Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Truck Driver in Humboldt Broncos Deaths Pleads Guilty.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fullhouse View Post

    Yea, I get what your saying but the law doesn’t work that way. They can’t make up laws as they go along to suit a crime.
    What I am saying is that putting this man in jail will not save a single life. Changing the laws around who is qualified to drive and also holding business owners more criminally responsible would do far more to save lives then sending this man to jail.

    The MLA was not a realistic option at any point. I am just pointing out that if real changes are wanted the changes need to hold those who make the laws more accountable.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by squish View Post

      Whether its 16 or whether its 1 person dead, should that make a difference? Its the same act, its the same intent.
      The outcome is worse.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by squish View Post

        Whether its 16 or whether its 1 person dead, should that make a difference? Its the same act, its the same intent.
        The courts do take outcomes into account, so it does make a difference. I get where you’re coming from though.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

          The courts do take outcomes into account, so it does make a difference. I get where you’re coming from though.
          Is there much of a precedent for outcomes of traffic infractions where the driver isn't drunk?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tommy_boy View Post

            Is there much of a precedent for outcomes of traffic infractions where the driver isn't drunk?
            https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4279091

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tommy_boy View Post

              Is there much of a precedent for outcomes of traffic infractions where the driver isn't drunk?
              So for the Premier, you kill one person and get nothing, so for 16 people... I wouldn't know where to start. You could just multiply Moe's sentence by 16, which would still be zero.

              Comment


              • 3 years for 3 deaths here. So 16 years? Seems like too much to me.

                Because this is such an emotional thing, I think how the families feel about this should certainly be taken into account. It doesn't sound like any of them are demanding a long sentence, but their feelings shold be taken into account first and foremost.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by squish View Post

                  So for the Premier, you kill one person and get nothing, so for 16 people... I wouldn't know where to start. You could just multiply Moe's sentence by 16, which would still be zero.
                  How many years ago was this?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The_G View Post

                    How many years ago was this?
                    1997

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tommy_boy View Post

                      Is there much of a precedent for outcomes of traffic infractions where the driver isn't drunk?
                      I was just thinking about the distinction between dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing death as an example of outcomes being considered. I don’t know if there’s precedence for this type of case.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by squish View Post

                        3 years for 3 deaths here. So 16 years? Seems like too much to me.

                        Because this is such an emotional thing, I think how the families feel about this should certainly be taken into account. It doesn't sound like any of them are demanding a long sentence, but their feelings shold be taken into account first and foremost.
                        I don't think it woukd go by numbers, I don't see how anyone would suggest this crime is worse other than number in outcome???

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by squish View Post

                          1997
                          I think we could all agree that sentences have changed quite a bit since 1997

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The_G View Post

                            I think we could all agree that sentences have changed quite a bit since 1997
                            Gotten harsher?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

                              I was just thinking about the distinction between dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing death as an example of outcomes being considered. I don’t know if there’s precedence for this type of case.
                              Found this for Canadian Criminal Offences with a Vehicle which I find relevant.
                              Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Offences/Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle

                              < Canadian Criminal Sentencing‎ | Offences
                              s. 259 of the Crim. Code
                              Hybrid
                              Prov. Court
                              SC Judge + PI (I)
                              SC Jury + PI (I) (536(2))
                              Discharge (730)

                              Suspended Sentence(731(1)(a))
                              Fine (734)
                              Fine + Probation (731(1)(b))
                              Jail (718.3, 787)
                              Jail + Probation (731(1)(b))
                              Jail + Fine (734)

                              Conditional Sentence(742.1)
                              6 months jail or $5,000 fine (259)
                              same as summary
                              5 years jail (259(2))
                              10 years jail (259(3))
                              14 years jail (259(4))
                              Offence Elements
                              Sentence Principles
                              Sentence Digests





                              CCC
                              General PrinciplesEdit

                              The Court’s primary emphasis is placed on general deterrence.[1]

                              When an offender has a history of improper driving, specific deterrence will be emphasized.[2]

                              The Dangerous Operation offences are classified as more serious than impair driving and less than criminal negligence.

