Woman died in arms of injured husband after alleged drunk driving crash

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

You don't think the 18 month average for DUI killers is too low?

The only alternatives aren't what we have now or locking away "DUI killers" (nice sensationalistic term too) for life. The "lock 'em up and throw away the key" crowd utterly lack a comprehension of what justice actually entails, how the legal system works, and that even if you're convicted of a crime you are a Canadian citizen deserving of all your rights that the Charter guarantees all of us.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Locke

What are you talking about? Alberta just cracked down on drunk drivers, if this guy had been between .05-.079 he'd be having a real think about what hes done.

But now in Alberta its actually more advantageous to drive drunker because if you're way over that .08 you get your day in court represented by fierce defence lawyers. This guy is going to get practically nothing.

Sigh.

"Getting your day in court" is going to cost you a hell of a lot more time and money than having the roadside suspension, even if you walk away scot free afterward. So no, it's not "more advantageous".

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Sigh.

"Getting your day in court" is going to cost you a hell of a lot more time and money than having the roadside suspension. So no, it's not "more advantageous".

Dude in a Benz just killed someone and hes going to have to write a cheque. Oh no....

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Locke

Dude in a Benz just killed someone and hes going to have to write a cheque. Oh no....

Don't move the goalposts. Your statement about the advantages of driving drunker was completely incorrect.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Your frontier, knee-jerk emotional idea of what the law should be will never happen, and thank god for that. So don't hold your breath.

Or better yet, do.

Guess you never needlessly lost a loved one to drunk driving. 20 years minimum if you kill someone. 5 years minimum for dui's. Don't like it, don't drink and drive.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Don't move the goalposts. Your statement about the advantages of driving drunker was completely incorrect.

Depends on your viewpoint. If you place the ability to access the justice system and preserve your social liberties above all else you're much better off at 0.15 than you are at 0.06.

Now in reality i don't think anybody is going to be trading places with the accused here simply to have their day in court, but the point stands that those accused of one criminal offense maintain their rights to the justice system while others have their rights discarded and the police are given the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

The problem isn't the defense attorney, it's the law. These DUI-murder cases are always clear cut, yet too many seem to escape serious punishment. Remember, we live in the province that gave Daniel Tschetter 5.5 years for murdering 5 people, a rate of 1.1years/life destroyed. It is understandable that people hate defense attorneys for helping scumbags escape punishment, but they are not the problem.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by valo403

I know, eh? Its like people have never heard of due process.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Don't move the goalposts. Your statement about the advantages of driving drunker was completely incorrect.

Obviously there is hyperbole in there.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Guess you never needlessly lost a loved one to drunk driving. 20 years minimum if you kill someone. 5 years minimum for dui's. Don't like it, don't drink and drive.

As someone who witnessed my dad lose a good friend to drunk driving about 20 years ago I agree 100% with your post. I was only a kid, but I still remember the day my dad got the news and the day his kids (around my age) found out he had passed away. That day will never leave my memory. All because one selfish act, several lives were never the same. Kids never had a father their whole life and even though their mom re-married it just wasn't the same.

That jackass in the semi who killed the five people got what?, 3 years IIRC? That is an injustice.

Edit: I do think the new laws for drinking and driving are totally bullcrap though. They shouldn't be punished without even getting to fight it.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Guess you never needlessly lost a loved one to drunk driving. 20 years minimum if you kill someone. 5 years minimum for dui's. Don't like it, don't drink and drive.

No I haven't, and if you have, I'm sorry for your loss.

But turning into a police state where the punishment doesn't match the intent of the crime is not the answer.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

But turning into a police state where the punishment doesn't match the intent of the crime is not the answer.

Not one more SINGLE person should die because someone was driving drunk. End of story. If it takes giving people 20 years, then so be it. This poor man lost his wife because someone got drunk, got behind the wheel of a bullet and killed someone. End of story. I couldn't imagine that being MY wife.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

No I haven't, and if you have, I'm sorry for your loss.

