Drunk Driver Murders 4 year old child - Sentence- 2 1/2 Years Jail
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
My mistake - cooking super and I missed it - then Parliament has to address what was found lacking in the law.
What was found lacking in the law is the concept of intent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal_law%29
Tougher drunk-driving laws coming this fall, Alberta Premier says - The Globe and Mail
Alberta Premier Alison Redford says her plan is to have tougher drinking and driving laws introduced during the fall session, which starts and wraps up in a couple of weeks.
The Premier says the new legislation will be part of caucus business over the next 10 days.
Ms. Redford confirmed earlier statements by Transportation Minister Ray Danyluk that the Alberta law will be broader than the B.C. model with tougher penalties attached.
Drunk driver kills someone, God don't get me started on this subject, I had a brother killed
and a grandson left in handicapped state because two drunk drivers chose to do what they
wanted instead of what was legal. The real issue is not what this woman did, it is really a
case of the law bungling the case. Oh I know getting off because of the legal system. Wait
a minute, if we allow one woman to be punished, when the legal system didn't do its job,
we would soon have people in jail, who are not guilty of anything. A case of oh its alright we
have someone in jail so why spend the money to find someone who is really guilty. It has
happened before and we are paying for it in legal damages.
As I understand it, it goes something like this. The woman was put in the back of a cop car
and left there. In fact they didn't at first suspect she had been drinking. The legal rules were
not followed here. In addition, the car was not taken for examination it was left in an impound
yard. There was notification that if she didn't pick up the vehicle it would be crushed. She
never had it removed so the car was crushed. Why didn't the police remove the car and make
their findings and use the evidence in a proper manner?
It could be, and I don't know for sure, that we are blaming the justice system, and the court and
the judge, when we should be pointing the finger at shoddy police work. The law must be both
fair and thorough in order to serve the interests of justice and if that was not done, then the
person gets a lighter sentence, to reflect the case as presented. If it was not a strong case by
the body of evidence, the police were to blame, not the courts. If we allow the system to be
subjected to we are angry so make a harsh sentence regardless, our nation ceases to be a
safe place to live. The courts can only deal with the evidence it has. Apparently the law and
it procedures were not followed and she might have got off with no jail time or found not
guilty.
I do not want her to go free, I get very upset when I see a case like this because the law enforcement
did not do its job someone gets a lighter sentence. No justice was not served, for the victim or the
offender. One was denied their life the other denied the right to a longer sentence We can rant about
the law all we want but it must be put into perspective, if the police do their job the courts can do theirs.
and a grandson left in handicapped state because two drunk drivers chose to do what they
wanted instead of what was legal. The real issue is not what this woman did, it is really a
case of the law bungling the case. Oh I know getting off because of the legal system. Wait
a minute, if we allow one woman to be punished, when the legal system didn't do its job,
we would soon have people in jail, who are not guilty of anything. A case of oh its alright we
have someone in jail so why spend the money to find someone who is really guilty. It has
happened before and we are paying for it in legal damages.
As I understand it, it goes something like this. The woman was put in the back of a cop car
and left there. In fact they didn't at first suspect she had been drinking. The legal rules were
not followed here. In addition, the car was not taken for examination it was left in an impound
yard. There was notification that if she didn't pick up the vehicle it would be crushed. She
never had it removed so the car was crushed. Why didn't the police remove the car and make
their findings and use the evidence in a proper manner?
It could be, and I don't know for sure, that we are blaming the justice system, and the court and
the judge, when we should be pointing the finger at shoddy police work. The law must be both
fair and thorough in order to serve the interests of justice and if that was not done, then the
person gets a lighter sentence, to reflect the case as presented. If it was not a strong case by
the body of evidence, the police were to blame, not the courts. If we allow the system to be
subjected to we are angry so make a harsh sentence regardless, our nation ceases to be a
safe place to live. The courts can only deal with the evidence it has. Apparently the law and
it procedures were not followed and she might have got off with no jail time or found not
guilty.
