I guess here's my problem then: you keep saying we need "progressive" discipline. I'll assume you mean "increasingly strict penalties for every additional offense."
The problem is that most US states have that. What else are you expecting be done? That's where I'm gathering the vengeance idea from. We are already doing progressively stricter punishments.
When you keep harping on something that already exists, you sound like you're creating a scenario that doesn't exist to prove a point or just draconian.
So...if we already have progressive punishment scales, and we still have DWI deaths, I'm confused as to what else you believe should happen, which is why I kept bringing up the rehabilitation piece. Again I think rehabilitation + punishment statistically is more effective.
Maybe were just misunderstanding each other.
I'm speaking from Canada.
I'm glad to hear most states offer progressive discipline. Although it may be in our legal language as well... we do not see it in practice. Up here... we insist on giving our criminals a whole whack of We're serious this time talks before our judicial system moves definitively in a direction that serves the general public.
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I can tell you that officers stop a lot of people for suspicion of DWI. Most of them do not involve accidents. There are devices like Ignition Interlock, which requires a breath test before the vehicle will start. In many states, convicted DWI offenders MUST use the device before they get their license back. And so there are jails and treatment facilities and "DWI saturations" (e.g. increased officer patrol specifically for DWI in certain areas and times, such as holidays). There are prison sentences and probationary sentences and mandatory minimums and yet there continue to be new DWIs.
The fact that every so often, there is a fatal DWI accident doesn't mean we need more officers or roadblocks or jails or sentences. Instead, we need to remember that like any crime, DWI results from a lapse in judgment. Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug.
For some reason, alcohol is seen as different than other drugs. Perhaps that's the point from which we should start when looking for new and effective ways to curb drunk driving.
I see a lot of people who get DWIs. I can tell you that there are a lot of repeat offenders, and a lot of first time offenders. Quite a lot of them have issues with chemical dependency (whether they realize it or not). Very few of them are evil people.
I'm not trying to deliberately be confrontational, but I'm having a little difficulty fully comprehending exactly what it is you are trying to say. Your points are fair, but what are you speaking to? When you speak to the effect of alcohol on habitual users... are you suggesting we be more understanding of drunks that get into deadly accidents? When you allude to the infrequency of these events or categorize DUIs as 'just another crime' are you saying we should not get too worked up about these (as you put it) 'lapses in judgement'?
When you say, "Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug"... I say that the people who commit these crimes did not get out of bed drunk. In short, knowing their propensity for getting drunk or the likeliness of them getting drunk, they had better have a plan to get home after getting drunk without using their vehicle. If they drive to a pub sober, get drunk, and then drive home- killing someone for not having taken the precautions necessary to safeguard the public and themselves from the drunk driving situation... then this is tantamount to negligence in my eyes.
I know there are moments when things get out of control and someone gets drunk someplace where they had not planned on doing so. In these moments, if someone makes the drunken choice to drive home and runs over people at a crosswalk... I would not be inclined to support them. From my way of thinking, getting drunk is a progressive thing and at a very minimum... at some point in the process of moving from sober to impaired... such an individual should weigh the risk factor associated with continuing to drink... knowing they have to drive home.
In short, in most cases, I hold the opinion that there are sober moments when people have the potential to make safe choices. Neglecting to do so in this window of opportunity is criminal. I don't care what people think when they are drunk... they're drunk. I care about what people think and do when they are sober and choose to move forward.
as an admitted sober alky, we(alcoholics or potential alcoholics) should certainly be held accountable for our actions, however as part of whatever sentence might be handed down that fact should be considered or included in the sentence not in lieu of. But alcoholism as well as drug addiction is one of those things that unless the person seeks help for themselves and does recovery(by whatever means works for them) then such behavior is likely to continue.
In my state vehicular manslaughter is deemed a misdemeanor unless there have been multiple DWI's at that point it becomes a felony.
