New Ontario Impaired Laws are another cash grab for the Insurance Folks
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Stabbing somebody in the neck and killing them has the same punishment as if you drove over them while drunk because the it's the same charge. Manslaughter.
Having attended a few MVA's I rather not think about I have come to the conclusion that anyone driving drunk and killing someone should be executed.
Just on a lighter note I thought I might post an editorial here from the National Post Editor Chris Selley. He wrote this back in 2009. Dare we say it may hold true today?
Once upon a time, my anti-MADD ramblings were often met with confused stares, but I sense now a more widespread understanding that the organization's mandate has crept uncomfortably far from the utterly unimpeachable one its name implies. (The moniker remains a brilliant piece of marketing. You might as well oppose Kittens Against Nuclear Armageddon.) MADD's calls for ever-lower legal blood-alcohol limits continue unabated even as evidence suggests the vast majority of drunk driving accidents are caused by a degenerate, perhaps incorrigible rump of alcoholics who just can't or won't stop themselves. In 2006, according to Traffic Injury Research Foundation statistics, 37% of fatally injured drivers on whom tests were performed were found to have had alcohol in their system. But 81% of those had blood alcohol contents that were over the legal limit, and 69% of those had BACs over .15, which is nearly twice the legal limit. Perhaps the responsible driving message has largely gotten through to politer society. Perhaps, I've heard some otherwise safety-conscious people muse, we shouldn't make criminals out of Canadians who have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home.
Chris Selley: MADD needs to get back to basics
Posted: August 06, 2009, 5:10 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Full Pundit, Chris Selley
Quite entertaining, I thought!
Once upon a time, my anti-MADD ramblings were often met with confused stares, but I sense now a more widespread understanding that the organization's mandate has crept uncomfortably far from the utterly unimpeachable one its name implies. (The moniker remains a brilliant piece of marketing. You might as well oppose Kittens Against Nuclear Armageddon.) MADD's calls for ever-lower legal blood-alcohol limits continue unabated even as evidence suggests the vast majority of drunk driving accidents are caused by a degenerate, perhaps incorrigible rump of alcoholics who just can't or won't stop themselves. In 2006, according to Traffic Injury Research Foundation statistics, 37% of fatally injured drivers on whom tests were performed were found to have had alcohol in their system. But 81% of those had blood alcohol contents that were over the legal limit, and 69% of those had BACs over .15, which is nearly twice the legal limit. Perhaps the responsible driving message has largely gotten through to politer society. Perhaps, I've heard some otherwise safety-conscious people muse, we shouldn't make criminals out of Canadians who have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home.
Chris Selley: MADD needs to get back to basics
Posted: August 06, 2009, 5:10 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Full Pundit, Chris Selley
Quite entertaining, I thought!
And if your BAC is 0.08 to 0.10 the Police will not, in the vast majority of instances lay charges- So the above stats are somewhat tainted.
Worst examples – bring emotion into play- hardly – do some research on the penalties for killing 1 person, or even 2.
Then check injuries- from temporary to permanent. See the cost per year- and that is only the financial cost.
It is sentencing guidelines that the Courts must follow. You should be aware of that; at least I assumed so from reading your posts. Was I wrong?
The punishment for killing a person while driving drunk is low.
As I understand it, the process with stopping a suspected dui involves a road check with the handheld breathalyzer followed by a visit for a second check at the station to seal it up. Perhaps in the courts some way out might be found by a good lawyer (but these guys don't come cheap). And for those like the chap in Alberta, well there is pretty much no way out. He has to take his medicine and rightly so. There is no excuse for what he did. On your second point, go back over this thread and note the wide differences of opinion and rationale noted by the posters as to what penalties to impose. I suspect you might find this kind of thing all through society. In cases where sanctions are decided for crime, I believe that legislators initiate the rules and Supreme courts both federal and provincial subject these laws to close scrutiny. At times they are sent back if they don't fit under our constitution with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now this is not to say that it is a perfect system and decisions rendered will please those who have extreme beliefs on one side or the other, of the law in question. So it goes............As long as there are no abuses of the system. However, that said, I have some some very special concerns about the use of section 1 of the Charter for purposes for which it was never intended to be used. When our constitution was repatriated, if memory serves me correctly, section 33,1 was introduced to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to mollify Rene Levesque premier of Quebec who wanted a means of preserving the unique culture there.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp194-e.htm
Sadly section 1 has been used in other areas, such as to modify section 11(d) and subsequently certain related sections of the criminal code. But I will deal with that later. However, for the moment, I will say that the lesson here is that it's not so much about justice and morality anymore. It's what you can legally get away with. And this disturbs me. Hope this gives you a better idea of where I am coming from.
