Lobowolf Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 ...a life sentence, also, for the judge who presided over his EIGHTEENTH drunk driving conviction and let him return to polite society? http://news.aol.com/article/canadian-gets-...riving%2F663196 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 yeah certainly the judge needs some penalty as well, he is accomplice for killing the woman on wheel chair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I find it difficult to understand how this could happen. I don't doubt the story, I just don't understand. I would expect that after a small number of convictions, say 2 or at most 3, although I am sure some would say 1 suffices, he would lose his license. If he continued to drive without a license, and especially if he was again caught driving drunk, I would expect him to go to jail for a while. By the time we got up to 4 occurences, I would expect the sentence to be very substantial. If anything, the above could be criticized for excessive leniency. If a guy can have 18 convictions and still be out of jail, that strongly suggests that there are a fair number out there with maybe 10 or 12 convictions, still driving. It's hard to imagine people accepting this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Take away the driver's licence for a long time (a year at the very least) the first time, then jail time and lose his licence permanently. I don't think there is a penalty too harsh for drunk driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 He should have had a long-term sentence already the 3rd time. Maybe life by the 5th time. I don't think the judge(s) should be punished unless it is a case of nepotism or corruption. BTW I have no idea what Canadian law says about repeated drunk driving. Maybe it was correct that he was allowed to stay free until he kills someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Life up here means up to 25 years BUT the parole procedure kicks in after 7 years. Throw in 2 for 1 credit for time served and who knows when this guy can go for an even 20? The crown asked for dangerous offender designation which can make the sentence indeterminant (like maybe REAL life) but the judge couldn't do it as it's only typically used for heinous murder, serial rape etc. Our government is trying desperately to tighten the sytem up, ie. bar the 2 for 1 credit for time served but they are in a minority position and the opposition has fought this stuff to a standstill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 To me getting into a car while drunk is the same as giving a loaded gun to a five year old. If you give your gun to a five year old, suspend your gun license. If you are over the legal limit and drive, suspend your driver's license. Essentially what happened here is that not the crime was punished but the consequence of the crime. After 18 drunk driving convictions, the drunk driver has learned the following:Most of the times when I drink and drive, I don't get caught.When I drink and drive, all goes well (that dent in the car for touching the tree when I was parking doesn't count, obviously). Actually, I drive pretty good when I am drunk.When I drink and drive and do get caught, I am really unlucky. When I am that unlucky, basically nothing happens. I get a fine, pay it (or not, that wasn't entirely clear) and can go on with my life.Conclusion: Drunk driving is perfectly ok. Then number 19 came around, a woman got killed, and the driver spends the rest of his life in jail. Conclusion: Drunk driving is ok, as long as you don't kill anyone. Is there anyone out there that thinks that he would have faced harsher consequences for number 19 than he did for number 18, if it weren't for the fact that he caused a woman's death? Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 ...a life sentence, also, for the judge who presided over his EIGHTEENTH drunk driving conviction and let him return to polite society? http://news.aol.com/article/canadian-gets-...riving%2F663196 this part does seem a bit harsh, two years for killing someone and parole violations seems a bit harsh.I mean he only had 114 previous convictions. "Walsh's 18 previous impaired driving convictions and 114 previous convictions in total for assault, uttering threats, breaking and entering and theft were entered into evidence. In addition to the life sentence, Walsh was also sentenced to two years for the additional charges he faced - hit and run causing death and probation violations. He won't be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. " http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090909/...gerous_offender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Conclusion: Drunk driving is ok, as long as you don't kill anyone. What puzzles me is that most people seem to think that drunk driving that leads to a killing should be punished harder than drunk driving that happened not to kill anyone. I really don't understand that. The behavior and the motive is exactly the same in both cases. Of course, for a civil lawsuit it is relevant how much damage I happened to inflict on others, but for a criminal lawsuit I see no difference. If anything, if I killed someone it would traumatize me so much that I would stop drunk driving, maybe even stop driving and/or drinking altogether. So it could be argued there is less of a need for punishing me if I kill someone than if I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 "I really don't understand that. The behavior and the motive is exactly the same in both cases." I guess the logic is if you try and murder ten people but fail you get less prison time than if you actually succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Agree w/ the sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Take away the driver's licence for a long time (a year at the very least) the first time, then jail time and lose his licence permanently. I don't think there is a penalty too harsh for drunk driving. Well, heck, why don't we just shoot first offenders then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 "He won't be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. " Heh. Where's he gonna drive? In the exercise yard? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 "He won't be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. " Heh. Where's he gonna drive? In the exercise yard? :) It sounds like he gets out in 7-10 years or so.....at least then he can drive down to the bar for a drink to celebrate. "Walsh would have had a chance, either way, to seek parole after seven years" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Conclusion: Drunk driving is ok, as long as you don't kill anyone. What puzzles me is that most people seem to think that drunk driving that leads to a killing should be punished harder than drunk driving that happened not to kill anyone. I really don't understand that. The behavior and the motive is exactly the same in both cases. Of course, for a civil lawsuit it is relevant how much damage I happened to inflict on others, but for a criminal lawsuit I see no difference. If anything, if I killed someone it would traumatize me so much that I would stop drunk driving, maybe even stop driving and/or drinking altogether. So it could be argued there is less of a need for punishing me if I kill someone than if I don't. Different people react differently. It wouldn't surprise me if the fact this guy killed someone while drunk doesn't bother him at all. The law, though, needs to be the same for all. Personally, the whole "criminal