Chronic drunk driver not declared dangerous offender

[Praxius]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...612/EDM_yellowknee_080612/20080612?hub=Canada

A judge has ruled that a chronic drunk driver who killed four people will not be jailed indefinitely as a dangerous offender.

Raymond Charles Yellowknee, 36, had the potential to be the first man in Canada to be declared a dangerous offender because of his driving record.

Yet Provincial Court Judge Ernie Walter ruled Thursday Yellowknee will not face life in prison despite his many drunk-driving offences.

Instead, Walter declared him as a long-term offender and sentenced him to 20.5 years in prison minus time already served.

"You ruined the lives of many people as a result of your criminal acts," he said.

Walter decided on the long-term offender status even though he said Yellowknee met the requirements of a dangerous offender, saying he believes the defendant may have a chance to reform.

"The sentence you received this day is intended to give you a chance to change your ways," he said. "You must make it happen."

As a long-term offender, Yellowknee must undergo therapy while in prison and he is never allowed to drive a vehicle again.

He will likely also face strict conditions for 10 years after he is released from prison.

Yellowknee, 36, has three impaired driving convictions. In the most recent case, he was convicted after a high speed police chase near Slave Lake in 2006 ended up in a crash that killed a woman and her three daughters.

Family of victims react to the ruling

Misty Chalifoux, 28, was killed along with nine-year-old Trista, six-year-old Larissa and her 13-year-old stepdaughter Michelle Lisk.

The family from the Driftpile Cree Nation was headed to Slave Lake to shop when a truck being pursued by police slammed head-on into their car.

The truck has been reported stolen just minutes before the crash. Police said they were trying to pull it over when the suspect lost control and crossed the centre line.

According to court documents, Yellowknee's blood alcohol level was .22 that night, almost three times the legal limit of .08.

Outside of the courtroom, the family of some of the victims paused briefly to speak to media.

Frank Carifelle, father of Misty Chalifoux, said he saw this case as an opportunity to set precedence for all people convicted of drunk driving.

"The law had a chance to put some teeth into it and they didn't," he said. "I was disappointed. I was deeply disappointed and deeply hurt."

Her mother Muriel Carifelle said her daughter is still inspiring others to do good.

"She was a special person, like I thank God for the years that we had her," she said.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, legal experts were skeptical the Crown would be successful in getting the dangerous offender designation for drinking and driving.

One University of Alberta professor told CTV in 2007 that it would be hard to achieve a dangerous driving designation because Yellowknee didn't have the intention of hurting anyone.

Sanjeev Anand, a University of Alberta law professor, said the dangerous offender designation is usually reserved for the "worst of the worst" type of criminals.

Throughout Yellowknee's trials, the court heard about his history of violence while in custody. He allegedly assaulted inmates and had weapons in his cell.

The dangerous offender designation is the most severe sentence that can be imposed and it is usually reserved for extreme sexual misconduct or for someone with a history of violence.

Crown prosecutor Jonathan Hak said he still considers the ruling a win.

This is the first time such a decision has been handed down in Alberta and the second time in Canada.

"This clearly sends a message to would-be offenders but also to other people involved in the justice system that these types of designations are within the realm of possibility," he said.

Yellowknee's lawyer said her client does feel remorse for his actions.

"(Of) course it's a little bit longer than we had hoped for but Mr. Yellowknee does accept responsibility for his actions, he knew he needed to be punished," Laurie Wood said.

With the time already served, Yellowknee has about 16 years left to serve.

 

[shadowshiv]

Whooptie-frickin' doo! He'll get out on parole in a few years and will probably do it again. Justice prevails yet again in Canada.:roll:

 

[quandary121]

Whooptie-frickin' doo! He'll get out on parole in a few years and will probably do it again. Justice prevails yet again in Canada.:roll:

Walter decided on the long-term offender status even though he said Yellowknee met the requirements of a dangerous offender, saying he believes the defendant may have a chance to reform.

How many people does this guy have to kill before they find him guilty of being dangerous,he's not going to reform and they know it, its like over here in England the prisons are so over crowded that they are afraid to lock any more people up ,they would rather put them on a tag, and the record on people adhering to the curfews on them is unreliable, this guy is a known criminal and also dangerous he should never be let out for reasons of public safety.:-|

 

[shadowshiv]

How many people does this guy have to kill before they find him guilty of being dangerous,he's not going to reform and they know it, its like over here in England the prisons are so over crowded that they are afraid to lock any more people up ,they would rather put them on a tag, and the record on people adhering to the curfews on them is unreliable, this guy is a known criminal and also dangerous he should never be let out for reasons of public safety.:-|

Exactly. How many chances can a person get before our spineless judges realize that some people do NOT reform?:angryfire:

 

[quandary121]

Exactly. How many chances can a person get before our spineless judges realize that some people do NOT reform?:angryfire:

Of coarse judges realize that some people do NOT reform but they like you say lack a spine ,or have secret agendas in which the allow people of this calibre to dissent , and recruite them to do other more heinous crimes on there behalf, this also has been done in England , when the notorious cray brothers Ronnie & reggie were still alive , being entertained by the queens sister no less.

 

[lone wolf]

I maintain that someone who goes, armed, into a bank does not intend to kill when pulling the robbery. With all the begging and pleading and nagging and chewing we have heard over the years about how drunk driving kills, what excuse can this guy really have? They can take his licence for life, but that's not going to stop him from being immortal two or three drinks down the drain. There does come a time when it has to become an offense to provide a habitual with the means- be that drink, vehicle or both.

 

[quandary121]

I maintain that someone who goes, armed, into a bank does not intend to kill when pulling the robbery

.

what utter rot, if a guy goes in a bank with a gun what does he expect to do with it.!!Of course he intends to kill that's the whole presumption of carrying the weapon surly whether he does kill with it is neither here nor there his whole idea it to threaten to kill and if his demands are not met they probably will, if he had not intended to shoot any one why take the gun take something else less dangerous ?

 

[lone wolf]

He intends to scare hell and money out of a teller and that isn't the point of this thread, hijacker

 

[quandary121]

He intends to scare hell and money out of a teller and that isn't the point of this thread, hijacker

You brought up thr point about guns pal not me i was just pointing out how rediculass a statement it was and still is

He intends to scare hell and money out of a teller

rather then say hell don't you mean scare to DEATH, i made my point in this thread eariler i have not hijack anything

 

[lone wolf]

Of course the intent is to threaten. Otherwise, the robbery will fail. The intent is to rob, not to kill. The intent in drinking and driving is to get from point A to point B. He doesn't intend to kill either. Death is too often a consequence of both. A motor vehicle is more likely to kill than a bullet upon impact.

 

[quandary121]

A motor vehicle is more likely to kill than a bullet upon impact.

Another acrimonious statement there are too many variables in that statement to say that the car is more likely to kill ?