I do not want her to go free, I get very upset when I see a case like this because the law enforcement
did not do its job someone gets a lighter sentence. No justice was not served, for the victim or the
offender. One was denied their life the other denied the right to a longer sentence We can rant about
the law all we want but it must be put into perspective, if the police do their job the courts can do theirs.
The fellow in Calgary killed 5 people - got 6 years or so. The max is 14 years. In that case the Police did their job but because we have a Judicial system where every time a sentence is received at a lower scale it becomes the new sentence in Canada.
Actually things are evolving in our system when it comes to drunk driving and it
often conflicts with societies acceptance. Example, in the forties and fifties it
was socially acceptable to drink and drive. In the sixties penalties started with a
slap on the wrist. In the mid seventies people saw it was a problem and with
more and more vehicles on the road it impacted families with more frequency.
In the late seventies and early eighties, fines and loss of licences were the norm.
In the late eighties and nineties, fines, loss of licence, jail time and higher insurance
rates were introduced. Now of course it is .05% and people are objecting to that,
It doesn't solve the problem, but it is visible.
The real problem is we deal with offenders after the fact and that is the main issue
how do we get people to stop drinking and driving? There may be no answer to
that. the problem is we have so many people with addition to booze and the same
people get caught and go through the courts over and over again and our families
enable them to commit the same crime. Don't think so?
The offender gets caught, gets his licence taken. He sobers up and some family
member puts the car in their name, or his wife does. Its a matter of time and the
guy starts drinking again, gets caught loses more time and pays the fines.
Some even steal licence plates and continue to drive beaters don't cost too much.
Now he has no insurance and stolen plates. People know but they just look the
other way. A series of repeat events keep happening, until he hurts or kills someone.
Then its, how did this guy keep driving? Its because we want to law to apply to all
except people we know. Drunks and addicts are role players, they prey on the
ability to smooth talk decent people into doing out of the ordinary things to help a
friend.
the result is in the case above, a little child is dead and someone gets a short sentence.
Do you get the relationship here? Society makes an excuse because it allows us to
hide our collective guilt and we can say well we tried to help.
Not so, people around this woman, family, social circles, and others knew she was
drinking and they remained silent. Look inside our own families, there is almost no one
who isn't touched in some way by a family member or friend who has a problem no
matter how far into the closet they hide it.
The real solution will begin to emerge when we decide we are not longer going to be silent
about those we know who contribute to the problem. Then and only then can we effect
some change. The drunk thinks they are hiding their deception and yet everyone in silence
knows. It could be said that all friends and family of this woman are just as guilty if they
remained silent. In my own case on two occasions I have intervene when it came to
drinking a driving. One was a very good friend who was very drunk, and I phoned on the
highway to report him. I was following him and he was not capable of driving. It took five
years but he realized once he stopped drinking that I did the right thing.
It is not just the drunk who has to sober up to the facts, we as family and friends must not
enable someone to continue the behavior that kills them or someone else without trying to
do something. If you are a friend or family member it is your business.
(told you not to get me started on this one. End of rant)
often conflicts with societies acceptance. Example, in the forties and fifties it
was socially acceptable to drink and drive. In the sixties penalties started with a
slap on the wrist. In the mid seventies people saw it was a problem and with
more and more vehicles on the road it impacted families with more frequency.
In the late seventies and early eighties, fines and loss of licences were the norm.
In the late eighties and nineties, fines, loss of licence, jail time and higher insurance
rates were introduced. Now of course it is .05% and people are objecting to that,
It doesn't solve the problem, but it is visible.
The real problem is we deal with offenders after the fact and that is the main issue
how do we get people to stop drinking and driving? There may be no answer to
that. the problem is we have so many people with addition to booze and the same
people get caught and go through the courts over and over again and our families
enable them to commit the same crime. Don't think so?
The offender gets caught, gets his licence taken. He sobers up and some family
member puts the car in their name, or his wife does. Its a matter of time and the
guy starts drinking again, gets caught loses more time and pays the fines.
Some even steal licence plates and continue to drive beaters don't cost too much.
