Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
You've mischaracterized his position as well as what people are objecting to. He's been arguing that regardless of what the SCC or ABCA or anyone else says is or isn't okay, he's fine with these sorts of measures, including the one described in the OP (which, obviously, the SCC hasn't said anything about). His rationale for this support is that the legislation is likely to be effective at reducing drunk driving, and the potential for abuse of peoples' rights is an acceptable risk in his view because of the benefits he sees. In this case, the ends justify the means. Which is pretty clearly not the intuitive position most people hold, for reasons discussed at length in this thread.
Though I don't know that he's saying what he's saying because he's a contrarian - if he says that's what he believes then I think he should be taken at his word.
|
But we already accept that innocent people are punished under the current justice system. His statement that we already accept that innocent people get punished is factually true and we do it on more circumstantial evidence than a road side breathalyzer with an opportunity for a second machine to test you.
So if you issue is never sentence an innocent person to any harm our whole system fails. If you are saying this is an erosion of rights you would need to show that in this specific type of enforcement that the rate of misapplication of justice is greater than the current average.
We also accept that a 24 HR immediate punishment (whcih could cause job loss) is prudent for public safety. This just extends that immediate window longer because the Drunk Drivers in the vast majority of cases drive drunk regularly. So again if your issue is due process why are you comfortable with a 24jr suspension and impoundment without due process.