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

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

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.

If you're not, then great, but it sure seems like a lot of people are, especially on that last page when the anecdotes were coming out.

As for doing whatever it takes to stop people, I'm not sure any amount of supplementary punishment will do it. Even if all cars were required to be equipped with breathalyzers that would prevent you from starting your car unless you blow under .06, people would still manage to drive drunk. People kind of suck.

Originally Posted by Iginla

What does this even mean? care to expand?

He means that peoples' inevitable lynch-mob like emotional reaction to these stories should not factor in to what the punishment is for negligent driving causing death as a result of intoxication.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by Iginla

What does this even mean? care to expand?

I'm not sure how you'd like me to expand on that. All I'm saying is when you're deciding how long this scumbag goes to jail for, you don't let emotion cloud your decision. When someone says "how'd you like to be the victims father or mother" it doesn't hold much weight with me because that person is suffering and blinded by anger and loss.

It'd be like letting police ask a child who's bike just got stolen what they'd like to do to punish the thief.

[Bertuzzied]

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.

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.

How would you know a 20 year sentence wouldn't work? Well we know one is for sure. these 12 to 16 month sentences don't work. If ramdeep doesn't want to be ramdeeped for 20 years maybe he wouldn't have executed those 2 people with his car.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

People kind of suck.

No truer words have been spoken.

I'm not sure what the answer is here, and you are right, we shouldn't be suggesting punishment with emotion, but I simply can't fathom how this continues to happen and stronger punishments don't arise from it; Enough to perhaps really make people think twice about getting behind the wheel drunk.

[RT14]

Originally Posted by gonzo29

I think you've got that backwards.

Whoops, yeah, what I said but reversed.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

How would you know a 20 year sentence wouldn't work? Well we know one is for sure. these 12 to 16 month sentences don't work. If ramdeep doesn't want to be ramdeeped for 20 years maybe he wouldn't have executed those 2 people with his car.

I don't know it wouldn't work. I do know that whether it worked or not, it would have other consequences, among them an incredibly high enforcement cost, but there would be tons of repercussions to doing something like that and without careful study and probably a gradual change (rather than just passing your amended version of the criminal code tomorrow), it could be catastrophic. I also know that "this isn't working" isn't a reason by itself to try some random extreme idea out that might not work any better and would have other far-reaching implications that the person proposing the idea hasn't thought of and probably isn't qualified to think through.

Maybe he wouldn't have driven drunk, but maybe he would. I don't know. I am not qualified to say. Neither are you. There are people who study sentencing policy for a career. They might be able to help. Maybe they already have published plenty of stuff that could answer your question. If they have, and it contains findings to the effect of "negligent MVA-related homicide could be largely eliminated if we institute 20 year sentences", I feel like someone would have made a big stink about it in the news, but you never know.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

No truer words have been spoken.

I'm not sure what the answer is here, and you are right, we shouldn't be suggesting punishment with emotion, but I simply can't fathom how this continues to happen and stronger punishments don't arise from it; Enough to perhaps really make people think twice about getting behind the wheel drunk.

Personally, I don't get why the mandatory breathalyzer device in every car isn't a thing... An ounce of prevention and all that. I'm sure the automotive industry would hate it, it would drive car costs up, and those things have to be kept calibrated so regular maintenance costs would go up, and etc. etc. etc... but still, it seems to me that it would make a huge, huge difference. Even if it was only mandatory for people who had been caught over 0.06, it would probably make at least some sort of dent.

Again, I'm proposing some sort of radical solution that someone has probably already thought through in great depth and published some article about why it is or isn't a good idea.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

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.

Agreed completely, simply pointing out that Locke's statement about the individual accused of the more serious crime being better off is accurate if you prioritize the ability to actually exercise your due process rights.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

I'm not sure how you'd like me to expand on that. All I'm saying is when you're deciding how long this scumbag goes to jail for, you don't let emotion cloud your decision. When someone says "how'd you like to be the victims father or mother" it doesn't hold much weight with me because that person is suffering and blinded by anger and loss.