It does- and as you are aware the Todd Bertuzzi sentence is a case that lowered the sentences that can/will be imposed for similar offenses - each case that lowers is used by lawyers during sentencing. Oddly when imposing a higher sentence the Judge has to jump thru hoops, knowing it will be appealed.
It is a rush to the lowest sentence for some very serious crimes and that gives Harper legs when he talks crime and min sentences.
Bertuzzi receives conditional discharge, probation - Hockey - CBC
Well be that as it may, this is a whole topic all on its own. It would seem that there is some merit to your concerns, though. It is a broad topic and I am not sure if it is one for this thread as it covers sentencing for a wide range of transgressions, not just dui. Scan the forum and you just might find an appropriate thread to sink your teeth into. Go for it and if you don't find one then why not start one up. Best of luck.
I'll throw the challenge out again. Has anyone here, at some point in their life, ever driven under the influence.
As a young person, yesterday,l last year.
How about it?
As a young person, yesterday,l last year.
How about it?
I have put my younger days well behind me. I have always been careful when out not to drink to the point of being disoriented unless on those rare occasions when I was with a friend or at home. Was I over .05. Not sure. Now I will not drive at all after consuming. It is simply not "right on" in the eye of officialdom.
Now, that said, to me, the key to irresponsibility is drinking to the point of feeling disoriented then driving. That is just asking for trouble. Was I dui? Breathalyzers can't test for tolerance. This is their chief weakness. Not long ago I was driving down a secondary country highway when I met an oncoming car in my lane. I had to move onto the shoulder. Needless to say I was not pleased. Now I would call that a true dwi and very foolish.
Goobs: In BC for some time and apparently now in Ontario the Police have been handing out roadside penalties without a proper breathalizer and no recourse in the courts. Note that these penalties are for driving in the .05-.08 range. WHich is lower than the impaired level. Besides loosing your vehicle(also applies to company and rentals) for a week the cost is about $4000.
I see there are no other takers. It's easy to be preachy when you don't do what you used to do. I don't either, but I guess my point is that often young people do very stupid things. I know I did. Sometimes that includes drinking a little too much and getting behind the wheel.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I'm not advocating drinking and driving, but the heavy handed approach to first offense and the general attitude of those who got their Freebie by either not getting caught or not facing the penalty handed out today is really quite troubling.
We have judges who give a break to young offenders who commit crimes like break and entry and assault. First time offenders of all sorts of crimes get that understanding nod when sentencing is handed down, but for some reason we have thrown out due process because our Provincial Government is in the pockets of special interest groups like MADD and shilling for the insurance companies.
A young person who drinks and drives in Ontario gets a 1 year suspension and pays a fine.in excess of $1000. After that year of suspension is complete, the Fed is no longer involved, but it doesn't end there. The young person now has to attend a number of meetings about drinking and driving that costs somewhere around $700 or $800 dollars. This goes on for a period of about 8 months and they still have their driving privileges revoked. After completing this program they must then appeal to the Province and ask to be considered to have their driving privileges reinstated. This can take you right up to two years. After two years if the Province gives the okay that first offender will have their driving privileges reinstated, but wait... It doesn't end there. You see, even if that young person gets their license back there is a new twist. They are only allowed to drive a car that has an Interlock system in it, which can cost around (and this is ball park) $180 to install and about $100 bucks a month to monitor, so roughly another $1400.00 dollars. After a year you pay another $100.00 to have it removed.
My oldest son had a (non alcohol related accident back in early 2000) and his insurance rates spiked to almost $700.00 a month, so using that as a baseline, in the first year the insurance company will charge the young person around $8400 a year to insure and the next couple years will see a slow decrease. I believe it took my son five years before his rates went back down, I know his initial insurance company dumped him after they retrieved their pound of flesh.
So I guess my point is this. While it's easy to stand on our pedestals and puff up our chests about having zero tolerance to drinking and driving, I'm kind of wondering when the punishment no longer fits the crime. That young person may have made a mistake, but at what point do we say "This is overkill." Is it after we've completely screwed up their opportunity to work or go to college for a couple years? Having a license is key to finding work and going to ppost secondary.
I'm just saying this is because I know I've made mistakes when I was young. I drove impaired, but I was lucky. I didn't get caught.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I'm not advocating drinking and driving, but the heavy handed approach to first offense and the general attitude of those who got their Freebie by either not getting caught or not facing the penalty handed out today is really quite troubling.
We have judges who give a break to young offenders who commit crimes like break and entry and assault. First time offenders of all sorts of crimes get that understanding nod when sentencing is handed down, but for some reason we have thrown out due process because our Provincial Government is in the pockets of special interest groups like MADD and shilling for the insurance companies.
A young person who drinks and drives in Ontario gets a 1 year suspension and pays a fine.in excess of $1000. After that year of suspension is complete, the Fed is no longer involved, but it doesn't end there. The young person now has to attend a number of meetings about drinking and driving that costs somewhere around $700 or $800 dollars. This goes on for a period of about 8 months and they still have their driving privileges revoked. After completing this program they must then appeal to the Province and ask to be considered to have their driving privileges reinstated. This can take you right up to two years. After two years if the Province gives the okay that first offender will have their driving privileges reinstated, but wait... It doesn't end there. You see, even if that young person gets their license back there is a new twist. They are only allowed to drive a car that has an Interlock system in it, which can cost around (and this is ball park) $180 to install and about $100 bucks a month to monitor, so roughly another $1400.00 dollars. After a year you pay another $100.00 to have it removed.
My oldest son had a (non alcohol related accident back in early 2000) and his insurance rates spiked to almost $700.00 a month, so using that as a baseline, in the first year the insurance company will charge the young person around $8400 a year to insure and the next couple years will see a slow decrease. I believe it took my son five years before his rates went back down, I know his initial insurance company dumped him after they retrieved their pound of flesh.
So I guess my point is this. While it's easy to stand on our pedestals and puff up our chests about having zero tolerance to drinking and driving, I'm kind of wondering when the punishment no longer fits the crime. That young person may have made a mistake, but at what point do we say "This is overkill." Is it after we've completely screwed up their opportunity to work or go to college for a couple years? Having a license is key to finding work and going to ppost secondary.
I'm just saying this is because I know I've made mistakes when I was young. I drove impaired, but I was lucky. I didn't get caught.
Don't forget about the lifelong criminal record. At present that can close and keep closed many doors for life. You used to have the opportunity to seek a pardon after 5 yrs. But politicians have been making noises, of late of removing that option. Not sure how that will play out.
There is little protection from these excesses. First off, the complexity of these issues requires rather extended length in my posts. For this I apologize but beg your indulgence. Please take the time to read. They are the product of hours of research and thought.
There is a strong suspicion in my mind that there is a neo-prohibitionist movement within these special interest groups. It is subtle and long range but nevertheless, a real one. But that is another matter I will deal with in another post. The first key is to help create public awareness of these issues. After all these groups such as "Arrive Alive" have been working very hard to create a climate of negative optics towards the consumption of alcohol. The concept of cherished family members being lost and a family in tears is a powerful visual tool. It generates powerful emotion and it is within this climate that these groups find it easier to lobby for these outrageous excesses. Note the following facts not generally know to the general public: "The term neo-prohibitionist is usually used critically to describe groups or individuals, rather than by the groups or individuals themselves. For example, Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), eventually left the organization in anger and has since gone on to criticize it as neo-prohibitionist, stating that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[1] Lightner was criticizing MADD's leaders who had called for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. The epithet has also been applied to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation by its critics due to their stance on several alcohol-related issues."
Personally I have 2 concerns which I believe need addressing immediately. They, by no means will rectify this issue completely. But they might prove to be a good start. This is beginning to be a runaway situation and needs to be stopped.
