Kill someone while drunk driving in Canada = 5 year prison sentence

[valo403]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I know that drunk drivers don't intend to kill anyone, but they do intend to put lives at risk when they get behind the wheel.

I agree, just saying that legal intent and the way we typically think of intent are different things.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think that would be legitimate if we were talking about operating rock quarrys by hand, but highway crews? Labor can even be of help with rehabilitation if used correctly, if you can teach a misfit kid a skill or at least give him some self worth through work I'd say you've taken a big step towards avoiding repeated offenses.

I agree, even though I always thought that moving a pile of rocks by hand all day for 5 years would be excellent punishment.

I have seen minor offenders doing garbage cleanup here in Calgary, but I don't think there's any revenue generated by that for the prison system.

I would love to see the idea of voluntary sentences like they used to do in the juvy system. You can serve 5 years at an institute, or 3 years at labor.

I used to like the army sentence to, where they would send you to join the army, but I don't know if we want some gang banger who shot a girl in the mall in the army.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I know that drunk drivers don't intend to kill anyone, but they do intend to put lives at risk when they get behind the wheel.

They intend to put lives at risk? I'm not sure if they intend to do that. Most just want to go home. They intend to get home. Putting other drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk is usually an afterthought to the process.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Reaper

They intend to put lives at risk? I'm not sure if they intend to do that. Most just want to go home. They intend to get home. Putting other drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk is usually an afterthought to the process.

Getting home is the motivation, but if you do something that you know will put lives at risk, you intend to put lives at risk.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats why we need hard labour sentences that can generate money for these convicts sentences. I'm all for bringing back road gangs who can clear areas, do road repair, repair buildings etc.

While there are more lenient systems out there, I'm betting that the complaints from the people there are similar.

While part of prison sentences have to take rehabilitation into account our prisons do have that aspect, there has to be both a punishment associated with the crime and a public safety aspect.

In this guys case, he's a multiple offender so obviously going easy on him didn't work, he continued the behavior, plus the drunk driving crime is inexusible and selfish, there's no excuse for it.

5 years might be fine depending on how long he served, even though I don't believe it because he murdered this woman in what I interpret as an intentional manner. I have a lot of trouble with a limited driving ban as well.

Though they aren't exactly "chain gangs" per se, I see a gang of prisoners every day on some point of the interstates around here...and they are keeping the medians and ditched litter free.

You know you are cooming up on them as the bus will be pulled over at the side towing a port-a-potty, and DOC written all over everything. Then sure enough at some point in the next mile or so, there they are, usually about 20 of em...filling bag after bag full of garbage. Its a great idea as it serves a public purpose and lets those guys get out of the prison for a while and get some excercise.

The first time I saw them however, i was kind of taken aback as there are always two guards, one at the front of the group and one at the back, and they tore the biggest freaking shotguns I have even seen. Being new from Canada where you just dont see a lot of guns in pubklic period, it kind of freaked me out, but have since come to understand why they use them.

[FlamingStuffedTiger]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intend

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Reaper

They intend to put lives at risk? I'm not sure if they intend to do that. Most just want to go home. They intend to get home. Putting other drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk is usually an afterthought to the process.

I don't think thats an excuse or an acceptable motivation. We've seen enough destruction caused by drunk driving and we've spent millions on public education on drunk driving.

So just wanting to get home after pounding an a few isn't a defense and isn't an excuse.

They might only be intending to get home, but everyone knows that getting into a vehicle that weighs thousands of pounds after drinking is putting your life, other peoples lives and property at risk.

This to me should be a deadly sin crime for lack of a better word.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Reaper

They intend to put lives at risk? I'm not sure if they intend to do that. Most just want to go home. They intend to get home. Putting other drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk is usually an afterthought to the process.

Intent wouldn't matter if they treated drunk driving offenses like a manslaughter or murder charge.

After thought shouldn't matter with all of the public education on the subject.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by FlamingStuffedTiger

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intend

2.intend - design or destine; "She was intended to become the director"

1.destine - To determine beforehand; preordain

So, yeah, I'd say they intend to put lives at risk by getting behind the wheel while drunk. If you'd be happier though, you could say that they knowingly put lives at risk. Either way, the point is that "I didn't mean to hurt anybody" is no excuse.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I'm not sure one would be cheaper than the other.

