11 months in jail????

[luvsemall]

What the H___ is going on with our courts when a man convicted of hit & run causing death and other charges, by pleading guilty, gets a lousy 11 months in jail, especially after he ran away, twice. Once from the scene of the hit & run and secondly, from sentencing. He got an extra MONTH for not appearing, to total of 11 months. He lost his license for 5 years.

I just don't get it! There are no consequences to crimes committed anymore.

My father told me many years ago "if you commit a crime, you have to do the time." Along with losing your rights as a free citizen such as voting, etc! NOT ANYMORE!!! Prisoners now have the RIGHT to vote which I have never agreed with.

I don't know all the details but I had an uncle that was involved in an accident many, many years ago where someone died and he lost his license for LIFE! Rightfully so!

Apparently this fellow has some psychological problems, something like autism. Who doesn't? That appears to be the best line of defense.

This man kills a doctor, a person trained to help people and invested a lot of time and effort into his training, just to have this jerk snuff it all out, and with hardly any consequences. I believe I heard this driver has got quite a long list of moving violations although that should be clarified.

At this rate, Willie Pickton will get 5 years in the slammer.

What do you people think of this, and other situations regarding the sentencing of medium to serious crimes?

 

[ReluctantPooner]

If he had stayed at the scene, he should get some slack, we all fuck up on the road. But he Hit and RAN, so he should get a good kick in the ass. And then, he tried to bail out before his sentencing. That in itself should of gotten him 11 months. The hit and run should have gotten him at least a 2 or 3 years behind bars BEFORE parole kicks in.

 

[jjinvan]

Do I even have to say it?

What do you expect when you get a bunch of bleeding heart leftie judges appointed to the bench based on their contributions to the election campaigns of leftie politicians?

It's all there in the Gomery report, plain and simple.

The leftie mantra is that no one has to take any responsibility for themselves or for the results of their actions. Everything is society's fault and society's problem. Every single one of their policies and decisions comes down to that basic principle.

 

[tarbender]

Maybe Texas, has it right ?

 

[OTBn]

Do I even have to say it?

What do you expect when you get a bunch of bleeding heart leftie judges appointed to the bench based on their contributions to the election campaigns of leftie politicians?

The leftie mantra is that no one has to take any responsibility for themselves or for the results of their actions. Everything is society's fault and society's problem. Every single one of their policies and decisions comes down to that basic principle.

do you even have to say what?

in actuality, this 2004 B.C. Provincial court judge appointment was made under the proviso of the rather rigorous appointment process followed by the Judicial Council of the Provincial Court of British Columbia… you know, that 9 member council inclusive of, by design intent, 4 lay members of society.

… I don’t seem to find anything about contributions to election campaigns in the assessment criteria: http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judicialofficers/judgesofthecourt/appointmentprocess/index.html

the hit and run is tragic for the victims family --- by the by, why would the prosecutor only call for a 21 month sentence? Where does taking, as you say, “any responsibility for themselves or for the results of their actions”, fit for an individual, a described autistic deemed to be “eight percentage points above the level of mental retardation”?

 

[jjinvan]

Funny thing is, he had a driver's licence, didn't he?

but, I guess that priviledge comes without any responsibility, in a leftie world...

 

[luvsemall]

I agree

"the hit and run is tragic for the victims family --- by the by, why would the prosecutor only call for a 21 month sentence?"

I'm trying this "Quote" thingy and I'm not sure I've got it right, bare with me, please!

Why would it be, that our prosecutors are only asking for such a light sentence as this?

Some/most people that are going through our court systems feel it's all a joke anyways, we as the citizenry feel this, but apparently we have NO say in this matter as the courts just keep handing out these ridiculous sentences. Where is the penalty for unacceptable actions, such as this, to society anymore?

This type of pathetic legal consequence for serious crimes is only going to foster vigilantism. I can see where some father of a raped or murdered child waits out the sentencing of the criminal, say 2 or 3 years, and then decides to do something himself to either seek revenge and/or remove this scum from the face of the earth so it won't happen to another. While two wrongs don't make it right, I can still see it happening.

Does the father have a right to do something like this. Not legally of course but morally?


OK, I didn't get the Quote" thingy right so, can anyone advise how to get the blue quote part working?

 

[jjinvan]

You realize that under Bill C-19, which is currently being stalled by the unelected liberal criminals in the senate, there would have been a minimum sentence of over double what this guy got and that would be just for the dangerous driving causing death part. There are also provisions to stop leftie wacko judges from imposing concurrent sentences but in this case the judge in question would probably have issued sentences of ONE DAY each for fleeing the scene and for running off to Toronto because he obviously didn't think that either one of them was a big enough deal to put the guy in jail for.