First: We need to examine more closely the issue of the arbitrary decision to declare driving as a privilege rather than a right. This completely removes all protection for citizens under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Driving is an essential element to life and living today for many citizens, in particular those who can only provide all or part of the elements of sustenance of life and living. Dr. Charles Taylor eminent Social Scientist and Philosopher, resident lecturer at McGill University with accreditation and honours too numerous to mention here expresses it best in his Massey Lecture series The Malaises of Modernity, in particular in his discourse on the second of the three malaises. In a technological world the lives of all have been radically altered by a social evolutionary element which he chooses to refer to as Instrumental Reason (that the institutions and structures of industrial-technological society severely restrict our choices) to the point where
“ The society structured around instrumental reason can be seen as imposing
a great loss of freedom, on both individuals and the group – because it is not
just our social decisions that are shaped by these forces. An individual lifestyle
is hard to sustain against the grain. For instance the design of some modern
cities makes it hard to function without a car, particularly where public
transport has been eroded in favour of the private automobile.”
The idea of driving as a privilege is an anachronism. Indeed the use of an an automobile or other vehicle, for most, in some fashion or another, is an outright necessity for survival especially concerning those who live in a rural setting. The concept of driving as a privilege is outdated, a reality made so by the societal context within which we all presently reside. It belongs in an era long since passed into history. It is long overdue to become a right. Indeed it is an ipso facto right requiring only official recognition and the legal status it deserves. To refer to it as a privilege rather than a right is a purely arbitrary decision which serves as a convenience for those proponents of extremism where the legislation governing dui/dwi are concerned. Clearly this is long overdue as an initiative which requires immediate rectification.
Second: Under section 11(d) of the criminal code any citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty. Consideration involves 2 concepts, Mens Rea and Actus Rea:
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act," accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff.
Therefore, mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus
Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now this of course is great to protect all for whom it would simply be easier to grab and charge. This protects the public from such issues as police not be arresting the guy with the hoodie hanging around the bank because they were positive that he was going to rob it. Or putting nine rounds into a kid alone on a bus with a small knife stating that he was probably going to attack someone. However our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has one weakness in it, Section 1.
“Section 1 is used every time a Charter infringement is argued. If a case involves three separate sections of the Charter, a section 1 analysis would occur after each section is argued. For example,if sections 7, 8 and 9 of theCharter are argued as being infringed, the government would have to Section 1 is used every time a Charter infringement is argued. If a case involves three separate sections of the Charter, a section 1 analysis would occur after each section is argued. For example,if sections 7, 8 and 9 of theCharter are argued as being infringed, the government would have to argue a separate section analysis for each. In addition, the government must satisfy all the steps in the Oakes Test.
THE OAKES TEST
The Oakes Test is a legal test created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case R. v. Oakes (1986). R. v. Oakes provided the Court with the opportunity to interpret the wording of section 1 of the Charter and to explain how section 1 would apply to a case. The result was the Oakes Test –a testthat is used every time aCharterviolation is found.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada has identified specific situations where the government does not have to impair a Charter right as little as possible. The Court has found that in some situations it may be appropriate to take a deferential approach to government action. This means that the Court takes a flexible approach to the minimal impairment portion of the Oakes Test. Situations where deference may be given often occur where the legislature has to balance multiple interests. The Court has held that deference may be appropriate in situations where a legislature is better suited to weigh the evidence and policy considerations, and also, where the legislature has shown it has exercised judgment within a range of reasonableness. In other words, the Court acknowledges that the legislature, an elected body, is often in a better position to respond to the needs of Canadians. “
http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/OJEN_Oakes.pdf
Now to simplify. In order to pick and choose any areas in the Charter where legislators feel has reached a level of popular support or seems to be politically correct, the Supreme court can back up the legislators to impose any exceptions to a section of the Charter. The Oakes Test despite the appearance of propriety and moral justification is simply a construct, a tool to justify legislators modifying the precepts of the Charter for any justification they may espouse. Now things like hate speech would engender a public outcry so they are careful to avoid such areas. Not so for dui.
