5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

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.

We'll just have to disagree, I believe that once he's found guilty of the crime then any concept of pre conviction innocence goes out the window and there should be no special deals. It would be different if there was a guilty plea and some actual remorse.

but then again, I'm a fan of some sort of three strikes system.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We'll just have to disagree, I believe that once he's found guilty of the crime then any concept of pre conviction innocence goes out the window and there should be no special deals. It would be different if there was a guilty plea and some actual remorse.

but then again, I'm a fan of some sort of three strikes system.

3-strikes does not work well in California. Why did this guy need to be incarcerated prior to his trial? It's not he's a gangbanger who is a threat to kill someone else or to go underground... I think his final sentence is too light, but I certainly don't like it was handled by the Crown...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

3-strikes does not work well in California. Why did this guy need to be incarcerated prior to his trial? It's not he's a gangbanger who is a threat to kill someone else or to go underground... I think his final sentence is too light, but I certainly don't like it was handled by the Crown...

My three strike concept is different.

If your convicted on a first offense, you go a a rehabilitation prison with shorter sentences counciling, drug rehab job skills training, all that good stuff, but upon being found guilty you sign a contract that states that its your one and only chance to make good, ig your found guilty a second time your sent to the man killing prison up past baffin Island where you spend the rest of your life either working in the man killing salt mines, or you can work in the man killing wallet factory.

There are no guards, there are no walls, if you want to leave, have a nice walk. All food and supplies are airdropped in as well. you are effectively cut off from society.

[ken0042]

On this I think I have to agree with CC. (What's up with that?)

Extra credit for time served before being found guity will only benefit the guilty. If a person is not guilty, then what- guy gets to live a couple of extra years due to some miracle of modern medicine?

[burn_this_city]

A scumbag ran down one of my close friends infront of the Wiskey 2 years ago. He's currently dragging the whole thing through the court system so he can cash in on the double credit for pre-trial custody. Its a loophole that defense lawyers use to help their client receive a short sentence.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My three strike concept is different.

If your convicted on a first offense, you go a a rehabilitation prison with shorter sentences counciling, drug rehab job skills training, all that good stuff, but upon being found guilty you sign a contract that states that its your one and only chance to make good, ig your found guilty a second time your sent to the man killing prison up past baffin Island where you spend the rest of your life either working in the man killing salt mines, or you can work in the man killing wallet factory.

There are no guards, there are no walls, if you want to leave, have a nice walk. All food and supplies are airdropped in as well. you are effectively cut off from society.

So strike 2 is some sort of mad max criminal society? WTF is strike 3?

The bigger question, how do you deal with someone who commits 2 non-violent offenses? What about two petit theft offenses? What about the fact that such a system encourages someone suspected of a second offense to resist with deadly force? I could go on, but the point is that idea is way more flawed than the current system.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

So strike 2 is some sort of mad max criminal society? WTF is strike 3?

The bigger question, how do you deal with someone who commits 2 non-violent offenses? What about two petit theft offenses? What about the fact that such a system encourages someone suspected of a second offense to resist with deadly force? I could go on, but the point is that idea is way more flawed than the current system.

Strike three is super secret double probation.

I'm only concerned about violent crimes here, with non violent theft offenses, I think they should have to work off their debt to society. Violent criminals are pretty much resisting anyways right now so whats the difference?

If you repeat in a violent crime or a sex based crime you don't belong in society, and honestly there's no rehabbing these people so why bother.

Off to the man killing snowball minds of the arctic.

[fredr123]

There has to be discretion in the justice system, even for violent offenders. Otherwise, you might see more of the Cameron Poe's of the world locked up for no real good reason with the worst kind of criminals.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Strike three is super secret double probation.

I'm only concerned about violent crimes here, with non violent theft offenses, I think they should have to work off their debt to society. Violent criminals are pretty much resisting anyways right now so whats the difference?

If you repeat in a violent crime or a sex based crime you don't belong in society, and honestly there's no rehabbing these people so why bother.

