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

[Table 5]

It's hard to take emotion out of something like this, but I do think the basic jist of the drunk driving laws being way too lax are justified no matter how someone feels about this particular case. Personally, I would love to see something like this:

First DUI - license suspended for 3 years. Put on public drunk drivers list. 6 months community service (ideally in some sort of trauma/paramedic related unit).
Second DUI - License suspended for 10 years. 2 years in jail....no early-release.
Third DUI - License suspended for life. 5 years in jail....no early-release.

Kill someone in a DUI-related accident - License suspended for life. 15 years jail for every person you kill.

Everyone makes mistakes, but this is one of those stupid irresponsible ones that no one should ever have an excuse for. Make the first one one really harsh so people have a chance to correct their behavior. My guess is that if someone has multiple DUI's, there's really no turning back for them as they just don't give a crap.

[Coys1882]

I hate these arguments about defence lawyers and the justice system and how they are a necessary evil to ensure the preservation of our justice system blah blah blah.

They go were the money goes and I think that's the problem. The Crown supplies the prosecution and the best lawyers get paid to defend, which means I'm not convinced that society is getting the best prosecution never mind criminals getting the best defence. . I think prosecution and defence should work for the Crown and assigned cases as needed.

Sometimes I want Dur representing society at the prosecution table instead of some crown prosecutor who doesn't have the skillz to pay the billz to make big bucks defending criminals.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, that seems reasonable.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Burninator

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.

You can't compare murder to a DUI. Murders that carry life sentances or death penalties are premeditated attacks, generally done by people who are a little off their rocker and obviously don't care about the consequences.

DUI and impaired driving rates could definitely be impacted by stiffer penalties since there is at least a small amount of cognizant decision making that goes into deciding "Im guess I'll be okay to drive, what are the chances I get caught?"; obviously, no, that doesn't apply to someone totally destroyed at 0.20 who has no such abilities. But stopping just a handful of those that are 0.06 and up would make a difference.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

IThey go were the money goes and I think that's the problem. The Crown supplies the prosecution and the best lawyers get paid to defend, which means I'm not convinced that society is getting the best prosecution never mind criminals getting the best defence.

No they don't. Maybe the best end up doing very well for themselves, but that's true in any profession or specialty area. No one gets into crim defense because they think it's the best way to rake in the dough. Overall, the best lawyers are the suits sitting up in the towers. That's where the top of the class goes.

[Coys1882]

But we're not talking about those types of lawyers are we?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

No they don't. Maybe the best end up doing very well for themselves, but that's true in any profession or specialty area. No one gets into crim defense because they think it's the best way to rake in the dough. Overall, the best lawyers are the suits sitting up in the towers. That's where the top of the class goes.

Two completely different classes of law. Criminal law and Litigation are two completely different animals.

[AR_Six]

He was characterizing it as a scenario where there was some sort of vast divide between these shark defense attorneys who are the brilliant cream of the legal crop going up against borderline mentally handicapped crown guys. It's not at all true. Maybe there's one or two defense guys who're head and shoulders better at this kind of stuff than whoever the Crown sends up against them, but for the most part you're not getting the gold medalist coming up against some wang who barely made it through law school. They're perfectly competent people working for the Crown office, they're not somehow massively overmatched by their private counterparts.

You could make the argument that they're stretched too thin, but that varies depending on where in this country you happen to be.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Kill someone in a DUI-related accident - License suspended for life. 15 years jail for every person you kill.

We don't even give people 15 years now for actual murder

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Two completely different classes of law. Criminal law and Litigation are two completely different animals.

This post is not directed at you, Reaper, but ...

The point is that criminal law, either defence or prosecution, are not where the guys who really just want to make money go. Hence the argument that the justice system is flawed because money-hungry power lawyers get into crim defence and upset the balance between prosecution and defence is flawed.

And there are very good lawyers in prosecution, people. They don't get paid as much as some defence lawyers but they get their own perks and they're still compensated very well.