Now, in civil law, there is a concept referred to as "balance of probability" which is sometimes considered and allowed. And quite rightly as criminal and civil issues differ in a number of fundamentally different aspects. Where dui is concerned, the optics have been put into such a negative light that this process was employed to introduce this qualifier into the criminal code. What it means here for section 11(d) is that in some cases, if you look like there might be even the slightest probability of an individual driving drunk in the future with a BAC of .08 under certain circumstances then that is the same as actually driving off into traffic drunk and posing a risk to other drivers. In one case a young fellow, rather than risk the lives of others decided to sleep it off in his car. He had a sleeping bag, got into it. And after putting the keys into the ignition to get some quiet music on the radio, drifted off to sleep. Police Officers examining vehicles found him this way. He was charged with dui. He was not driving but the new twist to the dui law determines that there was a probability that he was going to drive off drunk under the influence. This Care and Control law is such that being in the front seat of the automobile over the limit and with keys in his/her possession warrants a dui charge, subsequent conviction replete with penalties described above. Now there are members of society who support this brainless kind of thing unconditionally. This is how powerful special interest groups have become in influencing the opinions of the general public. This is issuing a criminal conviction on the basis of what someone might do – not what they have actually done. Pretty scary stuff.
You are quite right. It has gotten way out of proportion, In my youth the penalties were not near this severe. It is beyond all logic. The problem is getting through to all people who have accepted all the hype put out by special interest groups. It is interesting to note that the statistics quoted by these groups are reported to be from valid studies. Now I have never seen the details of one of these studies. I can decide for myself. Anyone who has taken a stats course at university knows just how easy it is to skew any study. Just the choice of a survey group alone is critical. There are rigid guidelines to be followed to make a study a valid one. If they want to throw this stuff at me I would like to see the details and decide for myself. And I do wish they would stop trotting out family members with pictures of cherished family members lost to drunk drivers. Once is good enough for all of us to mourn with them for their loss. And don't get me wrong here I do feel for them. But to perform this public showing to further the selfish interests of special interest groups, I feel, dishonours their memory. Any accident which causes this kind of loss is distressing. None of them are easy to take. I can't recall any of the others lost in various types of accidents having their pictures paraded in public at every news making opportunity. Until the concerns are addressed by, what I believe to be, countless others in society, afraid to face the wrath of the politically correct. A t some point I would love to see petitions everywhere by those suffering in silence and these signed by the many others. This is probably the only way this may bring some sanity back into the whole process. But I fear this may take time. I honestly don't know where all of this is heading. The whole process of error has gone so far. The best any of us can do (who see and realize that it is out of control) is try to do our best to encourage discussion.
Just a final comment here as the others who have contributed so much to our enlightenment seem to have evaporated. I hope you realize that for many in our society the favourite sport is a game called "Gotcha!" In this particular discussion let's leave the "soul baring" out of it shall we. Unless you enjoy watching brainless verbal byplay which serves no purpose save to discredit the one who bares his soul. Unfortunate but I think we have all seen too many instances of it to realize that it is true. So let' stick to making our points and let these points stand on their own merits. Being preachy is for the television evangelists. Making reasoned arguments based on fact or logic or both are for those who open the drapes and let the sun shine in. It's called truth.
Simply, drunk driving is a police concern because alcohol increases the risk that drivers will get in traffic crashes and kill or injure themselves or others. Alcohol impairment is the primary factor in traffic fatalities. 1 In the United States, where drunk driving is among the most common types of arrest made by police, the number of alcohol-related crash deaths is roughly the same as the number of homicides. 2 In addition, vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in young people ages 15 to 20; many of these are alcohol-related.The young people ages 15 to 20 than goes to rehab or Texas dui classes.
Are you serious? Fine the distributors? So you want them to fine themselves as well, or did you not realize the LCBO is a govt organ?
There are some states that use a system called "whiskey plates". If you get nailed for impaired driving, once you get your licence back you are assigned a set of Whiskey plates for a set period of time. Basically these let the cops know you've already been nailed for impaired driving so they can keep an extra eye on you if they see you out on the road. Get caught driving impaired with a set of whiskey plates and you better plan on taking public transit for a long time.
Last edited: