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

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think it's hilarious that you acknowledge an even more lenient sentence in a US court and then move on to a shot at the Canadian justice system. Bravo.

Wasn't it the family of the person who died who agreed to the sentence Stallworth?

Did Stallworth have a history of DUI's?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Then why give anyone longer than 5 years?

because some people intend to kill people and need to be locked up for longer because theyre not normal people. There is something psychologically wrong with them. I dont know the circumstances of the case, like I said I'm really just playing devil's advocate

[Lanny's Stache]

There are a lot of cases like this one out there, but for some reasong this one really bothers me.

The entire time he was under house arrest, he kept petitioning the courts for more lenient terms. It was not enought that he could continue to work, but he needed to go to his kids' soccer games, and essentially continue with his normal life. That is turning point for me. To think you have the right to a normal life just after killing a woman in front of her 8 year old daughter? They can say that he has all the remorse in the world, but his actions say the opposite.

People like this guy have been given more chances than they deserve. He was given an opportunity to get his **it together, and chose to get behind the wheel while drunk. How many other times has he done this and not get caught? I know that we are supposed to rehabilitate people, but at some point you need to decide if it is worth it. I think he has proven that he is not worth it at this point.

[bcb]

I agree that what the guy did was morally reprehensable; however, the man who allegedly stalked a lady as she left Franklin Station, then raped and murdered her probably deserves a tad more time in prison.

[Coys1882]

I'm not 100% sure jail time is the most appropriate for someone who kills someone while driving drunk either. If they are a repeat offender and caught driving while suspended then sure - that's someone who obviously is showing no signs of getting themselves turned around and doesn't give a crap about the safety of the public. We can all make a mistake once - it's what you do after that shows what kind of human being you are.

Rather than spend the money to jail them for life - I'd like to see them forced sober for life and tested weekly. Add to that they are financially responsible for the children left behind.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I'm not 100% sure jail time is the most appropriate for someone who kills someone while driving drunk either. If they are a repeat offender and caught driving while suspended then sure - that's someone who obviously is showing no signs of getting themselves turned around and doesn't give a crap about the safety of the public. We can all make a mistake once - it's what you do after that shows what kind of human being you are.

Rather than spend the money to jail them for life - I'd like to see them forced sober for life and tested weekly. Add to that they are financially responsible for the children left behind.

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

But we see public service ads on T.V. everyday about drunk driving. We see flyers and ads every day, we see news stories every day about drunk driving.

There is no real debate on it, we know that its totally illegal, that it causes a great deal of social suffering and society as a whole should revile it.

Drinking and driving is pretty much equivalent to picking up a pistol and shooting it randomly at the mall.

I think because of the social awareness of the problem that the punishment does have to include punishment, to me there's no excuse for it.

Especially in the case when someone died as a result of this persons selfishness.

It also sounds like this guy is not only a multiple time offender but also isn't showing a lot of regret.

At the end of the day, I think the jail term is warrented, but it could be longer to reflect the death of the person. I think the driving suspension is a joke, it should be for life.

I think his car should have been taken and sold and the proceeds go to a charity in the victims name.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MattyC

because some people intend to kill people and need to be locked up for longer because theyre not normal people. There is something psychologically wrong with them. I dont know the circumstances of the case, like I said I'm really just playing devil's advocate

I just don't get the whole drugs/alcohol give people an excuse out of their actions. Just like that cement truck driver in Calgary who killed 5 people and got less than 10 years in prison.

It's really too bad the drunk driver is usually the only one to survive.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by MattyC

because some people intend to kill people and need to be locked up for longer because theyre not normal people. There is something psychologically wrong with them. I dont know the circumstances of the case, like I said I'm really just playing devil's advocate

If you shoot a gun into a crowd because you think it would be fun to see what happens and someone dies, should you really receive a lesser sentence than if you shoot a gun at a person because you want to kill them? When you get behind the wheel while drunk, you know that you're putting other people's lives at risk, but you don't care. If you kill someone while doing that, you should be punished severely.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Wasn't it the family of the person who died who agreed to the sentence Stallworth?

Did Stallworth have a history of DUI's?

