Another Incomprehensible Sentence
There are so many drunk driving charges laid, and yet those who choose to drink and drive seem immune to the reality of the danger they pose to society at large. If there was a way of ensuring that drunk drivers were a menace only to themselves perhaps we would care slightly less; for these are people making a choice to exercise their free will to unloose on society the potential for great harm.
But too many traffic accidents and vehicular homicide cases are being reported, with grieving families hardly knowing where to turn for comfort. Alcohol consumption is so much a part of our common lives. It is a social habit. It represents a way of celebrating, of socializing, of relaxing. We think little of downing a casual drink or two and then setting off for home or to run an errand from home.
Most people simply feel they pose no risk to themselves or to anyone else, that they are in complete control of their perceptions and reactions and fully capable of operating as they normally do. What seems to escape their notice is that they cannot themselves judge their capacity to think and react normally once they're under the influence of alcohol.
So here is Dominika Duris, whose confidence in her ability to drive after she had imbibed, led her to a situation where her impaired driving caused an accident which killed a passenger in her car, 20-year-old Cory Lockyer, a work colleague. Ms. Duris insisted that she was not impaired, though she had a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit; it was her vehicle that was at mechanical fault.
This case has finally been concluded. Ontario Court Justice Robert Fournier reached the decision that Ms. Duris be given a two-year conditional sentence which would include 90 days of house arrest and six months of a strict curfew. She is banned from driving for a five-year period and will be on probation for a year following the two-year conditional sentence.
The parents of Cory Lockyer had been convinced that Ms. Duris was truly repentant, and they were prepared to accept the sentence handed down to her on that basis. "With her victim impact statement, she led me to believe that she was remorseful about it", Donna Lockyer stated. They have since been apprised of charges they had previously been unaware of.
The accident that killed their son took place in 2004. It has taken this long for justice to take its course. The new information that has been revealed is that two years ago Ms. Duris was detained in Calgary on two separate drunk driving charges; caught with blood-alcohol levels exceeding the legal limit. She is due to appear in a Calgary court on June 27.
In sentencing Ms. Duris, Judge Fournier made the observation that Ms. Duris has no criminal record, she has a family that supports her, she means to seek rehabilitation, (!) and she poses no threat to the public. His reasoning seems somewhat specious, given the fact that after having caused the death of a friend as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol, she still repeated the offence - twice.
How unaware is this woman when she did admit at trial to having driven impaired, but yet argued that the evidence was missing that would link her "slight" impairment with causing the crash that ensued. It is more than obvious that she refuses to take responsibility for her actions, despite that her actions took the life of a human being.
Yet the judge cited her suffering while awaiting the court's final decision. And the stigma she suffered having been charged with drunk driving. Overlooking entirely that she has not, in the interval between the accident and the present time - a matter of 7 years, she has not sought the rehabilitation that she claims she is committed to.
Is this not utterly perverse?
But too many traffic accidents and vehicular homicide cases are being reported, with grieving families hardly knowing where to turn for comfort. Alcohol consumption is so much a part of our common lives. It is a social habit. It represents a way of celebrating, of socializing, of relaxing. We think little of downing a casual drink or two and then setting off for home or to run an errand from home.
Most people simply feel they pose no risk to themselves or to anyone else, that they are in complete control of their perceptions and reactions and fully capable of operating as they normally do. What seems to escape their notice is that they cannot themselves judge their capacity to think and react normally once they're under the influence of alcohol.
So here is Dominika Duris, whose confidence in her ability to drive after she had imbibed, led her to a situation where her impaired driving caused an accident which killed a passenger in her car, 20-year-old Cory Lockyer, a work colleague. Ms. Duris insisted that she was not impaired, though she had a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit; it was her vehicle that was at mechanical fault.
This case has finally been concluded. Ontario Court Justice Robert Fournier reached the decision that Ms. Duris be given a two-year conditional sentence which would include 90 days of house arrest and six months of a strict curfew. She is banned from driving for a five-year period and will be on probation for a year following the two-year conditional sentence.
The parents of Cory Lockyer had been convinced that Ms. Duris was truly repentant, and they were prepared to accept the sentence handed down to her on that basis. "With her victim impact statement, she led me to believe that she was remorseful about it", Donna Lockyer stated. They have since been apprised of charges they had previously been unaware of.
The accident that killed their son took place in 2004. It has taken this long for justice to take its course. The new information that has been revealed is that two years ago Ms. Duris was detained in Calgary on two separate drunk driving charges; caught with blood-alcohol levels exceeding the legal limit. She is due to appear in a Calgary court on June 27.
In sentencing Ms. Duris, Judge Fournier made the observation that Ms. Duris has no criminal record, she has a family that supports her, she means to seek rehabilitation, (!) and she poses no threat to the public. His reasoning seems somewhat specious, given the fact that after having caused the death of a friend as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol, she still repeated the offence - twice.
How unaware is this woman when she did admit at trial to having driven impaired, but yet argued that the evidence was missing that would link her "slight" impairment with causing the crash that ensued. It is more than obvious that she refuses to take responsibility for her actions, despite that her actions took the life of a human being.
Yet the judge cited her suffering while awaiting the court's final decision. And the stigma she suffered having been charged with drunk driving. Overlooking entirely that she has not, in the interval between the accident and the present time - a matter of 7 years, she has not sought the rehabilitation that she claims she is committed to.
Is this not utterly perverse?
Labels: Human Relations, Justice, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 6:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home