Of course intent should matter.
On a side note, this was a women and women are not competent enough when they drink to give consent to sex. How in the world can we hold them responsible for driving a car.
Drunk Driver Murders 4 year old child - Sentence- 2 1/2 Years Jail
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Of course intent should matter.
On a side note, this was a women and women are not competent enough when they drink to give consent to sex. How in the world can we hold them responsible for driving a car.
The problem here is not the law but those who give the sentences ~ judges. Judges in particular seem to attract a lot of nutty left-wing authoritarian pseduo-intellectual types who'll throw you in jail longer for not paying your parking tickets or saying something non-politically correct than someone who commits a real crime like murder.
Much like the RCMP, you're dealing with crooked individuals and any decent people that exist in the law profession pretty much would, off the record, probably advocate vigilantism.
Much like the RCMP, you're dealing with crooked individuals and any decent people that exist in the law profession pretty much would, off the record, probably advocate vigilantism.
So it is like our Supreme Court, life long jobs. Guess that is where we got the idea from. I would like the U.S. Supreme Court to have term limits or atleast have to run in a election once in a while. Might not be a bad idea for your judges also.
Given the generally low quality of the people we tend to elect these days, I think electing judges is a terrible idea. Judges are generally appointed from a short list of people put forward by the legal profession in each province, so they'll be people who have impressed their peers and competitors as knowledgeable, fair, reasonable, and competent. In other words, there are certain professional qualifications involved in becoming a judge in Canada, there are no such requirements for politicians, and if we elect judges, politicians is what they'll be.
I don't know the details of this case, but based on what I've seen in this thread I think I agree with Colpy. Murder has a very specific meaning in the law, and this particular person is not guilty of it. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps, maybe criminal negligence causing death, but not murder.
I don't know the details of this case, but based on what I've seen in this thread I think I agree with Colpy. Murder has a very specific meaning in the law, and this particular person is not guilty of it. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps, maybe criminal negligence causing death, but not murder.
Elections do cost money, but they are worth it if you can get some good judges out of it. Having the same old guys around till they fossilize doesn't do anyone any good. Thinking something won't work if you haven't tried it is sort of a defeatist attitude about it. open the elections up to allow any lawyer or any person with law knowledge run in a election.
I know some judges, and I have a brother in law who's a federal judge, that is absolutely false. Some of them might be political flunkies--Gary Lane in Saskatchewan, a former Conservative cabinet minister in Grant Devine's poisonously corrupt administration comes to mind--but all of them? No way.
Georgia First degree homicide by vehicleThis is a felony, that upon conviction will result in a sentence of between 3 and 15 years of imprisonment (or between 5 and 20 years for habitual violators), with no parole for at least 1 year. A homicide is first degree homicide by vehicle if the driver "unlawfully met or overtook a school bus; unlawfully failed to stop after a collision; was driving recklessly; was driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; failed to stop for, or otherwise was attempting to flee from a law enforcement officer; or had previously been declared a habitual violator".[6
And what makes you think we can get some good judges that way? You think your average voter is qualified to make such a determination? I don't. Elections aren't about competence, they're popularity contests.
Judges are only people who know the law, and yes usually you must be a lawyer to be one. Try giving them term limits so they don't get to comfortable and familiar. Judges are not gods, keep that in mind,
This reminds me of an incident that happened a year ago in Greater Sudbury (specificaly the township of Hanmer) where a drunk driver left a bar and hit a group of three teens, killing the whole trio. The story spread all throughout Ontario. The drunk driver was given bail. After the trial Nicolas Piovesan (the drunk who murdered the three teens) was sentenced to seven years.
I find this to be a sensitive issue for me as to what is fair. There is a difference between
justice and revenge. There is the fact that she was not .08 and by the way, 08 is still the
national version of impaired and the present law will be challenged at some point we can
count on that. That issue is another story however. The other part of this story is also
about the person who hit the little girl and killed her. All the things we think we have the
right to do ends when something like this happens. It impacts the family losing a loved
one, If the child is physically damaged for life it brings on a whole different set of challenges.
At the same time is really impacts the person that did the deed drunk or not.
Oh I know I am a bleeding heart and the person should be, well, you know what so often
happens, when people are angry.
The difference is, I do understand the family that lost that little girl, I understand the family
extended family feelings and how they are mixed with hurt and anger. I also know the over
all impact for the person who hit the child and their family.
I know this because I lost my brother to a drunk driver, it damaged our family with things
that were never spoken about in our family, and only now after our parents are both gone,
are we starting to talk about it. I found out that the man who hit and killed my brother while
being drunk, died within a year, as he could never get over what he had done, his family
ended up dealing with the tragedy like everyone else. The family were not guilty of anything
except the husband and their dad killed someone.
I have had the problem visited upon us twice actually, we have a grandson who was 8 at the
time struck by a drunk driver taking a short cut back to work, through a playground. My
grandson did the right things. He stopped and looked out around the parked vehicle, and the
drunk was over the white line, struck him and threw him 50 feet and he landed on his head.
For weeks we didn't even know if he would make it. Today he is crippled, but he has his
mental faculties. He will never be alright. After nearly 7 years there has been a financial
settlement but that does not give him his normal life back.
In the second case, the driver was drunk, he had a suspended license and no insurance.
In all of this there were others who illegally parked vehicles and they were also sued because
they ignored repeated warnings and tickets not to park in that restricted area. so the child will
get the money though a trustee.
