Thursday, July 31st12.3°C
22568
22595

1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

B.C. topics.

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Jo, ferri, Triple 6

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby my5cents » Feb 22nd, 2013, 7:25 pm

It is very surprising how some of the general public can so easily be fooled.

This is a version of the oldest sales trick in the book. Create a problem, play it up and "sell" a solution.

The difference here is that the government caused this problem to start with by underfunding the court system and the police.

Once that happened, the police, with limited resources, over used the 24 hour prohibition and drastically reduced the number of criminal drinking and driving charges.

Contrary to what some has said, for the "normal" driver, a 24 hour prohibition is a deterrent WHEN THE 24 HOUR PROHIBITION IS USED PROPERLY. By "properly", I mean a one time warning, or in the least once every 5 year minimum warning.

The government could have easily created legislation that forced the police to charge criminally, anyone they stopped for drinking if in the preceding 5 years had received a 24 hour prohibition.

I have seen driving records where the subject had been either charged or given 24 hour suspensions 12 times in a 10 year period and on the 13th drinking and driving contact, received a 24 hour prohibition. Unacceptable !

So the solution, make the police enforce the drinking and driving laws, using the Motor Vehicle Act (24 hour prohibition) and the Criminal Code of Canada (impaired driving & over .08) APPROPRIATELY.

B U T .... What would the government have to do ? THEY'D HAVE TO PROPERLY FUND THE POLICE AND THE COURTS. (but then who would put a new roof on BC Place ?)

Solution,,, write a very questionable law that walks all over the rights of British Columbians. Sell it to the gullible portion of the public using phrases like "the toughest drinking and driving laws..." (Vs the more truthful "the most egregious breach of your charter rights ever").

How can so many feel that it's OK to create, and have our police enforce, a law that breaches our rights ?

If this is so right, lets convict drug traffickers, child molesters, rapists, and murders on the say so of the police.

The same police officer, who is bestowed with the authority to "convict" a suspected drinking driver at the side of the road, is required, when using a photo line-up to ID a potential accused, must have another police officer who does not know which photo is that of the suspect, show the line-up. Am I the only one who thinks this is strange ?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1752
Likes: 138 posts
Liked in: 129 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby Donald G » Feb 23rd, 2013, 10:12 am

I agree with your basic philosophy that we need to get drunk drivers off of the road but we serious differ as to the days and means of doing so.

A 24 hour suspension is like giving a sick man a sleeping pill. It does nothing whatever to cure the disease or hange a drunk drivers lifestyle or prevent him/her from doing the same thing over and over and over again. Case law in regard to the charter has has greatly restricted the police ability to stop and check vehicles for drinking drivers. The mass of case law associated to charging such drivers with impaired, over .08 and drunk driving under the criminal code makes such charges an exercise in futility. That is why a large percentage of such charges are routinely dealt away for a guilty plea to the same charge under the motor vehicle act, which forces a relatively small penalty with associated small consequences. Case law does NOT permit a routine stop and routine prosecution of the criminal code charges as envisioned by the average thinking person. That is in the past. It is the reason provincial governments were and are being forced to deal with drunk driving through administrative regulations. It is either do that or accept the death of about 1,250 people across Canada each year as justified by the right of drunk drivers to avoid detection.
Donald G
Guru
 
Posts: 5021
Likes: 1037 posts
Liked in: 392 posts
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby simnut » Feb 23rd, 2013, 11:03 am

I'm not sure if everyone noticed in my previous post, but impaired driving in Canada has a conviction rate of 73% + for criminal charges, the highest conviction rate of any criminal activity Stats Can "analyses". Take a look at this:

http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/rprts/pdf/pfop_20 ... l#_ftnref2

and take a look at Table 3. In Canada, the conviction rate on ALL criminal activity (murder, theft, kidnapping etc) is only 60%!!!! 33% of the cases are stayed or withdrawn. By comparison, impaired driving convictions are doing far better than I think we tend to realize. This also shows that a SMALL percentage of impaired charges are "routinely dealt away for a guilty plea to the same charge under the motor vehicle act," NOT a large percentage as someone has mentioned....almost 3/4's of them are successful.