Finally, this isn't the US. The Crown's job is not to secure as many convictions as possible, it's to get a result that suits the needs of justice, society, and the accused. Sometimes that's a conviction with a harsh penalty, sometimes it's alternative measures, sometimes it's a stay or an acquittal.

There's a lot of really simplistic viewpoints being tossed around in here like they're fact but they really belie a vast ignorance of the way the system actually functions and what its purpose is.

[troutman]

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi...uide/sech.html

The Crown Prosecutor

Crown prosecutors are government lawyers who prosecute criminal cases. To prosecute means to lay a charge in a criminal matter and to prepare and conduct legal proceedings against a person charged with a crime. In Canadian law, crimes are dealt with as wrongs against society as a whole, not simply as private matters between two people, even though individuals often suffer injury or damage. A Crown prosecutor is therefore not the victim's lawyer, but is acting on behalf of all members of the public.

The Crown prosecutor prepares the case by researching the law, gathering and reviewing evidence, exhibits, and paperwork for court and interviewing witnesses. The Crown prosecutor decides whether to lay a criminal charge in some jurisdictions, and whether there is enough evidence to justify taking the case to trial. The Crown prosecutor's role is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offence was committed by the accused. (The notion of reasonable doubt is discussed in more detail under Proof of Offences.)


The Defence Lawyer

A lawyer who represents a person charged with a criminal offence is known as a defence lawyer. It is the defence lawyer's job to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected throughout the criminal process. An accused person has a right to full disclosure of the case against them, including evidence that will be produced in court and statements of witnesses and victims. The defence lawyer may negotiate to have the charges withdrawn or to allow the accused to plead to a lesser charge. They may also explore the possibility of alternative measures for their client.

At trial, a defence lawyer must question the evidence put forward by the prosecution, examine the importance or relevance of that evidence, and explore other possible interpretations. The defence lawyer must do so within the limits of the law and according to ethical standards.

http://www.bonnlaw.ca/blog/?p=99

http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/43/1/0000/0

How can you defend all of those guilty murderers, child pornographers, sex perverts and terrorists?

This question, or some variation of it, has been asked of me and every defence lawyer I know at some point in their careers. It may be at a cocktail party or a dinner party or a hockey game; you just never know when someone will pose this question.

My answer is a simple one. I have never been hired by a person who is guilty. In fact, this question engages us in a discussion that goes to the very heart of the criminal justice system. As a matter of law, every person who is charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent. This is not some technicality. It is the pivotal legal right that belongs to all Canadians, and is an integral part of the supreme law of Canada, our constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

This post is not directed at you, Reaper, but ...

The point is that criminal law, either defence or prosecution, are not where the guys who really just want to make money go. Hence the argument that the justice system is flawed because money-hungry power lawyers get into crim defence and upset the balance between prosecution and defence is flawed.

And there are very good lawyers in prosecution, people. They don't get paid as much as some defence lawyers but they get their own perks and they're still compensated very well.

Finally, this isn't the US. The Crown's job is not to secure as many convictions as possible, it's to get a result that suits the needs of justice, society, and the accused. Sometimes that's a conviction with a harsh penalty, sometimes it's alternative measures, sometimes it's a stay or an acquittal.

There's a lot of really simplistic viewpoints being tossed around in here like they're fact but they really belie a vast ignorance of the way the system actually functions and what its purpose is.

While much of what you say might be true, you also can't ignore the fact that allowing those 'in the know' (plus politicians) to develop and run the current system has created a general unease and acceptance that the entire thing is hugely flawed.

I think the general populace would agree that far too many punishments don't match crimes and the rate of reoffending is unacceptable.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

The point is that criminal law, either defence or prosecution, are not where the guys who really just want to make money go. Hence the argument that the justice system is flawed because money-hungry power lawyers get into crim defence and upset the balance between prosecution and defence is flawed.

Well - all I have is my opinion, an opinion which has been formed by my former neighbour who was a Crown prosecutor for the last 15 years and he used to tell me how all the good young lawyers would come in - get jaded and move on into a civil or defence career.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

We don't even give people 15 years now for actual murder

Is this actually true?

The guys that make headlines never get out. I really don't know what happens to the run-of-the-mill people we've never heard of or don't remember.

