5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY! - Page 29 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Peanut · 10-07-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

If anyone here practices criminal law they can correct me, but I believe he is eligible for parole after serving 1/3 of his sentence, which would be after 2 2/3 years, and since he is already credited with 2.5... theorectically, he can be out in 2 months. Again, this is how I understand it, but I have not practiced a minute of criminal law, beyond the most minor stuff when I was just starting out.

What a slap in the face for the families of the victims.

millhouse11 · 10-07-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

If anyone here practices criminal law they can correct me, but I believe he is eligible for parole after serving 1/3 of his sentence, which would be after 2 2/3 years, and since he is already credited with 2.5... theorectically, he can be out in 2 months. Again, this is how I understand it, but I have not practiced a minute of criminal law, beyond the most minor stuff when I was just starting out.

If that's the case, then wouldn't he only have to serve the rest of his sentence in a minimum security prison?

Dion · 10-07-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

CALGARY - It will take a lot longer than the 22 months since Previna Jiawan-Gautreau's two young daughters were killed for her to forgive the cement truck driver who killed them.

Even though a remorseful Daniel Josh Tschetter, 51, of Cochrane was sentenced on Wednesday to five and 1/2 years in prison and banned for life from driving a comercial truck after causing the fatal crash on Dec. 7, 2007, the distraught Jiawan-Gautreau was still numb.

"I sure hope God forgives him one day. For me forgiving, I don't know . . . I can't honestly answer that," Jiawan-Gautreau said outside court.

"I think he is sorry. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't change the fact he took away five lives . . . No amount of sentence would have made a difference. It doesn't bring my girls back, it doesn't bring Chris back, or Zachary or Melaina back."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Pa...725/story.html

VladtheImpaler · 10-07-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by millhouse11

If that's the case, then wouldn't he only have to serve the rest of his sentence in a minimum security prison?

I am probably wrong - I hope someone who practices crim law chimes in. I'll ask my friend, who is a prosecutor, and let you know what he says, if nobody comes up with an answer quicker.

jar_e · 10-07-2009, 06:50 PM

Its really interesting the crown went after manslaughter instead of impaired causing death...I'm 99% positive the minimum punishment for impaired causing is longer than manslaughter.

Secondly, there was no "refusal to submit a breath sample causing death" charge when this occured. It has since changed but it seemed like the crown was between a rock a hard place here...legally and morally.

I'd still love to hear why they only went after manslaughter though....

Dan02 · 10-07-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ditch

Are all sentences in Canada concurrent, why can't people like this get consecutive sentences for each person that they killed.

because our system focuses on rehabilitation rather then punishment?

Nuje · 10-07-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan02

because our system focuses on rehabilitation rather then punishment?

Yep.

In this case (well...all cases really) they should be concurrent. Living through life without getting insanely blasted, and getting behind the wheel of any vehicle (let alone a giant cement mixer) is not difficult. I've had no trouble getting through my life without doing that.

Why do the sentences in this country make it seem like someone just...made an error? A minor brain fart, like thinking there is one more stair below you, or accidentally wearing a green shirt on the day of a stamps/riders game. This was gross negligence, which took some time (drinking all that vodka, getting behind the wheel) where there was a LOT of time to think "....maybe I shouldn't be doing this".

Our system should focus on two things. Punishment, and safety. If anybody is anything but an extremely low-risk to re-offend, they should never get out (as should this sort of criminal negligence, regardless of whether or not they expect him to repeat). The safety of people who aren't in prison (the majority of who aren't for good reason....they don't commit crimes) should not be put at risk for these people.

It almost seems that when these things happen in Canada, there is this elaborate poker game. The crown doesn't wanna press too many charges, because if he's found innocent of one, it'll mean acquitting him of the rest. It's simply ridiculous.

Eddie Bronze · 10-07-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In actuality, he got 8 years, and has already served 2.5, which is where the 5.5 years left comes in.

How did he already serve 2.5 years when the incident happened less than two years ago? They give you double time for what you serve before the verdict is reached (he actually served 1 1/4 years so far) so the court taking forever to get to this point gets him off even easier. So he will have served 6 3/4 years total if he stays in for the full term, which you know will never happen. MADD must be in total outrage over a junk verdict like this.

Since the courts can't grow a set and hand out a proper sentence, is it wrong to hope he gets killed by a drunk driver the day after he gets released?

CaptainCrunch · 10-07-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan02

because our system focuses on rehabilitation rather then punishment?

And I respect that to an extent.

But really, this creep got pissed up because he was having a bad day, got into a truck and drove at all kinds of speed into a car full of family killing them, and instead of showing regret or concern or honesty he said, I'm going to get into trouble and tried to conceal evidence. I honestly think in this case the sentence has to reflect as much or more punishment then rehabilitation.

Its just like the gang banger selling drugs who picks up a gun and blows away a rival or an innocent victim. He didn't make a mistake, he's not a victim of poverty, he's a greedy lttle animal and he should be removed from society for the protection of society and harshly punished.

I don't buy that these creeps are sorry when they make their tear full apology, no stroke that, they're sorry that they got caught, and if they had gotten away with it they would have worn that as a badge of honour.

You can rehab people while you're punishing them and protecting society.

This guy killed a family of five and showed very little regret or sorry as a first instinct, and he gets the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.