Now, how to fix the criminal court system then? Well, BC has bowed to the lobby groups such as MADD, and come up with administrative sanctions as far as impaired driving, beginning an erosion of rights that are...well...just that....rights of the citizen of BC. It starts with impaired driving, what will the governments "decriminalize" next.....murders etc as you said My5cents! No, it takes more court time and more officers on the road, and like My5cents alluded to, it will cost us.......
I don't have issues with police, just their boss....the government......
simnut
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 859
Likes: 29 posts
Liked in: 41 posts
Joined: Feb 4th, 2012, 1:36 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby simnut » Feb 23rd, 2013, 11:45 am

Some new crime statistics came out for BC here at this site:

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservice ... /index.htm

Open up BC Crime Trends, 2002-2011 and proceed to the table headed Criminal Code Traffic, Number of Offenses.

Interesting to see that the total impaired driving offenses are up, by about 15%, for the year of 2011, AFTER the new administrative sanctions were active. Why is that? I thought the new sanctions were supposed to be a deterrent?

Is it because more police hours on the road? Yes, 15% more impaired drivers not going to be part of the impaired causing death stat! Awesome.....

Is it because of the "deterrent" factor of the new administrative laws? No, or these numbers would be down....... The same number of drivers are driving impaired...more are being caught therefore being a part of one stat (IO of a vehicle) and not of the other stat (IO causing death).

It has EVERYTHING to do with police hours on the road.......not with the FEAR of the "administrative sanctions" as our government would love for us to think in their PR for such sanctions.
I don't have issues with police, just their boss....the government......
simnut
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 859
Likes: 29 posts
Liked in: 41 posts
Joined: Feb 4th, 2012, 1:36 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby my5cents » Feb 23rd, 2013, 8:36 pm

It was my understanding that the number of impaired driving & over 08 charges under the Criminal Code were way down because the police were using the non-criminal route (IRP). The stats are labelled "criminal". Doesn't make sense.

As far as the numbers not being down because of the deterrent effect I would expect that would take some time.

Yes processing drinking driving with the IRP does free up the police to catch more drinking drivers, but if those increased numbers of drinking driving contacts are more IRPs that wouldn't translate into additional criminal stats.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1752
Likes: 138 posts
Liked in: 129 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby Donald G » Feb 23rd, 2013, 9:14 pm

Nice try but dealing off a charge of impaired driving, over .08 Andorra drunk driving under the Criminal Code for an included or reduced charge IS considered a conviction. It is NOT considered a dismissal for statistical purposes even though the penalty will reflect the reduced charge. Also, why would you not comment on the effects of case law as they relate to the dismissal of identified drunk drivers?
Donald G
Guru
 
Posts: 5021
Likes: 1037 posts
Liked in: 392 posts
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby simnut » Feb 23rd, 2013, 9:41 pm

my5cents wrote:It was my understanding that the number of impaired driving & over 08 charges under the Criminal Code were way down because the police were using the non-criminal route (IRP). The stats are labelled "criminal". Doesn't make sense.


You do have a point, and I am going to research if IRPS are considered in those statistics. Still, it is quite strange why the category of IO of vehicle, vessel, aircraft is the highest seen since 2002. My gut feeling....and like I say, something to research, is that IRPS are included in those stats.

As far as the numbers not being down because of the deterrent effect I would expect that would take some time.


Yet, as far as the government is concerned...they reduced fatalities by 40% in the first year of implementation!

Yes processing drinking driving with the IRP does free up the police to catch more drinking drivers, but if those increased numbers of drinking driving contacts are more IRPs that wouldn't translate into additional criminal stats.


You wouldn't think that they would translate into the additional "criminal" stats, again...back to do some research! :127:

Edited to add:

It appears that number in the Number of Offenses in the link I provided earlier are considered Police reported incidents, which is confirmed by this link:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 01-eng.htm

with both being 18,835 cases. So, the rise in those numbers in the past year would include the IRPS, hence the reason of the climb.
Last edited by simnut on Feb 23rd, 2013, 10:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I don't have issues with police, just their boss....the government......
simnut
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 859
Likes: 29 posts
Liked in: 41 posts
Joined: Feb 4th, 2012, 1:36 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby simnut » Feb 23rd, 2013, 10:06 pm

Donald G wrote:Nice try but dealing off a charge of impaired driving, over .08 Andorra drunk driving under the Criminal Code for an included or reduced charge IS considered a conviction. It is NOT considered a dismissal for statistical purposes even though the penalty will reflect the reduced charge.