Off to the man killing snowball minds of the arctic.

For the Clifford Olson's and such I'm inclined to back your plan, well at least the spirit of it, but there are far too many grey areas that simply don't fit into a black or white system like that. As Fred said, the law needs discretion or else we risk system failures to the opposite extreme.

[Resolute 14]

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".

Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever.

You can't give an innocent person their time back, but that does not mean giving a guilty person time back is an appropriate compensation for such an unfortunate circumstance.

[Kjesse]

I think this sentence is too low. I think 10-15, which the Crown was asking for, would be appropriate.

On the double-credit issue, the law is going to change according to statements coming from the Conservatives.

As to double credit as it should be, I think the proper balance is you look at the Crown's obligation to get the matter on to trial as quickly as proper justice permits, gives full and timely disclosure, and look at if the defence has been an impediment to that.

If the defence is making motions that appear to be more tilted to getting their guilty client out quicker (assessed after the trial), they might not get double credit.

If the matter went to trial relatively quickly, the Crown pushed forward promptly and properly, and the defense did not put up blocks that seemed purely procedural, I don't have much issue with double credit.

The problem in this thread is people already don't like the sentence handed down (which I agree with), and then look at the double credit and then really get mad.

Don't blame the double credit in all cases. Blame the overall sentence. In this case its a little of both... this took longer than it should have, but I don't know whose responsibility that was.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Don't blame the double credit in all cases. Blame the overall sentence. In this case its a little of both... this took longer than it should have, but I don't know whose responsibility that was.

It's the lawyers fault. They drag it out because they like to have things they can bill their time to while they surf the internet.

(Is he kidding?)

[fredr123]

On the double credit issue, the Conservatives passed a bill in the House of Commons that would have eliminated the practice (but allowed 1.5 to 1 in certain undefined circumstances). In the Senate, however, the majority Liberals amended the bill to provide for 1.5 to 1 for pretrial custody.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...edit-jail.html

[4X4]

As far as the sentence goes, the judge has to go by previous precedences. Apparently, the only similar cases were few and far between (and by far between, I mean that they went back as far as the 70s).
It's basically a year per person you kill in a situation like this. Pretty sad.

[Peanut]

Families are suing him and his company for damages. I hope they get all that they ask for.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fa...168/story.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Good if this sets a precedence that companies like this are financially responsible for the actions of their employees then the thing isn't a total waste.

Its just too bad that if this suit is successful some innocent people are going to be out of a job.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Good if this sets a precedence that companies like this are financially responsible for the actions of their employees then the thing isn't a total waste.

Its just too bad that if this suit is successful some innocent people are going to be out of a job.

they already are liable for the actions of their employees through vicarious liability

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

they already are liable for the actions of their employees through vicarious liability

I get that, I just haven't seen it vigorously pursued in terms of situations like this.

If companies suddenly find out that someone with a history of drunk drivers might not be a good hire, or someone with a history of bad driving or habitual speeding might not be a good investment we might get some of these people off of the road and out from behind the wheels of larger vehicles.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get that, I just haven't seen it vigorously pursued in terms of situations like this.

If companies suddenly find out that someone with a history of drunk drivers might not be a good hire, or someone with a history of bad driving or habitual speeding might not be a good investment we might get some of these people off of the road and out from behind the wheels of larger vehicles.

dont most people that drive company vehicles have to submit a drivers abstract?? i know any job I applied for that included driving you had to include abstract with application.

maybe there are some companies that just dont care but i bet their insurance companies do

[CaptainCrunch]

Clearly not enough

It also alleges the defendant numbered company, operating as C & J Construction, "ought to have known Tschetter was not a safe driver to be operating its motor vehicles and should not have allowed Tschetter to drive a large concrete truck at the time of the motor vehicle accident or at any time."
Court heard Tschetter had no prior criminal record, but that his driving record included 20 convictions dating back to 1980, mainly for speeding and failing to obey road signs.