I wasn't saying it would be - I'd just rather it, I think society would get more out of the money.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I really disagree with this, and I'm not talking about 20 year sentences or anything like that.

I should have been more clear and re-reading what I posted I can't blame you for disagreeing with me.

I was more referring to people looking for 20 years of jail time instead of 5. I would rather that person spend a bit of hard time and then get them back into society, namely working, so that they can truly 'repay' their debt to the victims. The 'sentence' shouldn't end with jail time. It should be a lifelong commitment to the people they wronged.

Sitting in a prison isn't going to put the victim's kids through college - the idiot who killed her should.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Intent wouldn't matter if they treated drunk driving offenses like a manslaughter or murder charge.

After thought shouldn't matter with all of the public education on the subject.

Oddly enough the difference between treating something as manslaughter or murder is intent.

I don't oppose treating drunk driving offenses as mansluaghter, but without legal intent murder just doesn't really fit.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by valo403

Oddly enough the difference between treating something as manslaughter or murder is intent.

I don't oppose treating drunk driving offenses as mansluaghter, but without legal intent murder just doesn't really fit.

That's not necessarily true. Killing with extreme indifference to the value of human life is still murder (2nd degree in the U.S., though I'm not sure how it works in Canada), and I'd argue that driving drunk is about as "indifferent to the value of human life" as you can get. Either way, what we call it is less important than how we punish it.

[FlamingStuffedTiger]

Originally Posted by gargamel

So, yeah, I'd say they intend to put lives at risk by getting behind the wheel while drunk. If you'd be happier though, you could say that they knowingly put lives at risk. Either way, the point is that "I didn't mean to hurt anybody" is no excuse.

I did not intend to argue for or against anyone's use of "intend/intent" really. I just thought it might be helpful if everyone had a common definition of intent to work with is all

[valo403]

Originally Posted by gargamel

That's not necessarily true. Killing with extreme indifference to the value of human life is still murder (2nd degree in the U.S., though I'm not sure how it works in Canada), and I'd argue that driving drunk is about as "indifferent to the value of human life" as you can get. Either way, what we call it is less important than how we punish it.

You get into a grey area with extreme indifference homicide, it becomes a highly statutory area and varies considerably from state to state.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by FlamingStuffedTiger

I did not intend to argue for or against your use of "intend" really. I just thought it might be helpful if everyone had a common definition of intent to work with is all

Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you. The definition supported both sides of the argument, so I thought I had to jump on it before Mickey or whoever else tried to use it to imply that driving drunk isn't that bad because all the killers really mean to do is get home after a tough day of work.

I have too much emotionally invested in this topic for it to make much sense for me to get into an internet argument about it anyway.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamingStuffedTiger

I did not intend to argue for or against anyone's use of "intend/intent" really. I just thought it might be helpful if everyone had a common definition of intent to work with is all

Except the dictionary definition of intent isn't really applicable here

[Coach]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

ntent n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

Here is the definition as well as some explanation of criminal intent.

Saying someone intends to cause harm to others by getting behind the wheel drunk is like saying a guy who is hunting and shoots at a deer, misses and the bullet travels far enough and hits a person has the intent to kill someone (theres probably a better analogy for this but im thinking off the top of my head). Yes the driver imposes risks on others and himself, but there is not INTENT to harm anyone.

[FlamingStuffedTiger]

Originally Posted by valo403

Except the dictionary definition of intent isn't really applicable here

If we must talk about intent as criminal intent in the strict legal sense, then you are correct. But, for the purposes of generating a discussion between people who may or may not be familiar with using legal terminology, a dictionary definition of intent seems like a somewhat useful and quick approximation to me.

But really, debating this point further would probably be detrimental the original purpose of this thread...

[T@T]

Man, threads like this only prove how times have changed over the years, when I was a kid we use walk a curb with our hands behind our back drunk out of our marbles. the guy who walked the farthest without slipping off was the driver to get us all home!

Originally Posted by Sowa

I don't think that the Stallworth case is that mind boggling. Apparently on the video from the accident the man darted into traffic and probably would have been hit by a sober driver. Yes Stallworth should be punished for driving drunk, but he wasn't completely at fault. I am probably alone on this one though.

Totally agree, the guy jumped over a partition wall on a freeway
Stallworth shouldn't have been driving but I suspect it's more of a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

BTW 5 years is in line for any manslaughter case in Canada, killing someone while drunk driving is vehicular manslaughter not vehicular murder.