47063
47833

No Bail for Prolific Offender.....

No Bail for Prolific Offender.....

Postby dle » Nov 9th, 2017, 2:20 pm

This kind of thing makes no sense to me:

Castanet News story:

A South Okanagan man with more than 30 criminal convictions has been sentenced to 102 days in prison for three separate incidents.

Jesse McKnight, 28, entered guilty pleas Wednesday in Penticton court for possession of a controlled substance, dangerous driving and breach of probation.

On July 11, 2017 he was busted on an outstanding warrant with cannabis and magic mushrooms in his car in Okanagan Falls. While out on bail, he later failed to report to his probation officer.

He was also spotted by officers on Aug. 17, 2017 driving while prohibited on Skaha Lake Rd. Officers did not pursue, citing McKnight's history of running from police. He was instead charged and arrested the following month. He was also sentenced for another charge of driving while suspended related to a violation in Surrey.

McKnight has an “unenviable” criminal record dating back to his youth with a “horrible driving record,” according to Judge Meg Shaw.

The Crown asked for 135 days, while the defence argued for 100.

Shaw settled on 102 days.


With credit for time served, he has 18 days left on his sentence, but will stay behind bars.

In a following bail hearing, Shaw declined to release McKnight on a separate set of charges for fleeing from police and dangerous driving in connection to an incident in Osoyoos on Aug. 10. Police allege McKnight drove away at high speed when officers tried to pull him over for driving while prohibited. McKnight disputes he was in the car.

Why pray tell, are the Judges in this country so weak-kneed? Crown asks for 135, defence asks for 100 SO OF COURSE the Judge leaned towards the defence request for the lesser sentence.

This guy is a threat to society in a big way - he always seems to run from police in vehicles at high speed, he drives no matter whether he has a license or not, he has been charged previously with dangerous driving, so WHY Judge Meg Shaw, would you go for the lesser sentence??? Even the Crown's request for 135 days is ridiculously low so WHY pick an even lower "joke" of sentence?

It's just wrong to side with these idiots - give them a damn consequence please!!!

2 people like this post.
dle
Board Meister
 
Posts: 355
Likes: 265 posts
Liked in: 348 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: No Bail for Prolific Offender.....

Postby WalterWhite » Nov 9th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Unfortunately, even the judge's hands are tied, as they must impose sentences relative to prior case law - otherwise it's simply appealed and the previous conviction gets tossed.

Laws need reforming, or more precisely - sentencing laws need reforming, and that only happens by Joe Public putting heavy pressure on MLA's and MP's.

As a result, habitual losers like Jesse here, and that other tattoo'd P.O.S. that hit the young man delivering newspapers know all too well the police will call off car chases in many cases out of public safety - which is why these worthless turds have zero respect for driving prohibitions. It takes someone being seriously hurt, maimed or killed before any marginally serious consequences are imposed - and even then they're a joke in comparison to the fact someone lost their life because some tweaker meth-head thinks the laws of society simply don't apply to them. In that case - remove them from society - permanently AFAIC.
WalterWhite
Übergod
 
Posts: 1157
Likes: 899 posts
Liked in: 1235 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 3:56 pm


Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests