As I said, I've got no particular position to defend in this case. What's more, I'm on the other side of the border from the individual in question, in a country which incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other--seven times as many per thousand as Canada, in fact. This simple fact--and the related fact that everyone around me seems to feel increasingly unsafe even as incarceration rates increase in leaps and bounds--suggests that mere imprisonment is not necessarily the best answer in a lot of cases.

That doesn't mean it's not justified, or for various reasons the best possible outcome in this specific case. What I'm looking for is an answer to the question "What is it we hope to accomplish?" If the answer is indeed "revenge," well, you might as well have at it. Why not public stockades, or dismemberment, or starvation?

If the answer is something along the lines of rehabilitation--i.e., turning the criminal into someone who can be released with a reasonable expectation she'll become a constructive member of society who will not raise children likely to follow in her (criminal) footsteps--the next reasonable question concerns how can we most likely achieve this. If you think imprisonment stands the best chance of accomplishing this, once again please have at it. The judge apparently thought the odds were higher with some sort of involuntary treatment. I don't really know....but I'm not so eager to dismiss the idea that the judge might be correct.

So do Canadian prisons include a significant rehabilitative component, unlike so many of those in the States? I mean, maybe you really do need "bigger, nastier prisons" in Canada, but I'm pretty sure we've got as big and nasty as you could ask on my side of the border.

Really, what do you think? Skip the glib answers and offer up something more thoughtful. What are our goals, and how might they best be accomplished? What sentence would you give if you were the judge? Consider the real world, not an imaginary one in which rehabilitation and vocational training feature (unless, of course, that's actually the way it works where you live).

Yours in drug-addled, hippie-dippie, neuropsychiatric-challenged befuddlement,

Mark

I agree that the American system of jailing people for long periods in unpleasant places does not seem to work, I would imagine it just produces people who are more detached from society and for some institutionalised. As to what the law is trying to achieve I would say a deterant to others from doing the same, possibly some element of rehabilitation although I doubt this often happens and yes a certain amount of retribution which may go some way to helping the victims of crime or their families feel better.
About 15 years ago somebody I am aquainted with killed his girlfriend in a drunk driving incident, he was jailed for 18 months, increased to 3 years on appeal by her parents and served about 20 months with parole. As far as I am aware he regarded the sentence as fair, I am not sure if it helped soothe his conscience as he was suicidal after the accident. His girlfriend's parents were apparently happy that justice had been done, although never happy that their daughter was dead of course. It certainly made some of the people I know think about their drink driving habbits, whether it was Jilly's death or the prison sentence that resulted I am not sure but probably a little of both.
To some degree or other his sentence served all of its aims better than 1 day in prison would of and nobody I know including some of his closest friends thought it harsh or unreasonable. On his release he went back to his job as a motor mechanic, all be it without a driving licence for a few more years, and is getting on with his life.

justice
 

come on guys you are way too tough , we know how to punish people and make them responsible in the state :nono:
"In November, Muskogee County District Judge Mike Norman stipulated that 17-year-old Tyler Alred should attend church regularly for 10 years as a requirement to avoid a prison sentence, the Tulsa World reported. The teen admitted to police he had been drinking in the Dec. 3, 2011, crash that killed his 16-year-old passenger and friend, John Luke Dum, according to the newspaper"
:oops2: Can you repeat the question

The problem is when a Judge uses his flawed reasoning and emotions instead of the rule of law. She, in a drunken stuper, murdered another motorist. Even if she was raped, tortured, beaten then buried up to her head for a month in cow manure as a child, it still does not condone her actions. She needs to atone for her crime and since she is free to roam about, then she should be an indentured servant to the bikers family for the rest of her life. Payback is a bitch in my book and the Judge should be held accountable for the future financial hardship of his family as well.

dont do the crime iff yuo cant do the time murder is murdere put the b---h in jail vear she belongs .bean in jail four several years and it healp mea a lot
:D

This is such a difficult subject. The victim is dead and nothing can possibly change that. I can understand if the relatives and friends want to see this woman locked up and have the key thrown away, that is all part of the grieving process I should imagine.

There are other victims as well though that no-one seems to have thought about; the woman's family. If what is said about her staying off drugs and starting to make her life have purpose, that can only be a positive example for those children. Surely that has to be a good thing? And if, in time, this woman starts to make a valid contribution to society, again that is a positive that has come out of this horrendous tragedy.

And yes, I would join the gang having a month off drinking - what pub and what time please?!?!?!

Sentence Increased to 2 Years
 

Here's a link to a story in the Victoria Times Colonist. The crown appealed and the driver's sentence has now been increased to 2 years.

Tracy Dawn Smith's one-day sentence for drunk-driving death increased to two years - Times Colonist


...Michelle

I dunno. 2 years, and she probably won't serve it all before an early release due to "good behavior".

If a drunk driver killed a friend or family member of mine, I would sure hope they spent a lot more time behind bars then a measly two years. If you ax-murder someone you get 15 or 20 years before parole. How is getting drunk and plowing into someone with a car all that much different?

About 2 years ago, my Brother in Law was riding back from school (he is a math teacher). A car was coming toward him. He was potering along at 50mph on a country lane (limit 60). suddenly the car decided to turn right without signalling, cutting across his lane. There was no way to go as teh bike smashed into the car.

He spent 1 month in coma in intensive care, without knowing if he would survive. He spent 2 months in hospital, he has more metal plates in his body that you could imagine. He was out of work for a year and started part time after that for a year. Was left with horrific injuries, double vision etc... anyway really nasty stuff.

The young lad who caused the accident (and admitted fault!) was sanctioned by 3 points in his driving licence and a 100 pound fine.

There you go!