Tis the season as they say.And once again,police are out there dealing with one of the less pleasant aspects of the Christmas Season.Drinking and driving.Because every year,no matter what the law is,no matter how often they are urged to take a cab,and no matter how many tragedies occur,some people either don't get it or simply don't care.So every year in December,police operate roadside checkstops to round up those people.But sometime I wonder,what is the point?Are they wasting their time and my tax dollars sending these clowns off to court?
If a recent court case in Edmonton,Alberta is any indication,there really isn't much point.Because what is the point in handing over an offender.when all the courts can manage to come up with is a two year jail sentence for someone convicted of impaired driving for the fifteenth time?An offender who has a similar number of convictions for driving while suspended?The judge in the case notes that this person"isn't a career criminal."Excuse me?Does this brilliant jurist also think the Pope isn't Catholic and that Israel isn't Jewish?If a two year sentence for this offender cannot be explained by a judge's unbelievable stupidity and ignorance,then it must be explained by laws that are poorly conceived and/or not properly applied.
Would someone out there please explain something to me?Maybe there is a Canadian lawyer out there that can edify me as to what I'm missing?You see,I was under the distinct impression that the Criminal Code Of Canada contained a provision for dealing with dangerous offenders.I was under the impression that they could be jailed indefinitely. Was I wrong?And if I am not wrong,why isn't this legislation being applied to offenders who will not engage in treatment,have zero concern for others and continue to offend in spite of all reasonable efforts to deal with their deviance?
My understanding is that dangerous offenders are normally held to be those with an aggravated and repeated pattern of criminality involving sexual offenses or serious assaults up to and including murder.But why is an offender being convicted of a fifteenth impaired driving charge any less dangerous?He's not!It's only a matter of time and chance.Clearly this man has socio-pathic tendencies as evidenced by behavior.If dangerous offender legislation cannot be directed toward offenders of this nature,then why do we have it.Oh,I see,nobody has been killed.Yet.That must be what we are waiting for.What a cowardly,spineless cop out.Dangerous offender hearings should be mandatory if an offender has any more than three convictions for drunk driving.Release can then be made contingent upon treatment and not on the expiry of a warrant at the end of some arbitrarily imposed sentence.
And,while we are at it,maybe we could think about making judges and prosecutors accountable to the electorate.Do you suppose that might make them a bit more sensitive to public outrage?Just a thought.
If a recent court case in Edmonton,Alberta is any indication,there really isn't much point.Because what is the point in handing over an offender.when all the courts can manage to come up with is a two year jail sentence for someone convicted of impaired driving for the fifteenth time?An offender who has a similar number of convictions for driving while suspended?The judge in the case notes that this person"isn't a career criminal."Excuse me?Does this brilliant jurist also think the Pope isn't Catholic and that Israel isn't Jewish?If a two year sentence for this offender cannot be explained by a judge's unbelievable stupidity and ignorance,then it must be explained by laws that are poorly conceived and/or not properly applied.
Would someone out there please explain something to me?Maybe there is a Canadian lawyer out there that can edify me as to what I'm missing?You see,I was under the distinct impression that the Criminal Code Of Canada contained a provision for dealing with dangerous offenders.I was under the impression that they could be jailed indefinitely. Was I wrong?And if I am not wrong,why isn't this legislation being applied to offenders who will not engage in treatment,have zero concern for others and continue to offend in spite of all reasonable efforts to deal with their deviance?
My understanding is that dangerous offenders are normally held to be those with an aggravated and repeated pattern of criminality involving sexual offenses or serious assaults up to and including murder.But why is an offender being convicted of a fifteenth impaired driving charge any less dangerous?He's not!It's only a matter of time and chance.Clearly this man has socio-pathic tendencies as evidenced by behavior.If dangerous offender legislation cannot be directed toward offenders of this nature,then why do we have it.Oh,I see,nobody has been killed.Yet.That must be what we are waiting for.What a cowardly,spineless cop out.Dangerous offender hearings should be mandatory if an offender has any more than three convictions for drunk driving.Release can then be made contingent upon treatment and not on the expiry of a warrant at the end of some arbitrarily imposed sentence.
And,while we are at it,maybe we could think about making judges and prosecutors accountable to the electorate.Do you suppose that might make them a bit more sensitive to public outrage?Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment