Victim of deadly crash hated the thought of drunk driving

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I dunno about the rational act argument. I've been irrationally drunk many a-time, and I've never driven drunk.

If I can uphold my care for myself and others while plastered, why can't other people? I'd argue it's because they don't think they'll get caught or they don't think anything bad will happen to them. And if nothing else, stiffer penalties can't possibly result in increased incidents of drunk driving, can it?

The two road bikers who were killed outside Pemberton last week were hit by a thrice-convicted drunk driver who was driving on a suspended license. Just so tragic.

From my experience, "entitlement" seems to increase proportionally in a lot of drunk people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I dunno about the rational act argument. I've been irrationally drunk many a-time, and I've never driven drunk.

If I can uphold my care for myself and others while plastered, why can't other people? I'd argue it's because they don't think they'll get caught or they don't think anything bad will happen to them. And if nothing else, stiffer penalties can't possibly result in increased incidents of drunk driving, can it?

The two road bikers who were killed outside Pemberton last week were hit by a thrice-convicted drunk driver who was driving on a suspended license. Just so tragic.

Ugh. Sometimes I wonder if I should get a job working for MADD or something. I really, really hate that drunk driving happens.

To me that's represents the ultimate failure of the system, and the ultimate failure of that person.

But with the police, sadly they can't really prevent that idiot from driving with a suspension. I'm hoping though that the judge has enough and throws the book at the scumbag.

[CliffFletcher]

Most of those responsible for drunk driving fatalities are habitual drunk-drivers, typically alcoholics, who drive while way over the limit. It's difficult to catch these people without a lot of expensive enforcement, and impossible to keep them off the streets without putting them in jail (which is where they belong).

So instead of doing these very tough(and expensive) things, the government makes ineffective gestures like reducing the impaired blood level from 0.08 to 0.05 (without any data to suggest there's a significant problem with drivers with between 0.05 and 0.08 blood alcohol level). It makes them look like they're getting tough, and good, law-abiding citizens (you know, the ones who don't drive drunk anyway) change their behaviour. But it does nothing to address the real problem.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

instead of doing these very tough(and expensive) things, the government makes ineffective gestures like reducing the impaired blood level from 0.08 to 0.05 (without any data to suggest there's a significant problem with drivers with between 0.05 and 0.08 blood alcohol level). It makes them look like they're getting tough, and good, law-abiding citizens (you know, the ones who don't drive drunk anyway) change their behaviour. But it does nothing to address the real problem.

Yup. And this is why I think MADD should go f*** themselves. They champion prohibition instead of addressing the root of the problem.

"We still have so many people driving over .08, how are we going to fix that?"

"I know! Lets lower that even further to .05!"

Where the #### is the logic there?! Instead of suggesting ways to reduce the number of drunk drivers, they seemingly want to increase the number by including more people. Their agenda is sketchy as hell.

[AC]

Bump: Drunk driver who killed 2 people in Calgary crash won’t be deported to home country
https://globalnews.ca/news/4138818/d...mpression=true

Spent less than 500 days in jail out of his 4.5 year sentence. Pathetic.

[Russic]

Seems to be the going rate these days. The guy I know who killed 4 people a few years back served about 6 months/per person. At least staying off alcohol is a condition of his parole... although he went through AA (which has brutal success rates), so he could easily be back in trouble within a few years.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AC

Bump: Drunk driver who killed 2 people in Calgary crash won’t be deported to home country
https://globalnews.ca/news/4138818/d...mpression=true

Spent less than 500 days in jail out of his 4.5 year sentence. Pathetic.

The won't be deported thing is misleading. He's came here when he was 5.

The DD causing death punishments really need to be increased to life in prison without parole for X years. This way you can have permenant conditions like restrictions from using alcohol.

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by Russic

Seems to be the going rate these days. The guy I know who killed 4 people a few years back served about 6 months/per person. At least staying off alcohol is a condition of his parole... although he went through AA (which has brutal success rates), so he could easily be back in trouble within a few years.

Do you have some evidence for that? Part the problem is that it is anonymous, so it's hard to gather a ton of evidence. However...

A study conducted on males from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs showed abstinence rates of those recovering from alcohol abuse at one year and 18 months. Approximately, 20-25 percent of those who didn’t attend a 12-Step program, such as AA, or another aftercare program were abstinent from alcohol and drugs after one year. On the other hand, the abstinence rate was nearly twice as high for those who attended AA or another similar 12-Step program without any aftercare. The results were evident that the more meetings people attended and the longer they were in the program, the greater the chances of alcohol and drug abstinence.

Additionally, participants might not want to admit to relapse. Moreover, the people who attend meetings change constantly since people drop out, sometimes after only a few meetings, states Scientific American. In fact, 40 percent of people drop out of AA after the first few meetings.

Seems those that stay get pretty good results, but many drop out early. In many cases it seems people drop out due to the spirituality of the program.

https://americanaddictioncenters.org...ss-rate-of-aa/

I think at the end of the day, it works for some, but not for others. It's important people find what works for them.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by AC

Bump: Drunk driver who killed 2 people in Calgary crash won’t be deported to home country
https://globalnews.ca/news/4138818/d...mpression=true

Spent less than 500 days in jail out of his 4.5 year sentence. Pathetic.

Guess money can buy you a one way ticket out of jail now.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Guess money can buy you a one way ticket out of jail now.

That or it was a combination of pre-trial custody credit and time served.

I’d say that’s more likely than buying of a corrections official

[Northendzone]

pathetic he got such a short sentence

[burn_this_city]

The time served is ridiculous, but I don't think deporting someone who came here as a 5 year old is appropriate either.

[AC]

I think the deportation angle is based on the killer being here for 18 years now and never applied for citizenship.