A very brief search on the internet tells me it's a standard 25 year deal for an adult convicted of first-degree, but people are constantly saying otherwise. Anyone know the truth?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

And there are very good lawyers in prosecution, people. They don't get paid as much as some defence lawyers but they get their own perks and they're still compensated very well.

Finally, this isn't the US. The Crown's job is not to secure as many convictions as possible, it's to get a result that suits the needs of justice, society, and the accused. Sometimes that's a conviction with a harsh penalty, sometimes it's alternative measures, sometimes it's a stay or an acquittal.

Well said... As the saying goes, "the Crown never loses."

Not to mention crim defence is eat what you kill and a lot of those guys end up worling for the government anyway, for a really crappy rate. Being a crown guy is a government job - it's necessarily lower paying than general counsel at Encana, but certainly not necessarily lower paying than being at a 3 lawyer shop defending DUI's. I feel like a lot of these assumptions are basically generated by TV shows.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Table 5

It's hard to take emotion out of something like this, but I do think the basic jist of the drunk driving laws being way too lax are justified no matter how someone feels about this particular case. Personally, I would love to see something like this:

First DUI - license suspended for 3 years. Put on public drunk drivers list. 6 months community service (ideally in some sort of trauma/paramedic related unit).
Second DUI - License suspended for 10 years. 2 years in jail....no early-release.
Third DUI - License suspended for life. 5 years in jail....no early-release.

Kill someone in a DUI-related accident - License suspended for life. 15 years jail for every person you kill.

Everyone makes mistakes, but this is one of those stupid irresponsible ones that no one should ever have an excuse for. Make the first one one really harsh so people have a chance to correct their behavior. My guess is that if someone has multiple DUI's, there's really no turning back for them as they just don't give a crap.

This is one of the most rational, & appropriately written posts in this thread.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

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

Next step. Look up the definition of murder.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I hate these arguments about defence lawyers and the justice system and how they are a necessary evil to ensure the preservation of our justice system blah blah blah.

They go were the money goes and I think that's the problem. The Crown supplies the prosecution and the best lawyers get paid to defend, which means I'm not convinced that society is getting the best prosecution never mind criminals getting the best defence. . I think prosecution and defence should work for the Crown and assigned cases as needed.

Sometimes I want Dur representing society at the prosecution table instead of some crown prosecutor who doesn't have the skillz to pay the billz to make big bucks defending criminals.

I suppose you're a-okay with massively increased taxes to pay for this, right?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

He was characterizing it as a scenario where there was some sort of vast divide between these shark defense attorneys who are the brilliant cream of the legal crop going up against borderline mentally handicapped crown guys. It's not at all true. Maybe there's one or two defense guys who're head and shoulders better at this kind of stuff than whoever the Crown sends up against them, but for the most part you're not getting the gold medalist coming up against some wang who barely made it through law school. They're perfectly competent people working for the Crown office, they're not somehow massively overmatched by their private counterparts.

You could make the argument that they're stretched too thin, but that varies depending on where in this country you happen to be.

Not to mention the fact that a pretty decent amount of top defense attorneys got their start working for *gasp* the prosecution.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

This post is not directed at you, Reaper, but ...

The point is that criminal law, either defence or prosecution, are not where the guys who really just want to make money go. Hence the argument that the justice system is flawed because money-hungry power lawyers get into crim defence and upset the balance between prosecution and defence is flawed.

And there are very good lawyers in prosecution, people. They don't get paid as much as some defence lawyers but they get their own perks and they're still compensated very well.

Finally, this isn't the US. The Crown's job is not to secure as many convictions as possible, it's to get a result that suits the needs of justice, society, and the accused. Sometimes that's a conviction with a harsh penalty, sometimes it's alternative measures, sometimes it's a stay or an acquittal.

There's a lot of really simplistic viewpoints being tossed around in here like they're fact but they really belie a vast ignorance of the way the system actually functions and what its purpose is.

That's not the job of the prosecution in the US. I understand that there is a political element, but that's a massive mischaracterization.