Author Topic: criminal record is unconstitutional... if you're indigenous  (Read 162 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
https://nationalpost.com/news/ontario-judge-strikes-down-mandatory-convictions-for-first-time-impaired-driving-in-case-of-indigenous-woman
Quote
An Ontario judge has raised colonialism, racism and the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women as reasons for declaring part of Canada’s impaired driving laws are unconstitutional, arguing it’s unjust to give a criminal record to a 22-year-old Indigenous woman caught with a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit.
...............

He instead gave the woman a conditional discharge and two years of probation — even though Ontario doesn’t allow conditional discharges for impaired driving, and the federal government recently passed a bill to entirely eliminate conditional discharges for impaired driving across the country.

What a bullshit ruling.  3x the legal limit of alcohol but she avoids a criminal record because she is indigenous.  Makes no sense whatsoever.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
Everyone knows indigenous drunk drivers are less dangerous than other drunk drivers.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
It will be interesting to see what the appeal judges say. I agree that drunk drivers are very dangerous.

I'm not a fan of letting people off lightly because they were too drunk or high to know they were committing crimes.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Do we all understand what a conditional discharge is because I'm not so sure you do. If she's caught drinking and driving again, they can revisit the sentencing of this case and change it. They can add it in addition to any further sentencing she faces for additional convictions. We also don't know the terms of her probation and what sort of rehabilitation program she will undoubtedly be required to go through. Further still, she may not even be allowed to consume ANY alcohol whatsoever as part of her conditions. Breaking conditions is another conviction, which again allows them to revisit the conditional discharge and sentence her differently. To paint this as though the courts have just let her walk free, the same as anyone else on the street, is completely incorrect.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
To paint this as though the courts have just let her walk free, the same as anyone else on the street, is completely incorrect.

Agreed, but to say the law is unconstitutional based on our colonial past is bullshyte. There is not a valid excuse to be behind the wheel impaired.
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Do we all understand what a conditional discharge is because I'm not so sure you do.

What the conditions are is irrelevant.  A conditional discharge is not a sentencing option for drunk driving. 

The sentencing was ruled unConstitutional by the judge because the perp was indigenous. 

No one said the courts let her walk free...  nice straw man. 

She did get a much lighter sentence because she is indigenous though. 


Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Agreed, but to say the law is unconstitutional based on our colonial past is bullshyte. There is not a valid excuse to be behind the wheel impaired.
Right. I agree with you. I just don't think the sentencing is absurd as the media is making it out to be.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
What the conditions are is irrelevant.  A conditional discharge is not a sentencing option for drunk driving. 

The sentencing was ruled unConstitutional by the judge because the perp was indigenous. 

No one said the courts let her walk free...  nice straw man. 

She did get a much lighter sentence because she is indigenous though.
Here's a thought. How many wealthy white people get stopped by the cops for drunk driving and are let off with little more than a warning because the cops don't want to "ruin someone's life for a mistake," as opposed to the number of indigenous people who are more harshly scrutinized by the police due to the perception that they're more dangerous, have no future, and deserve harsher penalties? Research has already shown that every step of the way, indigenous people are treated more harshly, while wealthy white Canadians are given every benefit of the doubt. If this makes up for that inequity, then I don't see the problem. Because, face it, there's a lot of white people who did the same **** and didn't even see a court room, despite also being stopped by cops.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Here's a thought. How many wealthy white people get stopped by the cops for drunk driving and are let off with little more than a warning because the cops don't want to "ruin someone's life for a mistake,"

No idea...   do you?

This sounds like another straw man... 


Quote
... as opposed to the number of indigenous people who are more harshly scrutinized by the police due to the perception that they're more dangerous, have no future, and deserve harsher penalties?

Anyone who blows 3x the legal limit, putting lives in danger deserves harsh penalties.   


Quote
Research has already shown that every step of the way, indigenous people are treated more harshly, while wealthy white Canadians are given every benefit of the doubt. If this makes up for that inequity, then I don't see the problem. Because, face it, there's a lot of white people who did the same **** and didn't even see a court room, despite also being stopped by cops.

Citation please... for  how many white people get off for drunk driving 3x the legal limit...

Your reasoning makes it seem like they just can't help themselves...  they're just poor downtrodden natives and we shouldn't expect anything better of them.   ick.   I expect anyone blowing 3x the legal limit, crashing their car and putting lives in danger to be dealt with harshly.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
Because, face it, there's a lot of white people who did the same **** and didn't even see a court room, despite also being stopped by cops.

"...she took her mother’s car without permission in an area north of Oshawa. She pulled out of a parking lot, fish-tailed, hopped a curb, launched the car airborne by “two or three feet,” landed on a sidewalk, narrowly missed a lamp post and then resumed driving until the police pulled her over and breathalyzed her."

A ****-drunk 22 y/o white person pulling that off I don't think is going to talk themselves out of that one.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
No idea...   do you?

This sounds like another straw man... 


Anyone who blows 3x the legal limit, putting lives in danger deserves harsh penalties.   


Citation please... for  how many white people get off for drunk driving 3x the legal limit...

Your reasoning makes it seem like they just can't help themselves...  they're just poor downtrodden natives and we shouldn't expect anything better of them.   ick.   I expect anyone blowing 3x the legal limit, crashing their car and putting lives in danger to be dealt with harshly.
And now you’re being a sea lion. The things I mentioned are known well enough that I don’t need to convince you. If you think affluent white people aren’t given a free pass by the judicial system all the time, then I don’t know what to tell you because that’s just willful ignorance.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
"...she took her mother’s car without permission in an area north of Oshawa. She pulled out of a parking lot, fish-tailed, hopped a curb, launched the car airborne by “two or three feet,” landed on a sidewalk, narrowly missed a lamp post and then resumed driving until the police pulled her over and breathalyzed her."

A ****-drunk 22 y/o white person pulling that off I don't think is going to talk themselves out of that one.
Happens ALL the time

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Do we all understand what a conditional discharge is because I'm not so sure you do. If she's caught drinking and driving again, they can revisit the sentencing of this case and change it. They can add it in addition to any further sentencing she faces for additional convictions. We also don't know the terms of her probation and what sort of rehabilitation program she will undoubtedly be required to go through. Further still, she may not even be allowed to consume ANY alcohol whatsoever as part of her conditions. Breaking conditions is another conviction, which again allows them to revisit the conditional discharge and sentence her differently. To paint this as though the courts have just let her walk free, the same as anyone else on the street, is completely incorrect.

A person convicted for any drinking and driving offence (which includes a refuse to comply offence) faces an automatic Canada-wide driving prohibition, and either a fine or jail sentence and the possibility of probation.
The minimum sentences are:[21][22]
For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition,
For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and
For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition.


She would have faced a $1000 fine, with conditions.
She got a discharge with conditions instead.
It can be reopened if she recommits.
The Appeal court will decide if the fine gets reinstated, that's all.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8857
A person convicted for any drinking and driving offence (which includes a refuse to comply offence) faces an automatic Canada-wide driving prohibition, and either a fine or jail sentence and the possibility of probation.
The minimum sentences are:[21][22]
For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition,
For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and
For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition.


She would have faced a $1000 fine, with conditions.
She got a discharge with conditions instead.
It can be reopened if she recommits.
The Appeal court will decide if the fine gets reinstated, that's all.

waddabout that criminal record thingee?
Winner Winner x 1 View List