Regardless, he should still be in jail at the very least.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

I think at the end of the day, it works for some, but not for others. It's important people find what works for them.

You're quite correct, my statement was a little too black and white. I wonder in prison do you have a choice of program, or is it just mandated AA?

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Russic

You're quite correct, my statement was a little too black and white. I wonder in prison do you have a choice of program, or is it just mandated AA?

It would not be forced on him. But it would be a part of his correction plan. So the fact that he was released now would be because he chose to take the programming. Wether out of only wanting a better chance of being released early or because he wanted the help only he knows. But it cannot he forced on you to take these programs only that by not doing so you will stay in jail longer.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GGG

The won't be deported thing is misleading. He's came here when he was 5.

The DD causing death punishments really need to be increased to life in prison without parole for X years. This way you can have permenant conditions like restrictions from using alcohol.

Interesting view point.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with idea of life sentences for crimes that lack intent. There are allot of things that could be said about drunk driving, but I think applying criminal intent to the second order effects of impaired decisions is a stretch. The intention of our criminal justice system is first and foremost rehabilitation. I don't know much about this person, but I would guess those facing the any prison time and the stigma of these events have undergone allot of change very quickly, and for the vast majority of people facing these consequences there is a fairly quick path to rehabilitation.

We do have civil courts for reciprocity, but they notably do not have the power to restrict the rights or freedoms of people for a reason.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by #-3

Interesting view point.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with idea of life sentences for crimes that lack intent. There are allot of things that could be said about drunk driving, but I think applying criminal intent to the second order effects of impaired decisions is a stretch. The intention of our criminal justice system is first and foremost rehabilitation. I don't know much about this person, but I would guess those facing the any prison time and the stigma of these events have undergone allot of change very quickly, and for the vast majority of people facing these consequences there is a fairly quick path to rehabilitation.

We do have civil courts for reciprocity, but they notably do not have the power to restrict the rights or freedoms of people for a reason.

One the act of drinking and driving is an intentional act and not a decision is made to do it while sober before a person takes their first drink. No one accidently drinks and drives.

I think the big part of the life sentence in this case is about preventing recidivism. Parole conditions of abstaining from drugs and alcohol are important restrictions or ignition interlocks . I think that more crimes should have longer term restrictions on rights of people not to punish but to reduce recidivism and protect society.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by pylon

And it is the easiest to avoid commit crime in existence. You simply call a cab, or walk. You have to be a special form of stupid to even put yourself in the position to get caught.

The only thing I do have an issue with, is if you sleep it off in your car, you can still get convicted if you are in possession of the keys, that's BS in my opinion. I was super wasted at The Back Alley when I was young once, it was pouring rain, and all I had was my license with me, I'd burned through all my cash, and couldn't get a cab. So I just decided to sleep it off in my passenger seat. Cop knocks on the window at 4:00 in the morning, hauls me out of my car, and tells me he's cutting me a break, and he could charge me with DUI right there. I ended up having to walk completed plastered back to Oakridge where I was living without a coat in freezing rain. It took me close to 2 hours.

They should have a rule where if you lay your keys on the dash it's a signal you are sleeping it off or something.

Agree with this whole post, I've had a few friends who've got DUIs for sleeping in the backseat with keys in their centre console, and another friend who unlocked his truck and reached in the passenger door to get some smokes. And got a DUI

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by pylon

And it is the easiest to avoid commit crime in existence. You simply call a cab, or walk. You have to be a special form of stupid to even put yourself in the position to get caught.

The only thing I do have an issue with, is if you sleep it off in your car, you can still get convicted if you are in possession of the keys, that's BS in my opinion. I was super wasted at The Back Alley when I was young once, it was pouring rain, and all I had was my license with me, I'd burned through all my cash, and couldn't get a cab. So I just decided to sleep it off in my passenger seat. Cop knocks on the window at 4:00 in the morning, hauls me out of my car, and tells me he's cutting me a break, and he could charge me with DUI right there. I ended up having to walk completed plastered back to Oakridge where I was living without a coat in freezing rain. It took me close to 2 hours.

They should have a rule where if you lay your keys on the dash it's a signal you are sleeping it off or something.

Agree with this whole post, I've had a few friends who've got DUIs for sleeping in the backseat with keys in their centre console, and another friend who unlocked his truck and reached in the passenger door to get some smokes. And got a DUI

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GGG

One the act of drinking and driving is an intentional act and not a decision is made to do it while sober before a person takes their first drink. No one accidently drinks and drives.

I think the big part of the life sentence in this case is about preventing recidivism. Parole conditions of abstaining from drugs and alcohol are important restrictions or ignition interlocks . I think that more crimes should have longer term restrictions on rights of people not to punish but to reduce recidivism and protect society.

That is just not the definition of criminal intent. as far a the charge of man slaughter goes.

I do understand that there can be criminal intent in committing the crime of drinking and driving although in my opinion it would pretty had to proven someone is guilty of unimpaired intent when being charged for being impaired. I do think there is a place in our justice system for addressing the unintentional consequences.

To have a liberal, rehabilitation focused justice system, we have to avoid seeking retribution for 2nd or 3rd order effects and focus on the what actions people are willing to take in the future and what lessons they will learn from the punishment they receive.

I also wonder if there is any evidence that extending sentences in these circumstances would have an effect on recidivism? I know there is ample evidence that increasing punishment for drug crimes actually increases recidivism, and I think the circumstances are very different for a person who had the intent of doing harm. This seems to be an assumption you are making that I doubt.

Taking away what is likely the 50% - 75% of a persons remaining productive life is teaching them they are of no use to society and those people scare me allot more than the person who has learnt drinking and driving can cause personal injury, moral injury and the loss of liberty for nearly 4 years.