There is always community unrest when the result of a crime does not appear to correlate with the consequences to the offender.
Take the tragic case of Sarah Paino.
Ms Paino lost her life after a 15-year-old boy in a stolen car and driving a minimum of 110km/h ran a red light and crashed into the young mother's car.
She was 33 weeks pregnant at the time. Thankfully the medical staff were able to safely deliver her son, Caleb, and her two-year-old son received minor injuries in the crash.
The teen driver fled the scene and during his sentence, the court heard he said "catch ya's later" to his three underage passengers after the crash.
The boy entered a plea of guilty for the charge of manslaughter.
Justice Helen Wood decided to sentence the boy as an adult due to the maximum two-year sentence under the Youth Justice Act being "plainly inadequate".
The sentence was five years with a non-parole period of two and a half years. He served just under four years.
The whole situation since 2016 has raised many concerns within the community.
Firstly there is the issue of whether the sentence available was adequate.
Secondly, it's whether parole should have been granted at all given the crime and the Parole Board referencing some instances of poor behaviour while in custody.
And, thirdly, there are concerns about the teen's background including using the drug ice and whether the system had failed him before these devastating actions.
Overall there is a clear discrepancy between community expectation and the law.
This discrepancy is often seen in cases that evoke empathy and shock in the community.
It's also often in the cases where a life is lost, but not pre-meditated like murder.
We don't live in a world where the concept of "fair" means an eye for an eye. Yet, that brings little comfort to Ms Paino's family.
There must be a level of trust in our justice system and scrutiny placed on support services for both before and after people turn to a life of crime.