Well, I'm looking at this:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableau ... 2a-eng.htm
where it tells me that there was just over 40,000 impaired driving convictions across Canada for 2010/2011.

Well, how many impaired cases went to court you ask? Stats can say...:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 0b-eng.htm
48000 impaired driving cases went to court......getting a 84% conviction rate, of IMPAIRED DRIVING. Coincidentally, 84% is 40,000 convictions......

Those are not trade off charges, or reduced charges or any kind of "deals". Those are criminal impaired driving charges. Now, I DO have an issue with the PENALTY paid in some of those cases....which may have been reduced for one reason or another, as I'm sure you do. THAT is where the real problem is...not the ability to convict, but the soft hearts that reduce the penalties. But that is an easy fix....nail them to the full extent of the law.....no questions asked.




Also, why would you not comment on the effects of case law as they relate to the dismissal of identified drunk drivers?


I'm not to concerned about the effects of case law, when it comes to the conviction rates of impaired driving....some 20% higher than the average of all other criminal activities. I DO worry about the precedence of soft penalties given AFTER being convicted of impaired driving.
I don't have issues with police, just their boss....the government......
simnut
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 859
Likes: 29 posts
Liked in: 41 posts
Joined: Feb 4th, 2012, 1:36 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby my5cents » Feb 23rd, 2013, 10:19 pm

Donald G wrote:I agree with your basic philosophy that we need to get drunk drivers off of the road but we serious differ as to the days and means of doing so.

A 24 hour suspension is like giving a sick man a sleeping pill. It does nothing whatever to cure the disease or hange a drunk drivers lifestyle or prevent him/her from doing the same thing over and over and over again.


You state "a 24 hour suspension .....does nothing to change a drunk driver's lifestyle or prevent him/her from doing the same, over and over".

First off, not all drinking drivers are out and out incorrigible drunks. I also suggested that a 24 hr was to be used sparingly a maximum of once in five years, not "over and over".


Donald G wrote:Case law in regard to the charter has has greatly restricted the police ability to stop and check vehicles for drinking drivers.

Well the basis of even the IRP is the police stopping a suspected drinking driver, getting the grounds to demand a test with a roadside screening device UNDER THR PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE and THEM make a decision to proceed under the BC Motor Vehicle Act. So if a police officer doesn't have the legal ability to stop and make the demand the MVA isn't going to save the (legal) day.

Donald G wrote:The mass of case law associated to charging such drivers with impaired, over .08 and drunk driving under the criminal code makes such charges an exercise in futility.


FYI Impaired Driving, and "Drunk Driving" is the same thing.

Donald G wrote:That is why a large percentage of such charges are routinely dealt away for a guilty plea to the same charge under the motor vehicle act, which forces a relatively small penalty with associated small consequences. Case law does NOT permit a routine stop and routine prosecution of the criminal code charges as envisioned by the average thinking person. That is in the past. It is the reason provincial governments were and are being forced to deal with drunk driving through administrative regulations. It is either do that or accept the death of about 1,250 people across Canada each year as justified by the right of drunk drivers to avoid detection.


That's not born out by the stats

Really, in BC, what has the govt done ? They have effectively eliminated the police using 24 hour suspensions, and created a process, where the government allows a cop on the street to take action that can cost a suspected drinking motorist $4000 plus, including the loss of his/her vehicle.

For the first time offender who blows less than the "criminal level", the punishment is less, but still severe, compared to what it would have been had the same officer in the past stopped a person with a similar history and had decided that the driver deserved a break.

Wasn't the problem with the 24hour, that it was over used and used inappropriately ?

If we had a serious problem with excessive speeders (people driving +40/50 kms over the limit), would it make sense to increase the punishment for minor speeding offenses and start hammering those driving 2 or 3 kms over the limit, including, automatic guilt ?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1752
Likes: 138 posts
Liked in: 129 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby goatboy » Feb 24th, 2013, 11:18 am

simnut wrote: Well, I'm looking at this:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableau ... 2a-eng.htm
where it tells me that there was just over 40,000 impaired driving convictions across Canada for 2010/2011.

