Offending Dangerously
The label "dangerous offender" in Canada is applied to sex deviants, those who criminally attack women and girls, through serial rape events. The designation is meant to identify psychopaths whose dangerous behaviour seems to be immune to any remediation attempts; to label those whose crimes are so heinous, so numerous, and the perpetrator so obviously unrepentant that society has no other legal remedy than to thus name him, and put him away behind bars on an indefinite basis.
For the protection of society at large; women in particular. It's a label that hasn't been applied to other types of criminal behaviour. But perhaps it's time it should be. Driving while under the influence of alcohol used to be thought of as a slight inconvenience to society. Before society began taking actual statistics that revealed inebriated drivers were responsible for utter carnage on the roads, causing accidents, taking lives, making the lives of those who survive a physical misery of pain and dysfunction.
And the extent of the problem loomed huge. In most societies people imbibe alcohol, often to an extent that leaves them partially bereft of their good sense, and motor function. Under the untoward influence of alcohol, people feel they're perfectly capable of carrying on normal functions, like maneuvering a vehicle on a roadway shared with countless other drivers. Decades of campaigning for penalties fitting the crime by groups such as MADD, has resulted in tighter control attempts and something approximating appropriate fines.
But how should society and justice react when faced with recalcitrant alcoholics who, time after weary time, despite warnings, hefty fines, license withdrawals and incarceration insist on getting back behind the wheel of a vehicle, while drunk? Longer sentences, sure, and taking possession of the offender's vehicle, also. But when nothing avails, no number of convictions and admonishments and fines and finally an innocent person is killed by that same drunk driver, what then?
Quebec Court Judge Michel Mercier has determined that in the case of serial DUI offender Roger Walsh, 57 - with 18 previous convictions of driving while under the influence behind him, who, in the 19th incident struck and killed a 47-year-old wheelchair-bound woman - a penalty of life imprisonment would reflect the seriousness of the crime. Good thinking: life imprisonment. Except that could mean that Mr. Walsh, so evidently lacking in either conscience or self-restraint, could be out of prison in 7 years.
With the additional designation of 'dangerous offender' topping off his life imprisonment penalty there would be reasonable assurance that this man would not, in seven years' time, be driving another vehicle while inebriated, causing more accidents, and likely additional deaths. A precedent was set today, in the punishment fitting the crime; it just did not go quite far enough.
And that's a dreadful shame.
For the protection of society at large; women in particular. It's a label that hasn't been applied to other types of criminal behaviour. But perhaps it's time it should be. Driving while under the influence of alcohol used to be thought of as a slight inconvenience to society. Before society began taking actual statistics that revealed inebriated drivers were responsible for utter carnage on the roads, causing accidents, taking lives, making the lives of those who survive a physical misery of pain and dysfunction.
And the extent of the problem loomed huge. In most societies people imbibe alcohol, often to an extent that leaves them partially bereft of their good sense, and motor function. Under the untoward influence of alcohol, people feel they're perfectly capable of carrying on normal functions, like maneuvering a vehicle on a roadway shared with countless other drivers. Decades of campaigning for penalties fitting the crime by groups such as MADD, has resulted in tighter control attempts and something approximating appropriate fines.
But how should society and justice react when faced with recalcitrant alcoholics who, time after weary time, despite warnings, hefty fines, license withdrawals and incarceration insist on getting back behind the wheel of a vehicle, while drunk? Longer sentences, sure, and taking possession of the offender's vehicle, also. But when nothing avails, no number of convictions and admonishments and fines and finally an innocent person is killed by that same drunk driver, what then?
Quebec Court Judge Michel Mercier has determined that in the case of serial DUI offender Roger Walsh, 57 - with 18 previous convictions of driving while under the influence behind him, who, in the 19th incident struck and killed a 47-year-old wheelchair-bound woman - a penalty of life imprisonment would reflect the seriousness of the crime. Good thinking: life imprisonment. Except that could mean that Mr. Walsh, so evidently lacking in either conscience or self-restraint, could be out of prison in 7 years.
With the additional designation of 'dangerous offender' topping off his life imprisonment penalty there would be reasonable assurance that this man would not, in seven years' time, be driving another vehicle while inebriated, causing more accidents, and likely additional deaths. A precedent was set today, in the punishment fitting the crime; it just did not go quite far enough.
And that's a dreadful shame.
Labels: Canada, Human Relations, Justice
posted by Pieface @ 5:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home