5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Sorry, but the Crown could have got the same result without going to trial. The Judges statement is bang on, it was the Crowns decision to go forward with the expense and burden of a trial. I don't think it was a terrible decision, they couldn't see the end result when the decision was made, but it does rest with them.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Your kidding right.

Nope, just stating facts for the sake of clarity. I don't defend the guy, and if this trial causes less people to drink and drive then I'm for it, but it could have been avoided if the Crown hadn't changed the charge.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Sorry, but the Crown could have got the same result without going to trial. The Judges statement is bang on, it was the Crowns decision to go forward with the expense and burden of a trial. I don't think it was a terrible decision, they couldn't see the end result when the decision was made, but it does rest with them.

This frackin thing should have gone to trial, first and foremost the Crown didn't feel it was negligence causing death, they're not obligated to accept a plea bargin for a lesser charge.

Plus with this god damn puss judge, chances are that the scumbag would have gotten an even more wuss slap on the wrist if they would have accepted the plea bargin. Maybe a nice cushy house arrest, or maybe even better a $500.00 fine because he's a sad individual and its really not his fault that he got pissed up and killed a family.

To me the family probably suffered less pain and were probably happier that this went to trial and the Crown fought for the more significant charges.

The Judge is a ###### bag for putting his opinion about the families suffering, he doesn't know crap, he's a soft shoed garbage judge and the world would be better if he was maybe working small claims court instead of criminal court.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This frackin thing should have gone to trial, first and foremost the Crown didn't feel it was negligence causing death, they're not obligated to accept a plea bargin for a lesser charge.

Plus with this god damn puss judge, chances are that the scumbag would have gotten an even more wuss slap on the wrist if they would have accepted the plea bargin. Maybe a nice cushy house arrest, or maybe even better a $500.00 fine because he's a sad individual and its really not his fault that he got pissed up and killed a family.

To me the family probably suffered less pain and were probably happier that this went to trial and the Crown fought for the more significant charges.

The Judge is a ###### bag for putting his opinion about the families suffering, he doesn't know crap, he's a soft shoed garbage judge and the world would be better if he was maybe working small claims court instead of criminal court.

Wow, you may want to calm down. Talk about going overboard.

Do you understand how a plea bargain works? If the Crown accepted a plea the sentence would be stipulated to. The Court doesn't have to accept it, but imposing a lesser sentence is virtually unheard of.

The crown probably thought they could get a stronger sentence through trial, they were wrong. What the judge said is completely accurate, it was up to the Crown to decide whether this case went to trial.

[FlamesAddiction]

I agree that the sentence is an insult to the victims and their families. I can't help but feel that it is not just the judge, but the legal system in general. So much time has gone by since the event, I think many people who are not directly affected, lose sight of the magnitude of the tragedy. Trials, verdicts, and sentences should be handed out faster than over a couple of years. I realize that it would not be easy, but the way we do things right now does not always seem to work properly either.

Maybe it's been mentioned, but does anyone know if the families can or will launch a civil suit?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree that the sentence is an insult to the victims and their families. I can't help but feel that it is not just the judge, but the legal system in general. So much time has gone by since the event, I think many people who are not directly affected, lose sight of the magnitude of the tragedy. Trials, verdicts, and sentences should be handed out faster than over a couple of years. I realize that it would not be easy, but the way we do things right now does not always seem to work properly either.

Maybe it's been mentioned, but does anyone know if the families can or will launch a civil suit?

Scheduling things that quickly would be virtually impossible, unless of course we're going to build another couple of courthouses, hire a ton more judges, and generally blow up the entire system.

The system is far from perfect, but I don't think many people have a realistic expectation of what can be achieved.

[Huntingwhale]

And this goes to show EXACTLY what is wrong with our "Justice" system. 5.5 years is a joke, and l guarantee he will be out earlier from parole. I could care less about plea bargains, trial expenses, and the crown getting headlines. The bottom line is that this man killed 5 people and went OUT OF HIS WAY to hide the bottle of booze he "thought" was water, and should be harshly punished. And then this JOKE of a sentence in handed down. Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a judge because I would be a lot less lenient on anybody who does something as atrocious as this.

And while he may get out of jail in a couple years when he IS paroled, I do take consolation in the fact that he will be regarded as a killer of 3 children in jail and will get what is comming to him. I understand the judge is following the laws when it comes to sentencing, but face it, our system is a JOKE and everyone knows it.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by valo403

The crown probably thought they could get a stronger sentence through trial, they were wrong. What the judge said is completely accurate, it was up to the Crown to decide whether this case went to trial.

With or independant of a consultation with the family for their thoughts on the matter?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bagor

With or independant of a consultation with the family for their thoughts on the matter?