                              In R v Grenke, [2012] AJ No 323 (QB), a number of principles have been set out:
                              1. while jail sentences of less than two years exist, appeals taken from these sentences often result in the sentence being increased to a three to four year range;
                              2. lower or lighter sentences are handed out for dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm where there is an no involvement of alcohol or drugs, and the driving pattern is at the lower end of riskiness;
                              3. an early plea of guilt, as a sign of remorse, is often mentioned in lower sentences but I hasten to add that an accused should not be treated more harshly, than the appropriate range of sentence, for exercising their constitutional right to a fair trial;
                              4. where an offender has a previous record that involves drinking and driving or other dangerous tendencies relating to the rules of the road, sentences tend to be harsher;
                              5. where an offender is a youthful and less experienced driver, more emphasis may be placed on rehabilitation and less on punishment and deterrence; and
                              6. where there are multiple convictions the courts should ensure that no one gets a free crime simply because one offence is eclipsed with a more serious one, but, in total and globally the sentence should not be excessive; the sentencing levers of consecutive and concurrent sentences may be used to ensure that, globally, the sentence is appropriate.
                              1. R v Fox, 2001 ABCA 64 at para. 27
                                R v Hindes, 2000 ABCA 197 at para. 43
                              2. see R. v. Squires, [1995] N.J. No. 157 (C.A.)
                                R. v. Strickland, [1997] N.J. No. 398 (S.C.)
                              3. R v Woodward (1993) 109 Nfld & PEIR 240 (NLCA) at 30
                              4. R v Rhyason, [2007] AJ No. 372 (CA) at 29
                                R v Christink, [2012] OJ No 989 (CA) at para 5
                              5. R v Biancofiore, 1997 CanLII 3420 (ONCA) ("condemnation of these types of offences must be clear and, where the offence has devastating consequences, it must be loud...")
                              Causing Bodily Harm or DeathEdit


                              Where bodily harm is involved, it is among the more serious of motor vehicle offences as it places the public, including completely innocent bystanders at risk of harm.[1]

                              There is inherent danger in an object such as a motor vehicle moving at high speed in areas where people frequent.[2]

                              The regular range for dangerous driving or impaired driving causing bodily harm is between a conditional sentence and two years less a day.[3]
                              1. R. v. McMertry, (1987), 21 O.A.C. 68, at para. 11
                              2. R. v. Field, 2011 ABCA 48, 499 A.R. 178 at para. 23 ( “[d]riving a ton of glass and metal through spaces where people can be expected to be present and at a speed where it is likely to be impossible to stop the vehicle in time to avoid calamity cannot be treated as a youthful indiscretion”)
                              3. R. v. Puyenbroek, 2007 ONCA 824 at 59 to 61
                              FactorsEdit

                              The aggravating factors to consider include:[1]
                              1. the consumption of drugs (including legal medication known to cause drowsiness) or of alcohol, ranging from a couple of drinks to a “motorised pub crawl”;
                              2. greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; “showing off'”;
                              3. disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
                              4. a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
                              5. aggressive driving (such as driving much too close to the vehicle in front, persistent inappropriate attempts to overtake, or cutting in after overtaking);
                              6. driving while the driver's attention is avoidably distracted, e.g. by reading or by use of a mobile phone (especially if hand-held);
                              7. driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition which significantly impairs the offender's driving skills;
                              8. driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
                              9. driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where this has been motivated by commercial concerns;
                              10. other offences committed at the same time, such as driving without ever having held a licence; driving while disqualified; driving without insurance; driving while a learner without supervision; taking a vehicle without consent; driving a stolen vehicle;
                              11. previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences which involve bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving;
                              12. more than one person killed as a result of the offence (especially if the offender knowingly put more than one person at risk or the occurrence of multiple deaths was foreseeable);
                              13. serious injury to one or more victims, in addition to the death(s);
                              14. behaviour at the time of the offence, such as failing to stop, falsely claiming that one of the victims was responsible for the crash, or trying to throw the victim off the bonnet of the car by swerving in order to escape;
                              15. causing death in the course of dangerous driving in an attempt to avoid detection or apprehension;
                              16. offence committed while the offender was on bail; and
                              17. dangerous driving while in a residential area or in area where people frequent.

                              Potential mitigating factors include: [2]
                              1. a good driving record;
                              2. the absence of previous convictions;
                              3. a timely plea of guilty;
                              4. genuine shock or remorse (which may be greater if the victim is either a close relation or a friend);
                              5. the offender's age (but only in cases where lack of driving experience has contributed to the commission of the offence), and
                              6. the fact that the offender has also been seriously injured as a result of the accident caused by the dangerous driving.
                              1. R. v. Bennett, 2007 CanLII 11290 (NL PC) citing R. v. Cooksley, [2004] 1 Cr App(S) 1 at para 15
                              2. R. v. Cooksley at para. 15
                              Last edited by tommy_boy; 01-12-2019, 08:05 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The_G View Post

                                I think we could all agree that sentences have changed quite a bit since 1997
                                Not really.

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X