Took a long time but our state implemented a multiple offender statute for something like 3 or more loose your license for life( guy I grew up with Mark J was the first test case. He got busted for his 6th). having no valid license doesnt prevent anyone from getting behind the wheel again or even owning another vehicle after seizure of property.
I've heard anecdotally of people with DWIs numbering in the teens? What then should happen to folks like that , that continue to put people in harms way?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
Because the safety of society is not the ultimate priority. It's not.
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
that would disproportionately affect the poor. With enough cash a DWI/DUI goes away and is pled differently.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
that would disproportionately affect the poor. With enough cash a DWI/DUI goes away and is pled differently.
Sadly... this is the reality.
But even with that said, let's entertain the idea for a bit... given all things being equal... would people see 30 years in prison as a deterrent for driving drunk? Would we see more people actively taking steps to avoid getting behind the wheel knowing an immense penalty faced them?
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
Because the safety of society is not the ultimate priority. It's not.
so what is the ultimate priority then?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
that would disproportionately affect the poor. With enough cash a DWI/DUI goes away and is pled differently.
Sadly... this is the reality.
But even with that said, let's entertain the idea for a bit... given all things being equal... would people see 30 years in prison as a deterrent for driving drunk? Would we see more people actively taking steps to avoid getting behind the wheel knowing an immense penalty faced them?
apparently not. reason being is because studies I've read suggest that alcoholics/drug addicts can not actually control their own consumption behaviours anymore than someone with any other mental disease can.
I really think that therapy is the only real solution, but again, that won't work unless the person is willing.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
what I meant by that is you can't jail someone for life for drunk driving when it has caused no one harm and there is no intent to harm.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet. rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
what I meant by that is you can't jail someone for life for drunk driving when it has caused no one harm and there is no intent to harm.
I got that.
To some degree, the people with multiple offences are afflicted with a condition (alcoholism) that is too difficult to control. So, the deterrent idea might not prove as effective given this is the population that would reach such punitive measures on a progressive discipline scale. The 'one-timers' are people who likely have made a bad choice in a bad moment- they'd never reach the point where a long prison term is even in the realm of possibilities.
With that said though, I'm inclined to think there would be a percentage (how large I'm not sure) that, on their last life (so to speak), would take some precautions on some occasions.
I have noticed that in Vancouver people are way more careful about how much they drink before driving since they lowered the limit from 0.08 to 0.05. Once it got that low, people suddenly seemed way more paranoid about having even one drink before getting behind the wheel. I think that counterattack blitzes (road block compaigns) do have a positive effect. Basically, playing on people's fears of getting caught appears to be the most effective measure. I think they should stop bothering with all the "if you drive drunk you're kill someone" advertising, and put all efforts towards busting drunk drivers, and make a big show of the fact that they're doing it. It's sad but true that people only really change behaviour when they are confronted with the realistic fear that they will face personal negative consequences not including their own death (too many people have the "it won't happen to ME" attitude for the warning about killing yourself to work IMO - being busted at a roadblock is something more people can actually conceive happening to them).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
@catefrances, i think punishment for drunk driving fatalities should be closer to the punishment for murder than manslaughter. it's killing a person during the commission of a crime. if a guy goes into a bank to rob it, shoots at the vault and the bullet ricochets and kills someone...that shouldn't be manslaughter because it was an accident and he didn't mean to do it. drunk driving is illegal because morons kill people. a person chooses to drive drunk knowing they could kill someone. that's not an accident, it's a choice.