No idea if they considered the family's desires at all, but that's only one of many factors to be considered.

[ken0042]

I hope everybody who is outraged by the short sentances our courts have to hand down takes this opportunity to send a letter to you MP; requesting the laws be changed.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I hope everybody who is outraged by the short sentances our courts have to hand down takes this opportunity to send a letter to you MP; requesting the laws be changed.

Would that change anything though? i highly doubt it. The only way laws like this gets changed is if it happens to a judges or politician's family. If it was his grandkids and daughter getting mowed down by a cement truck would you only see 1 year per death?

[ken0042]

It may- or may not.

It does have a much better chance of success that posting here on CP. Not that there's anything wrong with venting here- but if half of the CPers wote their MPs, then other people on other forums followed suit; there may be something that gets discussed.

[HOOT]

I'm just trying to catch up on this but the killer got less than 2 years for each member of the family he killed? Yikes! No wonder people still drink and drive what is the threat if you are only going to get about a 1.5 years for each person you kill?

I also love how you get time served times two for pre-trial sentence. What a joke! I hope the Canadian justice system and the judge are embarrassed for this.

He will probably be out in like 3 years for good behavior and we wonder why things like this continue.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I'm just trying to catch up on this but the killer got less than 2 years for each member of the family he killed? Yikes! No wonder people still drink and drive what is the threat if you are only going to get about a 1.5 years for each person you kill?

I also love how you get time served times two for pre-trial sentence. What a joke! I hope the Canadian justice system and the judge are embarrassed for this.

He will probably be out in like 3 years for good behavior and we wonder why things like this continue.

Well, see the double credit for time served is not a travesty because you have to consider the flip side... What if an innocent person, who is subsequently acquitted, sits in jail for 1.25 years waiting for his trial? He can't get this time back. You are innocent until proven guilty, so it very much makes sense to be given double-credit for time served while "innocent".

[Dion]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I hope everybody who is outraged by the short sentances our courts have to hand down takes this opportunity to send a letter to you MP; requesting the laws be changed.

Did that a year ago.

Liberal senators blasted by Tories, NDP for blocking crime bill

OTTAWA — Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson blasted Liberal senators on Wednesday, accusing them of watering down legislation designed to remove credit for time served by offenders awaiting sentencing.


The legislation, supported by provincial governments across the country, would eliminate a common practice among judges, when sentencing offenders, to credit them on a two-for-one basis for each day spent in detention.


But the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee voted to change the proposed legislation so that offenders would receive a credit of 1.5 days for each day served in pre-sentence custody — but that judges would retain their discretion to sentence up to two days or as they see fit.


"I believe the bill has been gutted," Nicholson told Canwest News Service. "Judges will have the discretion to give up to two-to-one, which is exactly what we had taken aim at."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Li...007/story.html

[BuzzardsWife]

this guy doesn't even have remorse..no emotions at all..and i wish he would have served the maximum allowed..which still isn't enough..he should get life in a perfect world

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Well, see the double credit for time served is not a travesty because you have to consider the flip side... What if an innocent person, who is subsequently acquitted, sits in jail for 1.25 years waiting for his trial? He can't get this time back. You are innocent until proven guilty, so it very much makes sense to be given double-credit for time served while "innocent".

Thats great, but what does that have to do with someone who's guilty. I'd be all for a one to one on sentencing, but 2 for 1 is stupid.

If he's innocent he goes free, if he's guilty then there should either be no credit or 1 to 1, its the price you pay for being a scumbag.

Why should they get special breaks? I don't, the victims don't?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats great, but what does that have to do with someone who's guilty. I'd be all for a one to one on sentencing, but 2 for 1 is stupid.

If he's innocent he goes free, if he's guilty then there should either be no credit or 1 to 1, its the price you pay for being a scumbag.

Why should they get special breaks? I don't, the victims don't?

Because he had to serve time before being guilty of anything. He was technically punished while innocent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Because he had to serve time before being guilty of anything. He was technically punished while innocent.

But in the end he was guilty, so the whole innocent til proven guilty thing is irrelevant.

He wasn't innocent, in the sense of the time line once the declaration of guilt was there, he was never innocent.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But in the end he was guilty, so the whole innocent til proven guilty thing is irrelevant.

He wasn't innocent, in the sense of the time line once the declaration of guilt was there, he was never innocent.

He was in prison prior to being found guilty of anything. Therefore, it's not irrelevant. Don't get me wrong - I am all for him being treated as he would have been under the Soviet system (firing squad) , but I think that the double-credit for time served is a fair concept, given that you are being punished prior to being convicted.