge of that intersection, an understanding of the conditions and the experience of being in a vehicle when a similar accident occurred. As for forgiving him? We were in shock and had not even started to think of forgiveness.

People who disagree with how we have handled ourselves seem to have based their argument on who they think Ashley is, rather than who he actually is. Their assumptions are based on the sensational headlines published within the first few days of the accident.

The basis of their argument is that he is a boy racer, a hoon, an accident waiting to happen. The descriptions are not accurate and if you remove them the arguments are more difficult to justify.

When we label someone, it enables us to separate them from us. It makes us feel safer. "I am not that person, therefore I could never be involved in something like that."

Since the accident, many people have said to me they remember a time they made a foolish or careless mistake that could have had potentially devastating consequences.

When we start to recognise ourselves, or our children, in someone, and remove the label, it changes our reaction to them. The judge recognised Ashley had no prior convictions or outstanding fines, and said: "You are not a boy racer."

The young man he saw before him had had a steady job since he was 14, did well at school and sport, had recently completed a polytech course, was working six days a week at two different jobs and came with many positive character references. The judge had all the facts and presented his findings accordingly.

The reason I didn't believe jail was the best option was not because I felt sorry for Ashley or because I was being "foolishly compassionate". I believe taxpayers fund prisons for two reasons – to rehabilitate someone or to protect society. Neither reason fits this case.

Laws says it's dangerous to forgive killers. I think it's more dangerous to sentence someone on the basis of what precedent it might set for a future case that might not bear any similarities to the present one.

The role of the justice system is to look at the facts of each case and deliberate. I was in the court and I heard the judge explain for 30 minutes why he was setting the sentence.

Laws seems to attribute our wishes as the only reason Ashley escaped jail. The reality is, everyone who knew all the facts shared that feeling. Our impact statements were only part of what the judge is trained to take into account. The police report did not recommend a jail sentence. The probation officer did not see it as the right option.

Even people who are close to us, people who have been personally affected and who have a lot of anger towards Ashley, also agreed jail was not the best option. On the flip side, had we been pushing for jail, it would still have been unlikely, given the facts of the case.

Laws has overestimated the effectiveness of the threat of jail as a way of preventing future accidents. In the police report the modifications of the vehicle were listed as "may have been a contributing factor". They were not the cause of the accident. The cause of the accident was an error in driving, combined with the slippery road and lack of skills to correct the vehicle.

I acknowledge the car modifications may have had an influence on Ashley's ability to regain control of the vehicle, and I do think they are an issue that should be addressed and laws possibly changed. But the issue of improving skills for skid control are just as, if not more, important.

As a stay-at-home mother in Linwood, my influence on law changes is limited. Laws is in a more powerful position to enact change should he wish to work positively on an aspect of this case.

I didn't ask that our tragedy be in the news or for our reactions to be evaluated. I have never said the way we are dealing with this should set a precedent, or that our way is the right way. We approached it in the way that was right for us, based on the facts of our case.

We met Ashley and his family to get a better idea of them. We wanted to get first-hand experience of the person responsible for Nayan's death. We didn't do this out of weakness or naivety, we did it to acquire knowledge.

We also wanted to honour Nayan by having them learn more about him through photos and stories. We wanted the little body Ashley saw on the footpath to become a real person. We wanted him to hear how much we love Nayan and how much our lives have changed without him.

It is one thing to feel the impact when you care very little about the person who has been at the cause, or the effect, but quite another when you see them as real people. It would have been much easier for Ashley and his family to keep us at a distance.

Laws seems to consider all that weak and foolish. He has no idea the strength needed on both sides to make those meetings happen, and to acknowledge the humanity in each other.

I do, however, agree with Laws that the death of a child should be taken seriously. I have thought of nothing but the death of my child for the past 170 days. I do not believe I am "foolishly compassionate" but have evaluated and considered the facts for months.

For Laws and many other New Zealanders this is a headline today, forgotten tomorrow. For us, it is our life, and will be at the forefront of our minds forever. For that reason we have more at stake and a more vested interest in what we see as the best way forward.