But turning into a police state where the punishment doesn't match the intent of the crime is not the answer.

The intent is to drive drunk despite the knowledge that you're putting innocent lives at risk. I think Bertuzzied's proposed punishments match that intent just fine.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

No I haven't, and if you have, I'm sorry for your loss.

But turning into a police state where the punishment doesn't match the intent of the crime is not the answer.

20 years for murder is a pretty decent sentence. How is that a police state? I'm not asking for castration of rapists or the forced sterilization of poor people.

If that gang bang teacher can get up to 20 years for sleeping with her students, 20 years for murdering people with your car doesn't even compare.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by valo403

Depends on your viewpoint. If you place the ability to access the justice system and preserve your social liberties above all else you're much better off at 0.15 than you are at 0.06.

Now in reality i don't think anybody is going to be trading places with the accused here simply to have their day in court, but the point stands that those accused of one criminal offense maintain their rights to the justice system while others have their rights discarded and the police are given the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.

Right - but this isn't a problem with the status quo re: the people at 0.15, it's a serious problem re: the legal rights of the people at 0.06. In other words, the solution to "worse offenders have the ability to exercise their legal rights and less serious offenders don't" is not to take away the ability of the former group to exercise their legal rights.

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

If that gang bang teacher can get up to 20 years for sleeping with her students, 20 years for murdering people with your car doesn't even compare.

Again, this speaks to a problem with the American judicial system if she gets anything remotely close to 20 years for that. Why should the US system producing an absurd result mean that any other less ridiculous punishment by ours be considered a-ok?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Not one more SINGLE person should die because someone was driving drunk. End of story. If it takes giving people 20 years, then so be it. This poor man lost his wife because someone got drunk, got behind the wheel of a bullet and killed someone. End of story. I couldn't imagine that being MY wife.

The problem here is that you're trying to imagine it being your wife and putting yourself in the victim's shoes while at the same time trying to come up with a reasonable punishment. If it was my wife, I'd want the guy to die. In fact I'd want to kill him myself and make him suffer. It would be cruel, inhumane, barbaric. Which is exactly why the victim's sentiments are not taken into account in making these decisions.

You have to ask yourself, what would the 20 year sentence serve? If you're right, and handing out 20 years for this sort of thing means no one ever dies from drunk driving again (or almost no one does), then sign me up! However, I doubt that it'd be that effective a deterrent. I don't even know for sure that it would be a significantly greater deterrent than the current range of punishments that are meted out. There are plenty of other factors that also go into sentencing policy, and large government reports are drafted suggesting what that policy should be, after considering all of these variables. It is not a knee-jerk reaction on the basis of being pissed that this one thing happened.

FYI, I have never driven drunk in my entire life and never will. I judge those who do extremely harshly. But this kind of riled-up "lock them all up in Gitmo" talk whenever an incident like this happens doesn't actually serve any purpose. It's not all about revenge, it's about what's best for the country, and reasonable people can differ on what policy best reflects that.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the punishment for any drunk driver should be to get them exceptionally drunk and put them in a demolition derby with no safety equipment. I'd say thats pretty fair.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

The problem here is that you're trying to imagine it being your wife and putting yourself in the victim's shoes while at the same time trying to come up with a reasonable punishment. If it was my wife, I'd want the guy to die. In fact I'd want to kill him myself and make him suffer. It would be cruel, inhumane, barbaric. Which is exactly why the victim's sentiments are not taken into account in making these decisions.

I'm saying I couldn't imagine what this man is feeling. I'm not trying to put myself in his shoes and then dole out punishment. I simply think that whatever it takes to stop this sort of thing from happening, NEEDS to happen. If that is 20 year terms, then so be it. Whatever it takes to stop people from killing other people by driving drunk.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

drunk driving is stupid but we have to divorce emotion from punishment.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

drunk driving is stupid but we have to divorce emotion from punishment.

What does this even mean? care to expand?