Punishment should fit the crime

[shadowshiv]

Just a couple of weeks ago, four elderly widows were killed by a piece of **** drunk driver, at around 7pm. Swerved suddenly and hit them head on. This happened only a few streets from where my parents live. I hope this turd gets a long sentence, but that rarely seems to happen in these cases.:angryfire:

A person should get at least 15 years(with no possibility of parole) for each person he/she murders.

 

[Niflmir]

Very few in this world see the irony in the indifference with which we take the life of the inhuman and the brutality with which we confront the unnecessary deaths close to home.

Five lives are sadly missing from this earth and we call out for retribution more times than we seek to prevent future misfortunes like these.

 

[Zzarchov]

Side note:

This is involuntary manslaughter, not first degree murder, nor should it be. Their is no pleasant way to maim and kill a whole family.

But this definately deserves a lesser penalty than say a psychopath who stalked a family and murdered them all.

If you think the current sentancing is too light for involuntary manslaughter, then it should be bumped up on all involuntary manslaughter charges (also known as criminally negligent homicide or culpable homicide depending on where you go).

Is someone who throws a paintcan over an overpass thinking its funny, deserving of less time than a drunk driver if they both cause the same thing?

Dying to a drunk driver isn't really any worse than dying

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Dude:

I want what you're smoking if you think Pickton (not Picton, as you wrote) will ever see the light of day or breathe free air ever again.

Pangloss

You can't handle what I'm smoking.

The jury has been sent back by the judge to recommend his sentencing. As I understand it their options are to decide when he will be eligable for parole- after 10 years, before 25 years. I am not saying he will get parole, he most likely will not. We will have to wait on what the jury says and what happens at his parole hearings.

I was a truck driver for a couple of years and have no sympathy for someone drunk and killing people. There is just no excuse for it. I have sympathy, however, for truck drivers that are unjustly demonized, this guy is not one of those. I suspect this guy is going to spend serious time in prison.

Please accept my humblest apologies for my incorrect spelling of that butcher's name. I did not realize the high degree of accuracy in spelling required of me.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Not to put too fine a point one it, but, we are minimizing it, because: People who have got caught drinking and driving, sooner or later, get their license back and drink and drive again. In my world, they would not. Moreover it they refused the mandatory counseling and alcohol withdrawl asssistance my government would demand they take,(and provide free of charge), they would do at least 5 years.

But; they would never again drive. Sorry. "You're an asshole, and someday you're going to kill someone, and no more license for you!! "...........You get caught driving after these conditions have been imposed you do 10 years, and Bubba, the smelly 300 lb. pervert is your cellmate.

WE ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT IT. THE FREAKIN BOOZE COMPANIES MUST HAVE THE POLITICOS BY THE BALLS SOMEHOW.

:read2:anyway, just thought I'd run that by ya, FWIW.

Five years? For what? What if I have one glass of wine beyond my limit? Five years? What if I blow .081? Five years? Should killing a family of five while drunk driving a cement truck be the same as me returning home with my wife after going out to dinner and sharing a bottle of wine? There are degrees.

 

[MikeyDB]

It's peculiar my word..my opinion...that we seem to embrace one set of moral 'values' on one occasion or with respect to one circumstance but hold a different one when it comes to war and militarism....

If an "enemy combatant" is killed...that's OK but if an innocent child is killed that's not OK...

We choose to regard one form of murder as acceptable and appropriate but demonize those who fail to live-up to our 'standard' when the contributing elements are somehow different. You have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones with lethal force only in the circumstance that you or your loved one is being harmed by someone else, but you can lob high explosives and supersonic bits of lead at a house where you think the "bad-guy" might be hiding....

I've read a bunch of the comments in this thread and it's become clear to me that some see this situation as a black and white issue while others may entertain some shade of gray....

Curious

 

[Zzarchov]

In my mind I would say yes.

One thing I hate about the legal system is it focuses too much on the consequences and not enough on the action.

If you get drunk and manage to not hit anyone through luck, after blowing 0.081 you think you should be fine. If however you hit and killed someone in another car as could happen even if you are perfectly sober, you should be sent to 25 years?

Drinking and driving has been pretty clearly stated by the populace as never ok. That means if you go out to dinner, you don't share a bottle of wine. That is the definition of drunk driving, drinking and thikning you can get away with it.

What do you think other drunk drivers do, sit in the front seat and say "Fug it! Im driving drunk!" whip out a bottle of whiskey and do shots from their dashboard before roaring out at full speed onto the road?

Its people who have "a beer or two with friends" or "A glass of wine with the wife" or "A toast to the boss", usually at some birthday or going away party, and just think "Its a short ride home and Im fine". And sometimes they are fine, sometimes they are not.

But they took the risk as soon as they had that drink and thought "I can make it home'. If you are driving, you really shouldn't drink ANYTHING.

 

[MikeyDB]

Zzarchov...

I'm with you on this one. Life is fragile and there are more than enough dangers posed by everything from governments that lie about protecting the "consumer" to nut-bar lunatics who take firearms to school and serial killers...

If we reduce the potential not just the probability of dire circumstances unfolding out of someone's poor judgment in attempting to drive after having a drink....that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[karrie]

I can't help but feel frustrated that this family seems to illicit more outrage and frustration, more desire for vengance, than a typical crash. Drunk drivers kill people every day. Why would a drunk driver who hits and kills one person deserve less penalty than a drunk driver who hits and kills an entire family. It's the same action, same result, just sheer bad luck that he happened to hit the most sacred thing in our society....a family. But the wreckage of one person's death is just as important.

Now, if he'd set out to kill five people, and didn't stop until he had his total, then fine. Hit him with five times the charges of other drunks. Or charge him with five, but sentence accordingly... I don't know. It just seems a bit unbalanced to me. Like rewarding the other drunks for being lucky enough to hit emptier vehicles.

 

[MikeyDB]

Karrie

Hi kiddo!

I'm not familiar with the legal system as it pertains to automobile insurance in the rest of Canada, but I'm familiar with Ontario.

In Ontario the government has declared a monopoly for the Automobile Insurance companies by requiring that drivers be insured. One doesn't have to report a collision to the police at the time of the accident but the accident must be reported to the "Reporting Center" within 24 hrs.

I was recently involved in a traffic accident that resulted in the car I was a passenger in...being written off. The driver who caused the accident wasn't charged by the police for unsafe driving or unsignalled turn or failure to avoid a collision, the police weren't concerned with whose "fault" it was ...since of course we have "no-fault" insurance in Ontario....

We have a lousy driver who failed to approach an inersection with care, proceeded out into the flow of traffic on the main thouroughfare and resulted in causing an accident that the insurance companies will settle....

Justice in Ontario my ass!

We're toast.... It's all about protecting the money and the "system" and by the "system" I mean building a farcical "justice-system" that is about lawyers making money...nothing to do with "justice"....

Punishment fitting the crime...?

We should focus on the criminals who sit behind Ontarios court benches, focus on a system of government that's corrupt and a judiciary that's in the pocke of the ambulance chasers....

Baa Baa Baa

 

[lone wolf]

I can't help but feel frustrated that this family seems to illicit more outrage and frustration, more desire for vengance, than a typical crash. Drunk drivers kill people every day. Why would a drunk driver who hits and kills one person deserve less penalty than a drunk driver who hits and kills an entire family. It's the same action, same result, just sheer bad luck that he happened to hit the most sacred thing in our society....a family. But the wreckage of one person's death is just as important.

Now, if he'd set out to kill five people, and didn't stop until he had his total, then fine. Hit him with five times the charges of other drunks. Or charge him with five, but sentence accordingly... I don't know. It just seems a bit unbalanced to me. Like rewarding the other drunks for being lucky enough to hit emptier vehicles.

As a professional driver - someone who is licenced to a higher standard - and someone who earns his very living from being on the road, he should be more aware of the dangers on the road and the responsibility he bears when he is behind the steering wheel of a heavy vehicle - ergo he should be held to a higher account and it become a more serious offence when he willfully violates the rules.

Woof!

 

[karrie]

Karrie

Hi kiddo!

Hello to you too Mikey. :smile: Hope the accident didn't leave you in too rough a shape.

Here and in BC police response to accidents differs according to severity and availability of officers. I've seen some accidents where the people who are in the accident are just told to go in and draw the scene out for the police. It's why many people I know carry cameras now, because getting police to come and witness a scene and decide on who was at fault can be really tough if no one died or traffic isn't being blocked.

 

[MikeyDB]

Lone Wolf

I agree, the professional should be held to a higher standard whether that's driving a commerical vehicle or carrying a gun. (Of course a tazer wouldn't count...) but do we as a society hold everyone to the same standard? Do we demand that a bus driver recieves further training and is tested (vision reflexes, vehicle and road knowledge) more often and regularly than does the non-professional?

I don't know, but what I do know for certain is that there are cops wandering around in London Ontario who are armed with handguns they don't know how to use properly....

When did Canadians become so casual about personal responsibility?

 

[karrie]

As a professional driver - someone who is licenced to a higher standard - and someone who earns his very living from being on the road, he should be more aware of the dangers on the road and the responsibility he bears when he is behind the steering wheel of a heavy vehicle - ergo he should be held to a higher account and it become a more serious offence when he willfully violates the rules.

Woof!

I agree wolf. As your status on your license changes, so too should your responsibility to drive in a safe manner. But, if you screw up and hit a car, then you should be charged with hitting a car, IMO. Charging someone lighter for having been lucky enough to hit an emptier vehicle with their truck seems ridiculous.

 

[gerryh]

Five years? For what? What if I have one glass of wine beyond my limit? Five years? What if I blow .081? Five years? Should killing a family of five while drunk driving a cement truck be the same as me returning home with my wife after going out to dinner and sharing a bottle of wine? There are degrees.

degrees my ass...... if you're not responsible enough to stay out from behind the wheel of a vehicle when you've been drinking....then don't f'n drink. If you get behind the wheel of a vehicle after you've been drinking and someone dies, that's every bit as heinous as Picton.

 

[gerryh]

Side note:

This is involuntary manslaughter, not first degree murder, nor should it be. Their is no pleasant way to maim and kill a whole family.


Is someone who throws a paintcan over an overpass thinking its funny, deserving of less time than a drunk driver if they both cause the same thing?

Dying to a drunk driver isn't really any worse than dying

Involuntary my ass...... if he hadn't been drinking it would be. As soon as he took a drink and got behind the wheel of that vehicle it no longer should be considered "involuntary", because he "voluntariliy" decided to drive while impaired.

 

[lone wolf]

I agree wolf. As your status on your license changes, so too should your responsibility to drive in a safe manner. But, if you screw up and hit a car, then you should be charged with hitting a car, IMO. Charging someone lighter for having been lucky enough to hit an emptier vehicle with their truck seems ridiculous.

When you load a ferry, do they charge just for the car or is there a head charge too?

Woof!

 

[karrie]

When you load a ferry, do they charge just for the car or is there a head charge too?

Woof!

I have no idea Wolf.

But death isn't equatable to commerce imo.

 

[Zzarchov]

Involuntary my ass...... if he hadn't been drinking it would be. As soon as he took a drink and got behind the wheel of that vehicle it no longer should be considered "involuntary", because he "voluntariliy" decided to drive while impaired.

Involuntary does not attribute to lack of guilt

Involuntary is away of differentiating between Voluntary manslaughter, where you mean to kill someone, but have other circumstances (Ie, the crime of passion where you walk in on your spouse and best friend, crack the guy in a noggin with a lamp and he dies)

The confusion over what "Involuntary" means is why its called Criminally Negligent Homocide in some areas.

If it were truly Involuntary (Ie, nothing you could do or could have done previously to stop it) then it wouldn't be a crime (for example, if you got sick and transmitted that sickness to a doctor treating who died, you would not culpable)

It is involuntary manslaughter, and no different than any other form of criminally negligent homocide (like the mechanic who doesn't properly maintain an industrial machine causing 5 people to die)

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

As far as I am concerned it should be 1st degree murder if he was impaired. He decided to take a drink even if he knew it was against the law he still drank. When are we going to stop minimizing drunk driving? There is one bas**** here in town who got drunk, took is girlfriend's car with her permission (she was at work) and killed two children 8 and 10 yrs. old, they were brother and sister. He is a many time over repeat offender and all he got was 9 years. Where is the justice here?

Exactly. Its the same as armed robbery in the States. If you go in with a gun and accidently kill some one, because you had intent on committing a felony, it is considered first degree murder. The same should be if you get behind a wheel with alcohol.

In reality -- this guy will probably be back behind a wheel (probably drunk) in under 2 years.