The suggestion as to deterrence is misplaced -- by definition dangerous offenders cannot be deterred -- they simply can never be let out into society -- they are always a danger.
Here the history certainly suggests a danger and if the mental health evidence supports it the status is warranted.
Drunk driver as dangerous offender? Legal precedent could be set this week

By Sidhartha Banerjee
Published: September 6, 2009
MONTREAL - Canadian legal history could be made this week when a Quebec man finds out whether he will become this country's first drunk driver to be declared a dangerous offender.
The dangerous offender designation is usually reserved for the very worst criminals in Canada - like murderers and serial rapists.
But in a Valleyfield, Que., courtroom this Wednesday, a judge could set a legal precedent that would make it easier for repeat drunk drivers who kill people to be locked away under that designation.
Roger Walsh pleaded guilty to a 19th impaired driving charge last December - this time after he mowed down Anee Khudaverdian in October. The wheelchair-bound mother was out with her dog, on her 47th birthday.
While awaiting the decision from Quebec court Judge Michel Mercier, the victim's sister said it's a historic opportunity to make roads safer.
"If they don't hand it down (in this case), we're in trouble - an impaired driver will never be given a sentence like this again," said Clara Khudaverdian, a Montreal sociologist who has pushed for stricter laws since her sister's death.
"If people know this (dangerous offender status) is a possibility if you re-offend, they may think twice."
...
He pleaded guilty this past December to hit-and-run causing death, impaired driving causing death, and violating a court order barring him from drinking.
...
Walsh's 18 previous impaired driving convictions and 114 previous convictions in total for assault, uttering threats, breaking and entering and theft were entered into evidence
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
1 comment:
As things stand now, we have a very hypocritical stance in society, one that is an effective tolerance of drunk driving, coupled with a vilification of the driver should he or she be unlucky enough to kill someone.
Personally, I think that punishing people for being unlucky is fooling. If we really didn't tolerate drunk driving, and really thought it was so bad as people say it is when a drunk driver kills someone, then we should ban them from driving permanently on a first offense and throw them in jail if they continue to drive after being banned.
And yes, that would include a potential designation as a dangerous offender if the judge considered it necessary. After all, that's the action we would take if somebody habitually assaulted people, or went around shooting guns.
Post a Comment