TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Drunk driver finally in jail - 35 years and 60 convictions later
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Drunk driver finally in jail - 35 years and 60 convictions later

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
After reading the road rage IMO, i decided to post this one.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...nkdriving.html

This man was arrested and giving the maximum penalty for drunk driving (6 years) finally...after 35 years of drunk driving and 60 previous convictions.

IMO something is seriously wrong with the legal system if a man like this is allowed to continue to be free with a record like this. How many convictions are enough to finally either put this guy away for good, or get him into treatment. If is frustrating to hear about cases like this....it's like a ticking time bomb with the bomb being him and his vehicle.

What do you guys think? If someone drinks and drives and kills someone, should the maximum penalty be only 6 years? what if it's there 2nd or third...or 60th offence?
post #2 of 14
My husband's first ambulance run was for a guy like this- he pulled a gun out on my husband! He had been arrested so many times, well over a hundred. They never kept him in jail and he just kept offending. The attempt to kill EMTs was apparently the last straw and the guy won't be getting out again. If my husband had been shot by this man I would have been angry on a level I can't even imagine. I hate the fact that repeat offenders are just let off again and again. What is 6 years when it comes to taking someone's life? I witnessed a drunk driving accident several months ago and I don't think I will ever get that man's screams out of my mind when he was flung from his car. The guy who hit him just laughed it off and made a really horrible comment. I hope they throw the book at him.

I had to attend a number of AA meetings while taking a class on addictions and spirituality. One of the men there kept saying how he felt he was a potential mass murderer every time he got into a car. He had been sober for a very long time when I met him and felt horrible for the times he could have killed someone. The difference between him and the man who did kill someone is pretty small, all things considered, but at least the man I met was able to stop and get help. So many of these people never stop and never will stop. The law has to step in somewhere to keep the rest of us safe.
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 
I totally agree. It boggles my mind that people like that keep getting out. I read about a guy getting 20 years for fraud and other white-collar crimes. If we can give them 20 years (and no one was physically hurt), why can't we keep drunk drivers that kill people...and repeat offenders (60 convictions) behind bars. What about mandatory therapy, AA treatments, make sure they aren't driving....inform local beer stores etc (like a "don't serve these people" list). There must be some options to keep this from happening.

The police in ontario have been doing RIDE stops (for people drinking and driving) and has found the number is higher then they have seen in over 20 years. What is going on!?
post #4 of 14
I FIRMLY believe in the three strikes and your out law. And if you kill someone (no matter how) your going to jail for more than 6 years. Maybe its just cause Im from Texas and we are kinda strict on stuff like that. Then again there are those cases that slip through the crack (which by the way is the size of the Grand Canyon). If I had been the judge I would have thrown the book at him (for real) maybe it would knock some sense into him and I would have given him ALOT more than 6 years!
post #5 of 14
We were just talking tonight about something similar. A few years back a lady hit a family of 5 that were riding together in thier van, only one young child survived. She was going 98 mph and weaving in and out of traffic when she hit and killed them. She had been arrested several time before for going speeds in excess of 100 mph. I believe several means more than 5, which is no where near 60 but rediculous even still. Now she has been convicted and sent to prison and what not, but they keep reducing her sentance! Finally the family of the little girl who was left without parents or siblings is getting ticked off and making some noise about it.

How stupid is that? The woman should have lost her licence long before then. I'd say suspension at time #1, goodbye forever at time #2! And the other thing I want to know is how did she survive! Obviously the woman has a problem.

It just boils my blood that people can get away with things like that!
post #6 of 14
Absolutely ridiculous! Especially considering there are people in jail for much longer than that for possessing less than 1 ounce of pot.

With the technology available today, there is NO reason they should drive again, even if the excuse is overcrowded prisons. There are deviced that can be put on their car that they have to blow into and blow clean before the car will start. Granted, they could borrow another car I suppose, or have someone sober blow into it - but that would take not one but TWO idiots to make that work. I guess I just have to hope that there isn't usually a convention of idiots in one place at one time. I know there are other devices that work along those same lines, I heard about an ankle bracelet that measures the alcohol content through the skin, but I don't remember the details...
post #7 of 14
Here's what it should be

1st offence AA classes, $300,000 fine, loss of licence for 1 year and loss of car for 1 year.

2nd offence $500,000 fine and 3 months in jail, loss of lience and car for 2 years. Name is also put on a "do not drink list" that is given to local bars for 2 years.

3rd offence mandatory 5 years in jail and loss of car and licence for the rest of that person's life.

What do you like of my new Drunk Driving Law
post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
Here's what it should be

1st offence AA classes, $300,000 fine, loss of licence for 1 year and loss of car for 1 year.

2nd offence $500,000 fine and 3 months in jail, loss of lience and car for 2 years. Name is also put on a "do not drink list" that is given to local bars for 2 years.

3rd offence mandatory 5 years in jail and loss of car and licence for the rest of that person's life.

What do you like of my new Drunk Driving Law
I like it!!
post #9 of 14
I like your law! Except I doubt many people could pay the fines. But on the positive, it would get some people off the road and people would be forced to use public transportation more and thats better for the environment right?
post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
I definitely like the idea of mandatory AA treatments. I figure if the therapist doesn't sign off that they've made progress (i.e. accepted that they have a problem) then they don't get there licence back...period! I wonder how this guys friends/family/bartenders could allow this to continue for this long?
post #11 of 14
What is wrong with this country and most notably the Judicial System.
It defies explanation. So depressing. We enable these monsters every day.
post #12 of 14
I don't know if this is true, but I heard that Florida is trying to pass a law that those convicted of a DUI would have a pink license plate. It would stand out and enable police to watch them easier.

I know a woman who has a thing on her car (that she had to pay for) that she blows into when she starts the car and after a certian amount of time when she is driving. If it detects alcohol, her car will not run.
post #13 of 14
It's about time there was something a bit more severe for drunk drivers. I like the idea of the coloured numberplates for convicted drunk drivers.
post #14 of 14
My parents were hit by a drunk driver when I was about ten years old. They survived, but my mother still suffers from back and neck pain, and this was almost two decades ago (the drunk driver, naturally, was uninjured). As a result, I am ... ummm ... perhaps a bit aggressively anti-drinking-and-driving. In high school, I was part of OSAID (Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving) and I participated in a number of programs on this topic. It aggravates me to no end, because in almost every story you hear of innocent people being killed or injured in a collision with an impaired driver, it was the drunk driver who walked away unharmed. What aggravates me just as much are the number of law firms who specialize in getting you off if you get charged with DUIs, because I feel they just contribute to the problem -- never mind the ridiculously light sentences impaired drivers receive.

In my opinion, I think if you're caught driving under the influence, you should lose your license permanently. Period. It shouldn't take 35 years and 60 convictions to make people realize someone is a menace to society; one offense should be more than enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Drunk driver finally in jail - 35 years and 60 convictions later