@pjsoul, 7.5 years might be what was given, but that doesn't guarantee that's how much time will be served. depending on the crime, a person can be up for parole by the time they complete a quarter of their sentence.
if someone enters a bank armed then the intent to use that weapon if necessary is there. no one jumps in a vehicle drunk with the intent to kill someone. the choice is to drive drunk, not to kill someone. the law is full of technicalities and shades of grey. if you kill someone whilst drunk driving then absolutely you should be penalised.. but you shouldnt be penalised the same as a person who intentional goes out to kill someone cause as i said murder implies intent. driving while drunk implies only the guilt of driving drunk.. an illegal act sure but not one that implies the intent to kill. thats why there are degrees of guilt and liabiltity within the law. thats why assault with a deadly weapon draws a heavier charge and therefore hopefully a heavier sentence than plain assault. the fact that you have that weapon implies your intent to use it. i do know what youre saying and i acknowledge it is a highly emotional topic but law should not ever be based on emotion. as for sentencing, thats where i think the law really lets society down. if someone is sentenced to life they should stay in jail for the term of their natural life.. if theyre sentenced to 7 years then they should remain behind bars for 7 years.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if you want murder penalties for drunk driving, then you'd better do the same for killing someone while speeding, running a red light, a stop sign, or any other time acting recklessly without intent to harm. like purposely not cleaning up a spill of milk that your wife then slips on and cracks her head and dies.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
if you want murder penalties for drunk driving, then you'd better do the same for killing someone while speeding, running a red light, a stop sign, or any other time acting recklessly without intent to harm. like purposely not cleaning up a spill of milk that your wife then slips on and cracks her head and dies.
Willful negligence should be punished.
Almost every week there's a story about some local nimrods street-racing and killing an innocent. Lock those fuckers up too.
Their irresponsibility doesn't affect just them.
(the spilled milk scenario, though, doesn't make sense to me)
if you want murder penalties for drunk driving, then you'd better do the same for killing someone while speeding, running a red light, a stop sign, or any other time acting recklessly without intent to harm. like purposely not cleaning up a spill of milk that your wife then slips on and cracks her head and dies.
I see where you are going with your line of thought, but I'm not necessarily going to agree with you. There is a difference between drunk driving and some of these examples.
It's fair to distinguish accidents from reckless behaviours.
As hedonist said... street racing is on par with drunk driving- people have assumed the risk and now carry the weight of the punishment. Excessive speeding would fall into such 'negligent' behaviours as well. Trying to catch the back end of a yellow light and running a red that resulted in a pedestrian is an accident- unless proven otherwise, this was a spontaneous event without the luxury of much forethought.
@cate...fair enough. personally I think that killing a person during the commission of a crime, regardless of the severity of the crime, should not be considered even remotely close to an accident. I agree it shouldn't be the same as regular murder. but punishments should be closer to the punishment for murder rather than the punishment for genuine accidents. mowing someone down while drunk or speeding or blazing through a red light isn't "woopsy daisy". it's," I might kill someone by doing this but I don't give a fuck i'm gonna do it anyways." and the punishment should be treated as such....in my opinion of course.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
Well it shouldn't be Murder Penalties obviously Because the Two are Separate Crimes with Murder being the Intent to take another Humans Life While the other was just Negligence and down right Stupid...But there has to be Some sort of Punishment though for a set amount of time because after all a Human Life was taken through these Negligent and Stupid Incidents.
if you want murder penalties for drunk driving, then you'd better do the same for killing someone while speeding, running a red light, a stop sign, or any other time acting recklessly without intent to harm. like purposely not cleaning up a spill of milk that your wife then slips on and cracks her head and dies.
Willful negligence should be punished.
Almost every week there's a story about some local nimrods street-racing and killing an innocent. Lock those fuckers up too.
Their irresponsibility doesn't affect just them.
(the spilled milk scenario, though, doesn't make sense to me)
the spilled milk scenario, while a bit extreme, also highlights willful negligence, and just goes to bring light to the "how far do we go?" with this type of punishment.
I agree that punishment needs to suit the crime. But it's not murder. That's all I was saying.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
@cate...fair enough. personally I think that killing a person during the commission of a crime, regardless of the severity of the crime, should not be considered even remotely close to an accident. I agree it shouldn't be the same as regular murder. but punishments should be closer to the punishment for murder rather than the punishment for genuine accidents. mowing someone down while drunk or speeding or blazing through a red light isn't "woopsy daisy". it's," I might kill someone by doing this but I don't give a fuck i'm gonna do it anyways." and the punishment should be treated as such....in my opinion of course.
I agree with this.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
@cate...fair enough. personally I think that killing a person during the commission of a crime, regardless of the severity of the crime, should not be considered even remotely close to an accident. I agree it shouldn't be the same as regular murder. but punishments should be closer to the punishment for murder rather than the punishment for genuine accidents. mowing someone down while drunk or speeding or blazing through a red light isn't "woopsy daisy". it's," I might kill someone by doing this but I don't give a fuck i'm gonna do it anyways." and the punishment should be treated as such....in my opinion of course.
I agree with this.
i do too.. as ive said the penalties should be harsher. however we should always take into account that everyones mental faculties are impaired by alcohol and decisions we make whilst drunk, we wouldnt even consider whilst sober. im not excusing drunk driving but perhaps when we learn to value a human life more greatly harsher penalties will be come law.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I wonder if this poor girl had an underlying ailment ignited by the slap (agree with cate, too - had to have been a hard one). It brings to mind coaches who have a player run an extra few laps and the kid collapses due to an undiagnosed heart condition.
Is time served like this common in Canada? Not just the paltry length of sentence, but showing up a couple of days a week? Is that even considered punishment?
And I wonder what roles culture and age played in this - he was already 61 when his daughter was born. Would be interesting to hear from the mother on this.
How the fuck do you kill someone by slapping them? I dont honestly know how to respond to that, what the penalty should be. It is a tad different in the way that assault always harms someone, where drink driving does not. So there is actually intent there, just not intent to kill. I will have to mull this one over.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Who wants to slap their child across the face- let alone slap them with every bit of their might?
Hedonist...
You asked, "Is time served like this common in Canada? Not just the paltry length of sentence, but showing up a couple of days a week? Is that even considered punishment?"
I have been trying to tell anyone willing to listen to me... up here in Canada... we really think we got things figured out. We don't. Our legal system is a pathetic joke and our penal system is no better.
Our criminal element kicks ass. Our weak judicial system routinely fails our law abiding, good citizens because our influential 'bleeding-hearts-with-their-heads-stuffed-squarely-up-their-asses-living-in-la-la-land' seem to think the worst in our society deserve our very, very best efforts.
If little children or others get hurt in the process of affording our worst such generosity... they rationalize that as an unfortunate, but necessary component of a fair legal system, but never stop to think that they might have actually played a role in allowing it to happen.
Don't believe me? Look at this fucking idiot and research his criminal past:
Who wants to slap their child across the face- let alone slap them with every bit of their might?
Hedonist...
You asked, "Is time served like this common in Canada? Not just the paltry length of sentence, but showing up a couple of days a week? Is that even considered punishment?"
I have been trying to tell anyone willing to listen to me... up here in Canada... we really think we got things figured out. We don't. Our legal system is a pathetic joke and our penal system is no better.
.
Sounds like you want an American style justice system. I say no thanks. Our system may not be perfect but I will take it over our neighbours to the south any day.
Longer and more harsh sentences over rehabilitation is show to not work time and time again. Particularly when the inmates are in for crimes related to drugs and alcohol which they are addicted to.
Comments
I'm glad to hear most states offer progressive discipline. Although it may be in our legal language as well... we do not see it in practice. Up here... we insist on giving our criminals a whole whack of We're serious this time talks before our judicial system moves definitively in a direction that serves the general public.
We are really, really soft.
rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.
to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.
More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
In my state vehicular manslaughter is deemed a misdemeanor unless there have been multiple DWI's at that point it becomes a felony.
Took a long time but our state implemented a multiple offender statute for something like 3 or more loose your license for life( guy I grew up with Mark J was the first test case. He got busted for his 6th). having no valid license doesnt prevent anyone from getting behind the wheel again or even owning another vehicle after seizure of property.