The other fact here is that the man who did this lost his family and his family lost everything
they had and it impacted his children who were not guilty of anything.
It is so easy to comment, but for those who are impacted the feeling is something I hope none
of you ever have to experience. Yes i had all those feelings, rage anger, hatred, and sadness
but it really doesn't do much for anyone. And remember, the one person goes to jail and
deals with the shame. all the families have to live with the fallout forever. It is not fun.
justice and revenge. There is the fact that she was not .08 and by the way, 08 is still the
national version of impaired and the present law will be challenged at some point we can
count on that. That issue is another story however. The other part of this story is also
about the person who hit the little girl and killed her. All the things we think we have the
right to do ends when something like this happens. It impacts the family losing a loved
one, If the child is physically damaged for life it brings on a whole different set of challenges.
At the same time is really impacts the person that did the deed drunk or not.
Oh I know I am a bleeding heart and the person should be, well, you know what so often
happens, when people are angry.
The difference is, I do understand the family that lost that little girl, I understand the family
extended family feelings and how they are mixed with hurt and anger. I also know the over
all impact for the person who hit the child and their family.
I know this because I lost my brother to a drunk driver, it damaged our family with things
that were never spoken about in our family, and only now after our parents are both gone,
are we starting to talk about it. I found out that the man who hit and killed my brother while
being drunk, died within a year, as he could never get over what he had done, his family
ended up dealing with the tragedy like everyone else. The family were not guilty of anything
except the husband and their dad killed someone.
I have had the problem visited upon us twice actually, we have a grandson who was 8 at the
time struck by a drunk driver taking a short cut back to work, through a playground. My
grandson did the right things. He stopped and looked out around the parked vehicle, and the
drunk was over the white line, struck him and threw him 50 feet and he landed on his head.
For weeks we didn't even know if he would make it. Today he is crippled, but he has his
mental faculties. He will never be alright. After nearly 7 years there has been a financial
settlement but that does not give him his normal life back.
In the second case, the driver was drunk, he had a suspended license and no insurance.
In all of this there were others who illegally parked vehicles and they were also sued because
they ignored repeated warnings and tickets not to park in that restricted area. so the child will
get the money though a trustee.
The other fact here is that the man who did this lost his family and his family lost everything
they had and it impacted his children who were not guilty of anything.
It is so easy to comment, but for those who are impacted the feeling is something I hope none
of you ever have to experience. Yes i had all those feelings, rage anger, hatred, and sadness
but it really doesn't do much for anyone. And remember, the one person goes to jail and
deals with the shame. all the families have to live with the fallout forever. It is not fun.
Electing judges has not made the US justice system any more efficient or more just. Can you remember the Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson trials? If fact there is good evidence in the US that when judges are elected they become subjected to the same sort of political pressures that other politicians do. That makes many of their judgments quite suspect. It also allows well-funded judicial candidates to spend their way into the courtroom. The Canadian system frees judges from public pressure and other outside influences. You might note that at the highest level in the US, that of the Supreme Court all of the judges are appointed.
I never said it did make it more efficient, just gives us a chance to undo a mistake if needed. Your system has the same pressures, not from the people but from the Crown. Just less people to put pressure on you. The Supreme Court are appointed, but they probably like your judges serve their own causes. I would like them to be subject to recall for not doing what the people would like, it is the people who supposedly suggest the laws they want. A person with a job that they know they never can be fired from breeds compliancy.
Yeah, but for how long after? It might be tough to convince a cop you've been swigging on mouth wash. :smile:
Frankly 2 1/2 years is too light. Precincts in the U.S. now equate vehicular manslaughter with voluntary manslaughter, and impose 6 year sentencing guidelines.. and more. And there you serve fully 2/3 of the sentence before being considered for parole.. who knows what it is up here.. a third of the sentence.. out in a few months with mandatory parole ?
You quite obviously don't have a clue. It is not that many really. How many tractor trailers do you own and operate?
I thought so. I'll disregard your baseless conjecture.
How about I don't tell you all about guns either. how many miles have you driven a tractor trailer and how many beans did you take.
Conjecture of the baseless variety.
I'm pretty similar to Dexter Sinister on this.
I know BC and Ontario (as well as possibly other jurisdictions) are attempting to redefine impaired driving, but by the Criminal Code of Canada's definition, her readings weren't high enough to consider her impaired. Her lawyer may have grounds for fighting some of the charges on an appeal. However, traveling at her speed, over 40 kmph over the limit, says that she is guilty of other charges such as criminal negligence, driving with undue care and attention, dangerous driving causing death and others.
2 and half years is about right for a first time offender, unless perhaps she had a history of traffic offenses to state she was a more reckless driver and should be treated as such. As the parent of a little one, my heart bleeds for the parents of the little girl. I don't know how else to say it, but flogging this woman won't bring her back.
I know BC and Ontario (as well as possibly other jurisdictions) are attempting to redefine impaired driving, but by the Criminal Code of Canada's definition, her readings weren't high enough to consider her impaired. Her lawyer may have grounds for fighting some of the charges on an appeal. However, traveling at her speed, over 40 kmph over the limit, says that she is guilty of other charges such as criminal negligence, driving with undue care and attention, dangerous driving causing death and others.
2 and half years is about right for a first time offender, unless perhaps she had a history of traffic offenses to state she was a more reckless driver and should be treated as such. As the parent of a little one, my heart bleeds for the parents of the little girl. I don't know how else to say it, but flogging this woman won't bring her back.