DWI

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Driving While Intoxicated
Drunk Driving
Whatever you want to call it...it causes 20% of the road accidents in North America.
I bring up the topic because of a local story which touches on the matter.

Imagine - you and a group of friends are on your way to the corner store to get beer, from there, you're going to a party. Being responsible people, you're walking to the store, to the party and walking back after the party...no drunk driving for you.

Imagine that you're walking along a bike-path...then...you're dead.



A drunk woman lost control of her car, headed into the bike lane, and hit you and 2 of your friends. You died...the woman got arrested, and is on trial this week.

The defence attourney wants 2 years less a day (served in the community), the Crown attourney wants 4 years jail time. The max sentence is 10yrs, which no one has ever gotten.

I find it patently rediculous that people are driving drunk, getting into accidents and walking away with a slap on the wrist, and if they kill someone while doing it...they get less jail time than if they'd robbed a store at gun point.

Comments?
 
Yep, should be 2nd degree murder, she knowingly put people at risk. I am just sick of hearing that they had diminished capacity because they were intoxicated. You had the knowledge that you were going to be drinking. I'm pretty sure that most people aren't forced into drinking, or unknowingly get drunk. She may not remember getting in that car, but that doesn't make it any less of a crime.
 
If you ask me, the bitch deserves the 10 years. The reason they're looking at 2 years less a day is because this is her first offence. I don't give a shit if it's your first or 5th. If she does the crime, she should do the time. If she does 10 years or even less, but more than two, it will hopefully tech her a lesson that she will never forget. I find our justice system sucks when it comes to these things.
 
1 .c. At $600, Canada imposes one of the highest minimum fines in the world for blood alcohol offences.



2. b. In most provinces and territories it is impermissible to operate a motor vehicle at BACs over 0.05, but this only becomes a criminal matter when levels exceed 0.08.

3. c. Canada considers impaired driving as serious an offence as murder. In June 2000, the maximum penalty was raised from 14 years to life in prison.

4. c. Canada's one-year prohibition is one of the longest mandatory driving disqualifications in the world.

5. b. According to Statistics Canada police charged about 67,000 drivers with impaired driving in 2002. Between 1992 and 2002, the rate of people charged with impaired driving has dropped 45 per cent.
Click to expand...

Please note the lack of minimum sentences for DWI causing death.
Also..here's a site that'll help you get off from a DWI charge.
 
Yup, once you choose to drink you're playing with fire driving a car. If you kill someone by 'accident' you lose in my opinion. Everyone knows better in this day and age. No excuses for your choices.
 
That's why the relativly lax laws and the constant fight that MADD is up against is throwing me off. They're asking for a reduction from .08 to .05 alc level and minimum fines/jail for DWI causing injury or death. I can't see how any politician could go against it, but they do anyway. In large enough numbers to block the legistlation.
 
MrBishop said:
I can't see how any politician could go against it, but they do anyway. In large enough numbers to block the legistlation.
Click to expand...
I would say mostly to cover their own asses. I've known quite a few politicians living here in a state capital. Most I've met up at the local bar.
 
I don't see a problem lowering the BAL to 0.05. Legislated mandates for penalties I am against. The Judicial branch is responsible for developing the penalties,. They have their own methods for doing that.

It removes the power from the Judges and gives it to the legislative branch, serving justice. By the same token judicial legislation needs to stop (‘specially when the people have spoken.)

The legislated mandates makes the system too static and removes the ability for dynamic evolution of the penal codes.

This reverts back to a thread a while back; we can’t get treatment for Drunks and Drug addicts as it needs to be. We need to currently get people to take a 2 or more year suspended sentence then offer the treatment, then toss out the case if treatment is successful. That sounds simple but its not. It is huge burden on the courts, 3-4 judges full time locally. It can be handled much cleaner and easier but the sentence mandates have to be worked around to do it. We also can’t use private treatment we must use the Gov’t health care providers. Gov’t health care providers have strict rules and regs that limit the treatment to specific guidelines.



D&A treatment is far more effective w/o the controls and bureaucracy.

 
Got the news back...she's been convicted of 4 counts...to be served consecutivly. 42 months (3 1/2 years). She'll probably be out in 1 year. :(
 
HomeLAN said:
At least it's consecutive, not concurrent. That might stretch it to 2 years.
Click to expand...


Sorry...mea culpa. Concurrently (at the same time) is what she got. 1 death and 2 wounded...and she gets a slap on the wrist for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top