Well, how many impaired cases went to court you ask? Stats can say...:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 0b-eng.htm
48000 impaired driving cases went to court......getting a 84% conviction rate, of IMPAIRED DRIVING. Coincidentally, 84% is 40,000 convictions......



One thing that may affect the 84% conviction rate is how many of these "legitimate" charges are never laid because of the bad case law that has come before. This leads to only cases that have the most likely hood of conviction actually going to court. Now, this doesn't lead to more guilty drivers actually being convicted, it can actually be the opposite. Bad case law is allowing more and more guilty drivers off the hook, and not because of poor police work. You'd be amazed at what things will stop a true drunk driving case from ever getting in front of a judge.
goatboy
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4507
Likes: 39 posts
Liked in: 551 posts
Joined: Feb 26th, 2008, 9:56 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby simnut » Feb 24th, 2013, 11:33 am

goatboy wrote:
One thing that may affect the 84% conviction rate is how many of these "legitimate" charges are never laid because of the bad case law that has come before. This leads to only cases that have the most likely hood of conviction actually going to court. Now, this doesn't lead to more guilty drivers actually being convicted, it can actually be the opposite. Bad case law is allowing more and more guilty drivers off the hook, and not because of poor police work. You'd be amazed at what things will stop a true drunk driving case from ever getting in front of a judge.



Those are the stats for "legitimate" criminal impaired driving convictions....ones that have gone to court and found guilty of said charge.
Go over those stats again........you will see what I mean.
I don't have issues with police, just their boss....the government......
simnut
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 859
Likes: 29 posts
Liked in: 41 posts
Joined: Feb 4th, 2012, 1:36 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby ticat900 » Feb 24th, 2013, 12:34 pm

all they had to do was give u a MANDATORY 3 seperate breath readings at roadside.Faill all three its MORE than Ouvious your over limit.
why does a person need a cout date? for what reason??
ticat900
Board Meister
 
Posts: 426
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jan 18th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby my5cents » Feb 24th, 2013, 3:16 pm

ticat900 wrote:all they had to do was give u a MANDATORY 3 seperate breath readings at roadside.Faill all three its MORE than Ouvious your over limit.
why does a person need a cout date? for what reason??

Exactly,,,, and I also have no idea why they stopped lynching horse thieves.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1752
Likes: 138 posts
Liked in: 129 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby Donald G » Feb 24th, 2013, 4:11 pm

Goat boy ... You get the blue ribbon for individual thought.

Simnut ... The only things that can be used to determine what works for and against the police in enforcing our impaired, over .08 and drunk driving laws is a knowledge of case law coupled with a knowledge of how they affect the ability of the police to introduce evidence into court.

The only way to correctly interpret the conviction rates for the THREE offenses laid out in the Criminal Code of Canada is to have knowledge of the way in which various police forces score the various outcomes of EACH charge laid ... Scoring offenses under the motor vehicle act of each province (including impaired, over 08, and administrative consequences for drinking and driving offenses) is a whole other matter.

Interpretations of case law or statistical reports by third parties gives only that third parties opinion of the results of the stats identified that may or may not present a true picture of what the stats represent, depending on That third parties personal knowledge of the system or systems being used. The stats or case laws usually have a spin put on them to try to make them a desirable thing in the opinion of those for who they are meant. Truth is often an uninvolved bystander. With respect.
Donald G
Guru
 
Posts: 5021
Likes: 1037 posts
Liked in: 392 posts
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: 1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

Postby simnut » Feb 24th, 2013, 4:21 pm

Donald G wrote:Goat boy ... You get the blue ribbon for individual thought.


Interpretations of case law or statistical reports by third parties gives only that third parties opinion of the results of the stats identified that may or may not present a true picture of what the stats represent, depending on That third parties personal knowledge of the system or systems being used. The stats or case laws usually have a spin put on them to try to make them a desirable thing in the opinion of those for who they are meant.


Are you saying that Stats Canada is trying to spin stats for a particular reason?
I don't have issues with police, just their boss....the government......
simnut
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 859
Likes: 29 posts
Liked in: 41 posts
Joined: Feb 4th, 2012, 1:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to British Columbia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests