4 Dead from highway crash on QE2

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

The definition of murder which is "causing death while committing another illegal act" has a very restricted set of crimes that apply. They're all crimes that involve exerting some measure of control over the victim, like kidnapping, hijacking, rape, and robbery.

I did some research last night and it seems the harshest sentence given out for drinking and driving causing death is "criminal negligence causing death", which has a maximum sentence of 25 years but no minimum (unless the death is caused by a firearm, in which case the minimum sentence is 5 years).

There was a case not to long ago that charged an impaired driver with manslaughter which was new case law. Mind you, there was a lot more intent there than what appears to be in this case.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

The definition of murder which is "causing death while committing another illegal act" has a very restricted set of crimes that apply. They're all crimes that involve exerting some measure of control over the victim, like kidnapping, hijacking, rape, and robbery.

I did some research last night and it seems the harshest sentence given out for drinking and driving causing death is "criminal negligence causing death", which has a maximum sentence of 25 years but no minimum (unless the death is caused by a firearm, in which case the minimum sentence is 5 years).

Sorry for the double post, but you do NOT need to be committing another offence to be charged with murder.

Here's a better explanation...

Murder Charges

Murder, as defined by the criminal code, is when the offender either:

1) means to cause the death of the other person;

2) means to cause bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause death, and is reckless as to whether death is caused of not;

3) means to cause death or bodily harm that he know is likely to result in death to one person, but ends up killing someone else (i.e. a gun shot misses the intended target and kills a bystander);

4) is in the commission of an offense and does something he knows or ought to know may cause death (even if death is not intended).

Murder is thus not limited to crimes where the offender actually intends to kill the other person. Simply intending to cause significant bodily harm can meet the definition.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Sorry for the double post, but you do NOT need to be committing another offence to be charged with murder.

Here's a better explanation...

Right, I was talking about #4 and that it only engages during the commission of specific offences. I was not giving a definition of murder.

[REDVAN]

Posts I agree with:
- this is terrible
- punishments should be harsher
- this guy is scum
- we should try to decrease the occurrence of drunk driving in our society

Posts I do NOT agree with:
- advocating someone accused of being a drunk driver doesn't deserve their rights
- punishment before judgement
- police being allowed to determine guilt
- calling this murder

[meanmachine13]

I never said it was an excuse. I agree with you. Causing death is a reasonable outcome when choosing the path of impaired drinking.

I was just saying that its likely the person did not INTEND to KILL someone.

And longer sentences have been linked to increased chances of reoffending because of things such as it being harder to be reintegrated to society. They learn new deviant behaviours/mindsets during incarceration. They make unhealthy relationships, etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Impared judgement is not an excuse, period, he made the decision to drink and drive, with all of the public service messages etc there's no excuse.

He made a selfish me only decision, and it was a decision that he made.

He killed 4 people, Daniel Tschetter wiped out a family, they made a concious decision to put themselves above public safety, and someone else paid the price.

This to me isn't man slaughter, or a horrible accident,he did something that probably more then 3/4 or the population knows is dangerous and stupid.

And if your using the excuse that punishment will only make him re-offend more, then maybe he shouldn't be getting out of jail for a good long time.

F%%K him.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by meanmachine13

I never said it was an excuse. I agree with you. Causing death is a reasonable outcome when choosing the path of impaired drinking.

I was just saying that its likely the person did not INTEND to KILL someone.

And longer sentences have been linked to increased chances of reoffending because of things such as it being harder to be reintegrated to society. They learn new deviant behaviours/mindsets during incarceration. They make unhealthy relationships, etc etc etc.

I don't think I agree with you especially with sentencing lengths, there has to be punishment as well as rehabilitation.

If you give a guy too short of a sentence its a joke, there's no cost to the crime. I've seen lots of stories about people that have reoffended multiple times and it seems that they have gotten light sentences.

I would be fine with a light sentence for a first time offender if they had genuine remorse, were willing to face the family of the victim and had to perform massive public services.

I think tough if you commit a second crime we should throw you down a well.

Either that or for drunk driving offenses causing injury or death you bring back the horse whip.

[meanmachine13]

Longer sentences have very little positive effects on the offender and his/her ability to reintegrate into society, therefore causing further problems once released. The majority of people immediately jump to a life sentence or a death penalty on crimes like this. But that is not what the offender or society needs. It will do little to prevent reoffending and will do little to prevent others from committing a similar crime in the future.

In the same sense, I am not saying to give them short sentences. I am saying the emphasis has to be on rehabilitation and other forms of punishment.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think I agree with you especially with sentencing lengths, there has to be punishment as well as rehabilitation.

If you give a guy too short of a sentence its a joke, there's no cost to the crime. I've seen lots of stories about people that have reoffended multiple times and it seems that they have gotten light sentences.

I would be fine with a light sentence for a first time offender if they had genuine remorse, were willing to face the family of the victim and had to perform massive public services.

I think tough if you commit a second crime we should throw you down a well.

Either that or for drunk driving offenses causing injury or death you bring back the horse whip.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by meanmachine13

The majority of people immediately jump to a life sentence or a death penalty on crimes like this. But that is not what the offender or society needs.

I guess we disagree on what society needs. I personally believe that society needs to know that drunk driving will not be tolerated. If one guilty man serving a lengthy sentence will prevent just one more drunk from getting behind the wheel and causing another drunk driving death, then I say it is worthwhile.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess we disagree on what society needs. I personally believe that society needs to know that drunk driving will not be tolerated. If one guilty man serving a lengthy sentence will prevent just one more drunk from getting behind the wheel and causing another drunk driving death, then I say it is worthwhile.

The problem is is that there is almost no correlation between stiffer sentences and a decrease in the crime. See the war on drugs in the US, particularly with mandatory minimum sentences.

Further, "making an example" out of someone by throwing the book at them is contrary to every principle of justice we have and what it means to be a Canadian as laid out in the Charter.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

The harsher sentences lead to more repeat offenders thing doesn't really hold a lot of water for me. That's a great example of correlation not implying causation.

Could it in fact be that those who are more likely to reoffend are given harsher sentences? I'd say that's probably the case, rather than harsher sentences causing people to reoffend.

I'd say the guy who gets behind the wheel a little tipsy, gets a slap a slap on the wrist, is probalby the kind of person who isn't likely to reoffend as he's more likely to learn his lesson, and thus doesn't deserve a very harsh sentence. The guy in question here though, was drunk off his ass, and drove the wrong way down a highway for 30km. I'd say regardless of the lenght of sentence, that's the kind of guy who is more likley to reoffend, and more likely to get a longer sentence, which will for some reason lend weight to the possibly flawed "Longer sentences contribute to reoffending" argument.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by meanmachine13

I never said it was an excuse. I agree with you. Causing death is a reasonable outcome when choosing the path of impaired drinking.

I was just saying that its likely the person did not INTEND to KILL someone.

And longer sentences have been linked to increased chances of reoffending because of things such as it being harder to be reintegrated to society. They learn new deviant behaviours/mindsets during incarceration. They make unhealthy relationships, etc etc etc.

That's what manslaughter or vehicular homicide charges are for. Driving drunk into traffic is like being drunk and running full speed into a crowd swinging a machete.


http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/sp...gewanted=print

[Russic]

Looks like it's court day. I'm interested to see how this compares to the Tschetter sentence. My guess is it won't be nearly as harsh, and since that sentence was pretty laughable, this could be pretty weak.

http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/man-facin...death-1.931484