I'm sick and tired of victims being forgot about, I'm sick and tired of using a soft touch that doesn't work. Justice does have to be fair, but to an extent it also has to equal parts of punishment rehab and public safety. somewhere along the line someone theorized that if you give a bully a hug he'll reform. You kick a scum bag bully or criminal in the ass, you give him a reality check, you rip him down then you rebuild him.

There has to be a cost to getting pissed up killing a family and your first reaction is to toss the empty liquor bottle into the back of your truck.

Man, I can't believe I'm so pissed about this.

valo403 · 10-07-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuje

Yep.

In this case (well...all cases really) they should be concurrent. Living through life without getting insanely blasted, and getting behind the wheel of any vehicle (let alone a giant cement mixer) is not difficult. I've had no trouble getting through my life without doing that.

Why do the sentences in this country make it seem like someone just...made an error? A minor brain fart, like thinking there is one more stair below you, or accidentally wearing a green shirt on the day of a stamps/riders game. This was gross negligence, which took some time (drinking all that vodka, getting behind the wheel) where there was a LOT of time to think "....maybe I shouldn't be doing this".

Our system should focus on two things. Punishment, and safety. If anybody is anything but an extremely low-risk to re-offend, they should never get out (as should this sort of criminal negligence, regardless of whether or not they expect him to repeat). The safety of people who aren't in prison (the majority of who aren't for good reason....they don't commit crimes) should not be put at risk for these people.

It almost seems that when these things happen in Canada, there is this elaborate poker game. The crown doesn't wanna press too many charges, because if he's found innocent of one, it'll mean acquitting him of the rest. It's simply ridiculous.

That's all well and good, but imprisoning people isn't cheap and I don't see a whole lot of elections won on promises of increased taxes. It's a tough situation, everyone says that want greater punishments but very few people want to pay for it.

CaptainCrunch · 10-07-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

That's all well and good, but imprisoning people isn't cheap and I don't see a whole lot of elections won on promises of increased taxes. It's a tough situation, everyone says that want greater punishments but very few people want to pay for it.

Honestly you can't balance cost against public safety. You can't decide that justice is too expensive to pursue.

Would I be willing to pay more taxes to have a proper justice system, absolutely.

valo403 · 10-07-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Honestly you can't balance cost against public safety. You can't decide that justice is too expensive to pursue.

Would I be willing to pay more taxes to have a proper justice system, absolutely.

I agree, I just don't think there are all that many people who feel the same way, or at least not enough who will put their money where their mouth is.

CaptainCrunch · 10-07-2009, 09:40 PM

Sorry, I wasn't trying to rip your head off, but its been 4 days since my last smoke, and everything is pissin me off.

Dion · 10-07-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

That's all well and good, but imprisoning people isn't cheap and I don't see a whole lot of elections won on promises of increased taxes. It's a tough situation, everyone says that want greater punishments but very few people want to pay for it.

Taking away that guys drivers license for life would be a good start as opposed to a 5 year ban the judge imposed. Some how some way the punishment has to fit the crime and sadly this one falls way too short.

Dion · 10-07-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sorry, I wasn't trying to rip your head off, but its been 4 days since my last smoke, and everything is pissin me off.

Good luck with the quit smoking thing. Don't give in!

Btw I promise not to piss you off for a few weeks

valo403 · 10-07-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

Taking away that guys drivers license for life would be a good start as opposed to a 5 year ban the judge imposed. Some how some way the punishment has to fit the crime and sadly this one falls way too short.

Do you really think that's going to matter? I mean this guy has obviously shown himself to be someone who cares about the law. License or no license, anyone who feels like driving can do it.

Dion · 10-07-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you really think that's going to matter? I mean this guy has obviously shown himself to be someone who cares about the law. License or no license, anyone who feels like driving can do it.

I understand what you are saying and maybe it's true he'd get behind the wheel without a license. Problem is the sentence is not only to punish but also serve as a deterance to others that might drink and drive and kill someone. As I see it todays sentence does none of that.

Huntingwhale · 10-08-2009, 07:49 AM

"As I found in my judgment (convicting Tschetter), the offences of criminal negligence manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death are identical," Fraser said.
"It is not the offender who put the state to the expense of a trial, nor did he put the (victims' families) and the witnesses through the trauma of an emotional trial," the judge said.

Unbelievable quote from the Judge Fraser this morning in the Sun. It's not the offender who put the families through an emotional trial???? Un-Fing-believable that this boneheaded "judge" would say something like this. He essentially blames the prosecution for the pain and suffering the families have gone through.

DownInFlames · 10-08-2009, 08:10 AM

The reason the judge said that is because Tschetter was going to plead guilty to criminal negligence causing death, but the Crown wanted to make headlines and get a manslaughter conviction. He probably would have had a similar sentence and the trial would have been avoided.

CaptainCrunch · 10-08-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

The reason the judge said that is because Tschetter was going to plead guilty to criminal negligence causing death, but the Crown wanted to make headlines and get a manslaughter conviction. He probably would have had a similar sentence and the trial would have been avoided.

Your kidding right. This was not criminal negligence causing death. This was deliberate actions by Tschetter causing death. Good for the crown for not accepting a weak plea bargin and good for the papers for bringing awareness to this scumbag.

The Judge is completely wrong in his statement here.

The Crown honestly needs to appeal the sentence, I'm hoping they're not satisfied here, its a big victory for Balfour and a big loss for the Crown and the victims.