It'd be like letting police ask a child who's bike just got stolen what they'd like to do to punish the thief.

So all current laws and the length of punishment is correct and should never be changed? I think if we all took a step back and took out the emotion, everyone can agree that our drinking and driving laws are way too lenient.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So all current laws and the length of punishment is correct and should never be changed?

This is a ridiculous way to cast someone's position. Do you really think that anyone thinks this? If so there's no point in even talking to you. If not, why would you say it?

I think if we all took a step back and took out the emotion, everyone can agree that our drinking and driving laws are way too lenient.

I don't know that that's the case. I could be convinced that it is. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you were absolutely right. But someone needs to actually make a case for that, and "this guy is an ####### and this other guy's poor wife is dead" is not a convincing case.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So all current laws and the length of punishment is correct and should never be changed? I think if we all took a step back and took out the emotion, everyone can agree that our drinking and driving laws are way too lenient.

Perhaps you should attempt this

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by valo403

Perhaps you should attempt this

*steps back* Yes. 20 years for murdering someone with their car sounds right .

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

How would you know a 20 year sentence wouldn't work? Well we know one is for sure. these 12 to 16 month sentences don't work. If ramdeep doesn't want to be ramdeeped for 20 years maybe he wouldn't have executed those 2 people with his car.

It's really tough to take anything you say seriously when you use a word like "executing" when talking about accidental vehicular manslaughter.

[Flacker]

5 years for a DUI, you obviously have no idea what kind of cost to the justice system that would carry. And 20 years for DUI causing death is just delusional, first degree murder carries a maximum life sentence in Canada (25 years), which is premeditated and clearly a homocide.

The CP lynch mob is out in full force on this one.

I am strictly against driving after any amount of alcohol but a dose of objectivity is needed here. Victims or close relations to victims don't get to set sentences for a reason.

[Locke]

It never ceases to amaze me that the drunk driver walks away almost completely unscathed.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

*steps back* Yes. 20 years for murdering someone with their car sounds right .

Just keep in mind that technically this wasn't murder; it was manslaughter.

But let's look at this a little further. To me the biggest crime here wasn't the impaired driving, but the driving at 2-3 times the speed limit. I would even think that it might be easier to prove recklessness in that he was going that fast, as opposed to being impaired.

Also looking at this further, what about if somebody kills another person because they were texting while driving? What is the penalty there?

I do agree that we need tougher impaired driving laws. However it needs to be looked at further; and maybe have a few other classifications of vehicular manslaghter in there as well.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

How would you know a 20 year sentence wouldn't work? Well we know one is for sure. these 12 to 16 month sentences don't work. If ramdeep doesn't want to be ramdeeped for 20 years maybe he wouldn't have executed those 2 people with his car.

Many states in the US have the death penalty and literal life in prison sentences and it hasn't stopped rape or murder compared to states with lesser punishments. It's not hard to imagine it would have similar results here.

Personally I would like to see significantly stiffer punishments for people who are habitual drunk drivers. Those people are the bigger problem and are easier to catch. It's impossible to stop the one time drunk driver who blows through an intersection. But the person that has done it multiple times will continue to do it. My uncle worked with a person who had killed someone while driving drunk. He continued to drink and drive till his day in court, hell he was even drunk in court. That type of person needs to be punished harshly. He did go to jail and was fired from his job BTW.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Locke

It never ceases to amaze me that the drunk driver walks away almost completely unscathed.

I think it is because the intoxicated person is usually so relaxed and they don't see the accident coming. As a result, when the accident occurs they rag doll and instead of instinctively trying to brace themselves they let momentum take its course.

[crazy_eoj]

I think they should let the family of the victim have a strong say in or even decide the punishment in these cases.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

It never ceases to amaze me that the drunk driver walks away almost completely unscathed.

It is unfortunate.