Alcohol kills one person every ten seconds

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

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.

PJ_Soul

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).

catefrances

goingtoverona said:

@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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

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)

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

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.

goingtoverona

@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_lov_it

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

goingtoverona said:

@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.

catefrances

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

goingtoverona said:

@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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

This story is kind of in line with the way the discussion has morphed:


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?

catefrances

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This story is kind of in line with the way the discussion has morphed:


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.

hedonist

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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.

backseatLover12

Maybe he slapped her face so hard it snapped her neck or did some kind of damage to her neck.

chadwick

backseatLover12 said:

Maybe he slapped her face so hard it snapped her neck or did some kind of damage to her neck.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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:

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.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.