I've heard anecdotally of people with DWIs numbering in the teens? What then should happen to folks like that , that continue to put people in harms way?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).
After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But even with that said, let's entertain the idea for a bit... given all things being equal... would people see 30 years in prison as a deterrent for driving drunk? Would we see more people actively taking steps to avoid getting behind the wheel knowing an immense penalty faced them?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I really think that therapy is the only real solution, but again, that won't work unless the person is willing.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
To some degree, the people with multiple offences are afflicted with a condition (alcoholism) that is too difficult to control. So, the deterrent idea might not prove as effective given this is the population that would reach such punitive measures on a progressive discipline scale. The 'one-timers' are people who likely have made a bad choice in a bad moment- they'd never reach the point where a long prison term is even in the realm of possibilities.
With that said though, I'm inclined to think there would be a percentage (how large I'm not sure) that, on their last life (so to speak), would take some precautions on some occasions.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Almost every week there's a story about some local nimrods street-racing and killing an innocent. Lock those fuckers up too.
Their irresponsibility doesn't affect just them.
(the spilled milk scenario, though, doesn't make sense to me)
It's fair to distinguish accidents from reckless behaviours.
As hedonist said... street racing is on par with drunk driving- people have assumed the risk and now carry the weight of the punishment. Excessive speeding would fall into such 'negligent' behaviours as well. Trying to catch the back end of a yellow light and running a red that resulted in a pedestrian is an accident- unless proven otherwise, this was a spontaneous event without the luxury of much forethought.
I agree that punishment needs to suit the crime. But it's not murder. That's all I was saying.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
A Quebec man who slapped his teenage daughter so hard she died has been sentenced to 60 days in jail.
Moussa Sidime, was sentenced Wednesday, is expected to serve his time two days a week over 30 weeks.
The 74-year-old man had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his 13-year-old daughter, Noutene, in October, 2010.
The court heard Sidime struck her because he didn’t like how she had completed a chore and because she had been disrespectful.
It was Sidime who called 911 himself after finding the girl unconscious minutes later. She died after a few days in hospital.
The Crown was seeking a prison sentence.
Sidime’s lawyer had argued for leniency, calling the death an exceptional case.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-man-who-killed-teen-daughter-with-slap-gets-60-days-in-jail/article18774321/
From the description, it seems an 'accident'. How should we respond to such an accident?
Is 60 days too light a sentence or is it an appropriate sentence?
mustve been a hell of a slap.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Is time served like this common in Canada? Not just the paltry length of sentence, but showing up a couple of days a week? Is that even considered punishment?
And I wonder what roles culture and age played in this - he was already 61 when his daughter was born. Would be interesting to hear from the mother on this.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Hedonist...
You asked, "Is time served like this common in Canada? Not just the paltry length of sentence, but showing up a couple of days a week? Is that even considered punishment?"
I have been trying to tell anyone willing to listen to me... up here in Canada... we really think we got things figured out. We don't. Our legal system is a pathetic joke and our penal system is no better.
Our criminal element kicks ass. Our weak judicial system routinely fails our law abiding, good citizens because our influential 'bleeding-hearts-with-their-heads-stuffed-squarely-up-their-asses-living-in-la-la-land' seem to think the worst in our society deserve our very, very best efforts.
If little children or others get hurt in the process of affording our worst such generosity... they rationalize that as an unfortunate, but necessary component of a fair legal system, but never stop to think that they might have actually played a role in allowing it to happen.
Don't believe me? Look at this fucking idiot and research his criminal past:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/case-highlights-undercover-world-of-catching-a-pedophile/article4179289/
Well done, Canada. Well done! How enlightened and advanced we are.
Longer and more harsh sentences over rehabilitation is show to not work time and time again.
Particularly when the inmates are in for crimes related to drugs and alcohol which they are addicted to.