law" approach bothers me. I would much rather see a libertarian approach, where there are no "crimes" as such, only civil disputes. If you drive too fast, or drunk, or whatever, there's no problem as long as you cause no damage. Dent someone else's car, or knock over a telephone pole, or put someone in a hospital, you pay to fix the problem. I grant you that if you kill someone, putting a value on that life is difficult, but no system is perfect. I do think it would be hard to convince enough people to go this route that it would work - after all, "better the devil you know..." :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Take away the driver's licence for a long time (a year at the very least) the first time, then jail time and lose his licence permanently. I don't think there is a penalty too harsh for drunk driving. Well, heck, why don't we just shoot first offenders then? good question. I think bullets and finding people to do that are relatively expensive. other than that I see no reason :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Take away the driver's licence for a long time (a year at the very least) the first time, then jail time and lose his licence permanently. I don't think there is a penalty too harsh for drunk driving. Well, heck, why don't we just shoot first offenders then? Better yet, send all the bartenders to prison. Wait....kill all drunks and salt the vineyards. No, wait, Better. Outlaw alcohol....No, hold on. Vigilante gangs - just burn the drunken bastards......kill, kill, kill.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 kill, kill, kill.... Pretty much what they do, to the tune of several thousand people a year in the USA alone. Not that anyone is any better than a random guy who killed someone and had 114 prior convictions including 18 DUIs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Conclusion: Drunk driving is ok, as long as you don't kill anyone. What puzzles me is that most people seem to think that drunk driving that leads to a killing should be punished harder than drunk driving that happened not to kill anyone.Exactly my point. If you are lucky enough not to kill anyone, you get fined. When you're unlucky and kill someone, you end up in jail for the rest of your life. As if you still had any influence on what was going to happen after you decided to get behind the wheel when you were drunk. Simply put: You are drunk and start driving:Woman walks on the wrong sidewalk at the wrong time. --> You go to jail for life.Nobody around in a mile. --> You get a fine and can do it again, until (see above).Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 kill, kill, kill.... Pretty much what they do, to the tune of several thousand people a year in the USA alone. Not that anyone is any better than a random guy who killed someone and had 114 prior convictions including 18 DUIs. Well, my point is instead of finger-pointing why not look to solutions? Where was the judicial system and drug court about 110 convictions ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 kill, kill, kill.... Pretty much what they do, to the tune of several thousand people a year in the USA alone. Not that anyone is any better than a random guy who killed someone and had 114 prior convictions including 18 DUIs. Well, my point is instead of finger-pointing why not look to solutions? Where was the judicial system and drug court about 110 convictions ago? Incapacitation (via incarceration) is a solution. The judicial "system" was there (I assume; I'm not familiar with the specifics of Canadian criminal law, but I can't believe this guy couldn't have been locked up on the basis of his past convictions), but the person(s) administering that system failed the public, miserably. Hence the finger-pointing. Hey, if enough fingers get pointed, you never know...the next judge about to sentence an 18-time offender may decide that he doesn't want to be the next guy to get fingers pointed at him, and he might handle things differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h2osmom Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I don't know about Canada, but in the US, we, as a culture, totally accept drinking and driving to a certain level. In many other countries, the accepted thing is that drinking, any amount, and driving, are not done together. It's far more difficult to have a standard like being allowed to drink to a BAC of 0.08 for most people, and no detectable amount for other people. It's also difficult, because different amounts of alcohol over different time periods accompanied with either food, or other mind altering substances, cause different BAC, and in addition to that, it varies from person to person. 0.08 is some derived number, but it's certain that many people's driving ability is somewhat impaired at a lower BAC than that. I would love to see our focus move toward drinking and driving not being done together in any amount. In Norway, where drinking and driving is far less a problem, I have been told that there is serious discussion in favour of requiring alcolocks on all cars. Maybe that should be the direction we should head. For sure I think first offenses of drinking and driving should have a serious and long lasting consequence. No one thinks that they will cause a fatal car accident when they start to drink. It seems so far removed that it isn't seriously enough considered by someone whose thinking is somewhat impaired and doesn't want the problem of how to get home. But a serious consequence for drinking and driving could be far more immediate and cause people to make plans for getting home before they went out drinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted September 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 For sure I think first offenses of drinking and driving should have a serious and long lasting consequence. No one thinks that they will cause a fatal car accident when they start to drink. It seems so far removed that it isn't seriously enough considered by someone whose thinking is somewhat impaired and doesn't want the problem of how to get home. But a serious consequence for drinking and driving could be far more immediate and cause people to make plans for getting home before they went out drinking. Strongly, strongly agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 For sure I think first offenses of drinking and driving should have a serious and long lasting consequence. No one thinks that they will cause a fatal car accident when they start to drink. It seems so far removed that it isn't seriously enough considered by someone whose thinking is somewhat impaired and doesn't want the problem of how to get home. But a serious consequence for drinking and driving could be far more immediate and cause people to make plans for getting home before they went out drinking. Strongly, strongly agree. What about for driving while talking on a phone? That also has been demonstrated to make one a drastically worse driver (see NYT best selling book Traffic). Traffic fatalities are interesting when you consider that there are more than 40,000 deaths a year in the US (more than a 9/11 every month!), but few people seem that concerned about it. And yes, alcohol, is a leading cause of a number of the deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicklont Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Maybe the judge is a bridge player and decided that for Walsh he could skip the minor punishments and move on to the major one right away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.