No idea on the first one, nad I don't believe he had a history.

My point is that the whole 'Canadian justice system is so horrible' argument is ridiculous. There are countless systems around the globe that are much more lenient than the Canadain system in almost every respect, but there's always people moaning about how weak the justice system is in Canada. I don't mind the complaints about sentences being too weak (although I'd like to hear an argument that addresses the increased cost burdens longer sentences would create, and the evidence that indicates such a system wouldn't result in significant reductions in crime), but the bashing of a system that is still one of the better ones globally gets pretty tiring.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Rather than spend the money to jail them for life - I'd like to see them forced sober for life and tested weekly.

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

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by gargamel

If you shoot a gun into a crowd because you think it would be fun to see what happens and someone dies, should you really receive a lesser sentence than if you shoot a gun at a person because you want to kill them? When you get behind the wheel while drunk, you know that you're putting other people's lives at risk, but you don't care. If you kill someone while doing that, you should be punished severely.

What a silly comparison........

If you shoot a gun into a crowd, you know without a doubt that someone will get hurt or killed. There is intent....

Your average Joe who has a few drinks after work has zero intent to kill someone, they just want to get home...

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I just don't get the whole drugs/alcohol give people an excuse out of their actions.

i never said that

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

What a silly comparison........

If you shoot a gun into a crowd, you know without a doubt that someone will get hurt or killed. There is intent....

Your average Joe who has a few drinks after work has zero intent to kill someone, they just want to get home...

If you shoot a gun into a spare crowd, you don't know without a doubt that someone will get hurt or killed. You know that it might happen, but by your definition, there's no intent.

The average Joe who has a few drinks after work probably isn't going to kill someone, but if he gets loaded and drives, then he does intend to put other people's lives at risk. If I did something while knowing that it would risk your life and you died from it, that's enough intent for me to deserve some severe punishment.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

No idea on the first one, nad I don't believe he had a history.

My point is that the whole 'Canadian justice system is so horrible' argument is ridiculous. There are countless systems around the globe that are much more lenient than the Canadain system in almost every respect, but there's always people moaning about how weak the justice system is in Canada. I don't mind the complaints about sentences being too weak (although I'd like to hear an argument that addresses the increased cost burdens longer sentences would create, and the evidence that indicates such a system wouldn't result in significant reductions in crime), but the bashing of a system that is still one of the better ones globally gets pretty tiring.

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.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by gargamel

If you shoot a gun into a spare crowd, you don't know without a doubt that someone will get hurt or killed. You know that it might happen, but by your definition, there's no intent.

The average Joe who has a few drinks after work probably isn't going to kill someone, but if he gets loaded and drives, then he does intend to put other people's lives at risk. If I did something while knowing that it would risk your life and you died from it, that's enough intent for me to deserve some severe punishment.

You're running too far with intent in your drunk driving example, at least legally. Someone who gets loaded and drives intends to drive, not to kill someone. You can't pass the intent to do A through to intent to do B in that situation.

[valo403]

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.

Good points, I appreciate the well thought out response over the usual pitch fork style that seems to dominate these threads.

The labor angle is interesting, does anyone know the basis behind doing away with such programs?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Good points, I appreciate the well thought out response over the usual pitch fork style that seems to dominate these threads.

The labor angle is interesting, does anyone know the basis behind doing away with such programs?

I think it was based around human rights complaints. basically it was called a harsh sentence when combined with confinement.

Now you can't really force a convict to do anything but serve his time.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think it's hilarious that you acknowledge an even more lenient sentence in a US court and then move on to a shot at the Canadian justice system. Bravo.

WTF is with you?

Im glad you are laughing at...well..whatever itis you are laughing at...happy to put a smile on your face.

However...the sentences are completely different because the situations were completely different, but I think BOTh were far to lenient.

Bravo? Get bent.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're running too far with intent in your drunk driving example, at least legally. Someone who gets loaded and drives intends to drive, not to kill someone. You can't pass the intent to do A through to intent to do B in that situation.

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.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think it was based around human rights complaints. basically it was called a harsh sentence when combined with confinement.

Now you can't really force a convict to do anything but serve his time.

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.