Tweet
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279006
I saw a version of this story in the local daily, and remembered Blas's stories of drivers in Wis. getting dozens of DUIs, driving with suspended licences, etc.
In this story, a 57 year old man was convicted of his 19th drunk driving offence, this one being the killing of a wheelchair-bound woman. The prosecutor wanted "dangerous offender" status tacked on to the sentence, which would have meant if he got out on parole, one charge would have sent him back to jail permanently. Apparently prosecutors across Canada have been trying to get habitual drunk drivers labelled with this status, but no judge has gone for it yet.
Now, I'm all for rehabilitation, but this guy's got 19 convictions, and he's 57. He's had chances, he's old enough to "know better," and he finally killed someone. He's proven he's a habitual offender. It doesn't list what all the 19 drunk driving convictions (not charges, btw, actual convictions) were, so maybe there was an escalation over time in severity, I don't know. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't, say TEN times have been enough to suspend his licence forever? Did it really need to come to the death of someone before he was taken off the roads for an appreciable length of time (even still, if he gets parole, he can probably get his licence back). And think, if she'd not been in a wheelchair, and then able to get away, he'd probably still just get a slap on the wrist and allowed to go on his way.
It's odd. I've never driven drunk, known that I know someone who drives drunk, known anyone hit by a driver who was drunk, etc., yet this is a subject I'm fairly stiff on. If you've got 5 drunk driving convictions, I think that should earn you an attempted manslaughter charge via gross negligence, whether you came close to hitting anyone or not. And since Canada doesn't have "attempted X" charges, that'd get you a nice manslaughter charge on your record. Try explaining that one away on a background check, after losing 4+ years for your idiocy.
I saw a version of this story in the local daily, and remembered Blas's stories of drivers in Wis. getting dozens of DUIs, driving with suspended licences, etc.
In this story, a 57 year old man was convicted of his 19th drunk driving offence, this one being the killing of a wheelchair-bound woman. The prosecutor wanted "dangerous offender" status tacked on to the sentence, which would have meant if he got out on parole, one charge would have sent him back to jail permanently. Apparently prosecutors across Canada have been trying to get habitual drunk drivers labelled with this status, but no judge has gone for it yet.
Now, I'm all for rehabilitation, but this guy's got 19 convictions, and he's 57. He's had chances, he's old enough to "know better," and he finally killed someone. He's proven he's a habitual offender. It doesn't list what all the 19 drunk driving convictions (not charges, btw, actual convictions) were, so maybe there was an escalation over time in severity, I don't know. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't, say TEN times have been enough to suspend his licence forever? Did it really need to come to the death of someone before he was taken off the roads for an appreciable length of time (even still, if he gets parole, he can probably get his licence back). And think, if she'd not been in a wheelchair, and then able to get away, he'd probably still just get a slap on the wrist and allowed to go on his way.
It's odd. I've never driven drunk, known that I know someone who drives drunk, known anyone hit by a driver who was drunk, etc., yet this is a subject I'm fairly stiff on. If you've got 5 drunk driving convictions, I think that should earn you an attempted manslaughter charge via gross negligence, whether you came close to hitting anyone or not. And since Canada doesn't have "attempted X" charges, that'd get you a nice manslaughter charge on your record. Try explaining that one away on a background check, after losing 4+ years for your idiocy.
Comment