Now he has no insurance and stolen plates. People know but they just look the
other way. A series of repeat events keep happening, until he hurts or kills someone.
Then its, how did this guy keep driving? Its because we want to law to apply to all
except people we know. Drunks and addicts are role players, they prey on the
ability to smooth talk decent people into doing out of the ordinary things to help a
friend.
the result is in the case above, a little child is dead and someone gets a short sentence.
Do you get the relationship here? Society makes an excuse because it allows us to
hide our collective guilt and we can say well we tried to help.
Not so, people around this woman, family, social circles, and others knew she was
drinking and they remained silent. Look inside our own families, there is almost no one
who isn't touched in some way by a family member or friend who has a problem no
matter how far into the closet they hide it.
The real solution will begin to emerge when we decide we are not longer going to be silent
about those we know who contribute to the problem. Then and only then can we effect
some change. The drunk thinks they are hiding their deception and yet everyone in silence
knows. It could be said that all friends and family of this woman are just as guilty if they
remained silent. In my own case on two occasions I have intervene when it came to
drinking a driving. One was a very good friend who was very drunk, and I phoned on the
highway to report him. I was following him and he was not capable of driving. It took five
years but he realized once he stopped drinking that I did the right thing.
It is not just the drunk who has to sober up to the facts, we as family and friends must not
enable someone to continue the behavior that kills them or someone else without trying to
do something. If you are a friend or family member it is your business.
(told you not to get me started on this one. End of rant)
I doubt if we'll ever completely solve the problem, but if we are serious about trying, how about an automatic 7 years in prison for conviction of driving with over 0.05 first offense? It wouldn't stop it completely but it would free up enough cops to start dealing with other crime.
Yep, cops screwed up. But regardless, there is nothing they could have done to correct the damage this woman has done. A decent person who killed a child while drunk, would be so beside themselves, they wouldn't even be interested in pursuing any perceived "rights". Good thing I'm not a judge or she'd be doing 14 years for her attitude alone and once that is done then I'd deal with the drunk driving, to be served consecutively of course.
This story reminds me so much of a similiar story out'a Saskatchewan from
several years back. The woman who killed (I think 6 people, and injured
several more) many was drunk out'a her face, and at the time of the
crash, she didn't have a licence due to other DUI's. Her name was
something like Norma Mooselips or something along those lines.
She served her sentance at some kind of resort/type facility with private
cabins for the so called inmates, and horse back riding, and so on and
so forth, where the familys of those there could come and stay with them.
Really un-prison like in a rural setting that most of us would pay for with
good money to vacation at. I'll have to look this one up.
several years back. The woman who killed (I think 6 people, and injured
several more) many was drunk out'a her face, and at the time of the
crash, she didn't have a licence due to other DUI's. Her name was
something like Norma Mooselips or something along those lines.
She served her sentance at some kind of resort/type facility with private
cabins for the so called inmates, and horse back riding, and so on and
so forth, where the familys of those there could come and stay with them.
Really un-prison like in a rural setting that most of us would pay for with
good money to vacation at. I'll have to look this one up.
Here we go (& I think she's out now):
Early release for lethal drunk driver - Saskatchewan - CBC News
..and she stayed at the Okimaw Ohci minimum security facility:
Correctional Service of Canada - Aboriginal Corrections
Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is a 30-bed facility that contains both single and
family residential units, as residents may arrange to have their children stay
with them.
Each unit contains a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchenette with an eating area,
a living room, and, in those units that are built to accommodate children, a playroom.
A personal life plan has been outlined for each of the Iskewak at Okimaw Ohci, which
delineates what she needs emotionally, physically, and spiritually to heal. The women
also engage in aspects of independent living by cooking, doing laundry, cleaning house,
and doing outdoor maintenance chores.
Many families of many people that she killed or crippled where pretty choked. She hasn't
been back in the news yet, that I'm aware of, so maybe it worked.
I would make intent implied by getting oneself legally drunk. Much like the implied pre-meditation in the states if you have a gun and somebody dies (intentionally or not) during the commission of a felony.