[Lemmy]

Scape Scape:

People thought the same way about smoking and driving without seat belts. People still smoke and drive without belts to this day but the social norm has changed because we made the laws and we enforced them. We have changed the laws somewhat for DD but as you have already pointed out the courts are tepid at best in enforcing this and our spot checks are toothless tigers that are infrequent anyway and easily avoided. Not something that really shows we are serious about DD at this point in time anyway. It was only recently that we had a repeat drunk driver declared as a dangerous offender after nearly 20 arrests and he killed as well and we had to take it almost to the supreme court to do it. There is a signal being sent but it's not one that the public really has adhered to, even the Premier was doing it not long that long ago.

Actually, Scape, if you re-read your citation, the Crown was unsuccessful in having this guy tagged a Dangerous Offender (though I would say that he should have been labelled so and sent to prison forever).

The reason we still have an impaired driving problem is we haven't made the penalties severe enough to achieve general deterence.

[leewgrant]

$1:

Roger Walsh is a dangerous offender. He had already been convicted of impaired driving offences 18 times when, once again drunk, he ran over Anee Khudaverdian in her wheelchair and killed her. He kept going until he ran into a ditch.

This week in a court in Valleyfield, Que., a judge concluded that Walsh was incorrigible and would likely drive drunk again. But Judge Michael Mercier ruled against a Crown prosecutor's application to have Walsh legally declared a dangerous offender.

http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescol ... 5f0cb8cf8b

Now here is something surely we can do something about. He was still driving around after 18 convictions and then he goes and kills someone. He should have been in prison a long time ago.

[EyeBrock]

Scape Scape:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It sounds fine in theory but demanding people do things that if they refuse to do they can face very serious consequences, without the centuries old common-law principle of 'reasonable grounds', undermines the whole system of justice as I see it.

Then why file taxes that are subject to audit? To me the checkpoints are one aspect of law enforcement but without the ability to go after those who choose to break the law it is a toothless action. Make no mistake, people drive drunk every single day and the current set up does not catch them. It is only by fluke or when they are so drunk they can't stand that they are caught and even then our courts let them off again and again because we see the threat to the perps income as more significant to the community at large. That is of course until someone is killed and by then it's too late to say your sorry. Isn't that a blatant disregard for the core principals of society?

You are missing the point. Taxes have nothing to do with this.
Common-law has developed over 700 years.
I agree that the threat to our society that drunk drivers bring is very real. Impaired laws are very in our face.

Our politicians and judiciary take the piss and make it so complicated that the police have a hard time regulating Sec 253/4 and the lawyers make lots of money from it.
The portion of time of in 2009 ,where a judiciary that fails to reflect the public feeling of the day shouldn't be an excuse to change our freedoms.
Freedoms that date back to 1215.

Scape, you are going for the wrong target. Most cops are well aware of the fragility of our freedoms. We see bad things daily.

The guys who make these decisions are well removed from the land of the plebs. That is why we should make sure the freedoms we have are preserved.

Agents of the state should have ‘reasonable grounds’ to make us do things that could incriminate us and send us to jail. Endex.

[OldChum]

Yes they should have a reasonable reason to make us do any thing . Drunk drivers have given them that reason or is not the safety of others good enough. But then your safety should be.

[Zipperfish]

Scape Scape:

People thought the same way about smoking and driving without seat belts. People still smoke and drive without belts to this day but the social norm has changed because we made the laws and we enforced them. We have changed the laws somewhat for DD but as you have already pointed out the courts are tepid at best in enforcing this and our spot checks are toothless tigers that are infrequent anyway and easily avoided. Not something that really shows we are serious about DD at this point in time anyway. It was only recently that we had a repeat drunk driver declared as a dangerous offender after nearly 20 arrests and he killed as well and we had to take it almost to the supreme court to do it. There is a signal being sent but it's not one that the public really has adhered to, even the Premier was doing it not long that long ago.

Well, since the Justice Minister is behind this, it's all but a done deal anyways, so I may as well get used to it. Just another baby step to the mommy state. At least we'll all be safe. The ethic of small government and personal freedom seems just a quaint, outdated idea these days. I feel like a bit of an anachronism.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, since the Justice Minister is behind this, it's all but a done deal anyways, so I may as well get used to it. Just another baby step to the mommy state. At least we'll all be safe. The ethic of small government and personal freedom seems just a quaint, outdated idea these days. I feel like a bit of an anachronism.

You feel like an anachronism now? As Big Brother grows, that anachronism will develop into plain old anarchism. I feel a bout of that coming on as I read some of the posts on this thread. Such willingness to surrender their basic freedoms, handing them over to the government like the French Army handed over Paris in 1940. Utterly suprising.

wording changed by request

[Scape]

I agree in part that this is yet another baby step to a nanny state much like seat belt and helmet laws are but this is a social norm that needs to be corrected. I suppose if all the laws are too much then it's time to move to less inhabited areas where laws are a nuisance.

I just don't buy this tripe that this is an excuse for a police state argument. Not when there are so many that are killed every year. I also hope that if the feds are serious here that the court will get serious as well. We can't have people with a score of convictions only stopped because he killed someone from DD we need effective enforcement not just some toothless ritual.

[mikewood86]

On the flip side, we all know that harsher penalties have a strict correlation with a decline in crime. /sarcasm.

Time to try something new.

[EyeBrock]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, since the Justice Minister is behind this, it's all but a done deal anyways, so I may as well get used to it. Just another baby step to the mommy state. At least we'll all be safe. The ethic of small government and personal freedom seems just a quaint, outdated idea these days. I feel like a bit of an anachronism.

You feel like an anachronism now? As Big Brother grows, that anachronism will develop into plain old anarchism. I feel a bout of that coming on as I read some of the posts on this thread. Such willingness to surrender their basic freedoms, handing them over to the cops like the French Army handed over Paris in 1940. Utterly suprising.

Not the cops Lemmy. We are no part of this. Aportion the blame accordingly. The politicians and judges are the ones to examine.

[Brenda]

Why am I surrendering my "basic freedoms" if I do not mind being randomly pulled over on a Tuesday afternoon, for a random breathalizer test? I seriously do not care. If they catch 2 people they wouldn't catch otherwise, there are 2 less chances my kids get killed when they walk home from school.

[Brenda]

I must admit, btw, that in Holland, it was pretty normal. I guess I have a different mindset on it because of that.

I have regularly been pulled over (at 11.30 on a Saturday night, or on a Monday afternoon) and been asked if I had a problem with taking the test? Of course not, bring it on! I don't drink and drive, so I do not care.

[EyeBrock]

We are just more free over here Brenda. "reasonable grounds" is something that English speaking people have fought to preserve since 1215.

[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, since the Justice Minister is behind this, it's all but a done deal anyways, so I may as well get used to it. Just another baby step to the mommy state. At least we'll all be safe. The ethic of small government and personal freedom seems just a quaint, outdated idea these days. I feel like a bit of an anachronism.

You feel like an anachronism now? As Big Brother grows, that anachronism will develop into plain old anarchism. I feel a bout of that coming on as I read some of the posts on this thread. Such willingness to surrender their basic freedoms, handing them over to the government like the French Army handed over Paris in 1940. Utterly suprising.

Not the cops Lemmy. We are no part of this. Aportion the blame accordingly. The politicians and judges are the ones to examine.

I'll edit it to read as changed.

[EyeBrock]

Nicely done Lemmy.

[Brenda]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We are just more free over here Brenda. "reasonable grounds" is something that English speaking people have fought to preserve since 1215.

I'm so sorry my first language will always be Dutch.