I expect Bill C-19 and the senate to be HUGE issues that will be brought up a lot if we have an election anytime soon. Meanwhile the cons are mostly staying quiet about it, and letting the liberals dig their own electoral grave.

 

[2fukinsexy]

personally

personally, i agree with you luvsemall canada is too easy on offenders. in the U.S. if your convicted of a crime you lose your voting privliges yada yada ya. i lived in florida for a few years too and they adopted the 10-20-life policy. 10 years if you pull a gun, 20 years if you shoot the gun, life if the bullet hits the person in a critical way. seems since i've been back in canada half the cops are currupt and the other half of the system is just too damn forgiving. all that encourages is more crime and a bunch of wanna be gangsters running around town thinking they're invincible. i say we need to toughen up.

 

[luvsemall]

I live in Kelowna and here is the result of a local poll done by castanet.net regarding peoples feelings on this Xiao Zhang issue.

Poll Results
Question: What do you think about sentences handed out by Canadian courts in cases of motor vehicle accidents causing death?
Too Lenient - 885
Too Severe - 13
Just Right - 64

Total Votes: 962

Hey, politicians, does this tell YOU something.

jjinvan - I'll be watching this C-19 bill and what the results will be, thanks for the info.

2fukinsexy - I like what your saying. That Florida 10-20-Life idea sounds good, even great. We have to get control over these thugs that think their a real man when they have a gun in their hand. We just had an 18 year old shot in the head at a house party here, by an uninvited quest. Some kind of argument then bang, your dead. The gunman, 22 years old, is in custody and I will be most curious about his defense and resulting punishment. They 18 year old WAS going to graduate this spring!!!

I also cannot figure out this concurrently sentencing. What is the point of even bringing it into view when it really means, no extra time!

I just don't get it!

My dad was a member of the R.C.M.P. many years ago and he put just a little bit of fear into me about what can happen if you act stupid and do something wrong. Another thing he drilled into me was if you do something wrong, stand up land take your punishment like a man, because you deserve it.

While instilling these thoughts into me, he was also a very fair and caring father. I miss him.

Just my observations!

 

[OTBn]

You realize that under Bill C-19, which is currently being stalled by the unelected liberal criminals in the senate, there would have been a minimum sentence of over double what this guy got and that would be just for the dangerous driving causing death part. There are also provisions to stop

leftie wacko judges from imposing concurrent sentences but in this case the judge in question would probably have issued sentences of ONE DAY each for fleeing the scene and for running off to Toronto because he obviously didn't think that either one of them was a big enough deal to put the guy in jail for.

I expect Bill C-19 and the senate to be HUGE issues that will be brought up a lot if we have an election anytime soon. Meanwhile the cons are mostly staying quiet about it, and letting the liberals dig their own electoral grave.

jjinvan - I'll be watching this C-19 bill and what the results will be, thanks for the info.

what's this - more jj bullsheet... C-19 was given Royal Assent Dec 14... uhhh, it's the law. 2 days debate in the House, 2 days debate in the Senate - a rather straight-forward bill that really only went back to committee (what, for a day?) on the suggestion of Mulroney appointed Senator Oliver... uhhh, jj... it's all there in Hansard

now, now jj... scurry about and either find the right bill reference or perhaps clarify why the, as you say, "cons are mostly staying quiet about it" --- big LOL here jj

 

[jjinvan]

what's this - more jj bullsheet... C-19 was given Royal Assent Dec 14... uhhh, it's the law. 2 days debate in the House, 2 days debate in the Senate - a rather straight-forward bill that really only went back to committee (what, for a day?) on the suggestion of Mulroney appointed Senator Oliver... uhhh, jj... it's all there in Hansard

now, now jj... scurry about and either find the right bill reference or perhaps clarify why the, as you say, "cons are mostly staying quiet about it" --- big LOL here jj

Where's the link to support that claim?

I checked the official government website about a week ago and it said it was still blocked in the Senate since mid November.

Given the efficiency of the unionized civil servants who update the website, it's possible that they are months and months behind in updates.

I'll check around some more and see what I can find.

 

[jjinvan]

Yep, I was right (about why I was wrong).

As can be seen here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...ession=14&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4785&List=stat

The lazy ass unionized civil servants only got around to posting the information on the official site on April 4th, 2007.

Gotta love the efficiency of unionized civil servants.

I'll have to dig a bit more and see why the minimum sentences didn't apply. I'm not sure of the date the guy committed the offence, maybe it was before the bill became law.

It will definately be interesting to see what happens the next time some kid gets nailed for street racing.

 

[tao]

You realize that under Bill C-19, which is currently being stalled by the unelected liberal criminals in the senate

Yep, I was right (about why I was wrong).

As can be seen here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...ession=14&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4785&List=stat

The lazy ass unionized civil servants only got around to posting the information on the official site on April 4th, 2007.

Gotta love the efficiency of unionized civil servants.

I'll have to dig a bit more and see why the minimum sentences didn't apply. I'm not sure of the date the guy committed the offence, maybe it was before the bill became law.

It will definately be interesting to see what happens the next time some kid gets nailed for street racing.

are you saying that website in your quote previously stated that the bill was being stalled by unelected liberal criminals in the senate?

you citing the efficiency of unionized civil servants for your being wrong is the funniest thing i have read here in weeks!!! thanks for the laughs!!!!

the real reason you were wrong, is because you tend to draw conclusions which are not based in fact.

which is easy fodder for someone like OTBn to turn you inside out and make you look like the fool.

 

[tao]

sorry, i can't resist knocking this softball over the fence.

The leftie mantra is that no one has to take any responsibility for themselves or for the results of their actions.

so jj, when confronted with a trivial error you made on a meaningless messageboard did you:

A. Own it and admit your mistake and take the responsibilty for yourself.

OR

B. Blame your mistake on civil servants.


you are more like the lefties you criticize than you think ...

 

[kalel]

tao: the girl dancing in your posts - i wanna ride her like the coin operated horse outside of walmart. unless she's your s/o in which case i detract my comment and will just say that she's hot.

now, as for this thread, the reason i stay away from most of the posts here involving the law, the govt, and the slapnuts who get away with bullshit is because it pisses me off. plain and simple i get worked up over nothing when you come to think about how the accountability is so lost in certain things and criminals really don't do the time.

i may be harsh but i'm a believer that when you commit crimes of murder, rape, or assault you should be punished enough to keep you away from society. society doesn't need you and you are a risk to others and at this point you've lost your PRIVELAGES. why should innocent people be put at risk just to protect your rights? i suppose the first argument would be that we may accidentally punish somebody innocent but i'm willing to take that risk even if it was me. to keep rapists and killers off the streets and make it safer for the rest of my family i'd take that hit.

i suppose this is also why i'd never be elected for any political position.

so there's my rant, and that's probably why i stay away from most of the negative readings.

 

[LonelyGhost]

while its easy to 'blame' someone else,
how many of you are actually willing to
give up your car? your right to drive?

none, right?

that's why there are no laws and no sentences
to punish people who create mayhem and murder
with their cars ... its some god-given right and
therefore no politician is going to touch it.

look at the nonsense over gas prices ... everyone
wants more this and more that and will pay $2 for
a small cup of coffee but god forbid your stupid
gas costs more than a nickel a gallon!

I'd make gas $5 a litre and ban any car 20 years
old from the road ... I'd make parking $10 an hour
downtown and tow every car with a violation to
Hope ...

until people give up their 'right' to drive we
will NEVER have a meaningful law with regard to vehicles.

ps: easiest way to get away with murder? go to a bar,
get stinking drunk, jump in your car and run over your
neighbour, friend, business associate, whatever ...

6 months suspended sentence.

gotta love it.

 

[jjinvan]

are you saying that website in your quote previously stated that the bill was being stalled by unelected liberal criminals in the senate?

you citing the efficiency of unionized civil servants for your being wrong is the funniest thing i have read here in weeks!!! thanks for the laughs!!!!

the real reason you were wrong, is because you tend to draw conclusions which are not based in fact.

which is easy fodder for someone like OTBn to turn you inside out and make you look like the fool.

In the first week of April, the website showed that the last time there was any movement on the bill was in November and it was waiting on the senate.

That was later updated on April 4th to show that it had cleared the senate in December.

So, yes, I made the mistake of forgetting that unionized civil servants are always many months behind on their work, and that government websites updated by those civil servants are often many months out of date.

Yep, I made a mistake and I'm perfectly happy to take any sort of flak you want to hand out for the error of forgetting that unionized civil servants take over 4 months to do something as simple as update the official government legislation website.

happy now?

 

[jjinvan]

while its easy to 'blame' someone else,
how many of you are actually willing to
give up your car? your right to drive?

none, right?

that's why there are no laws and no sentences
to punish people who create mayhem and murder
with their cars ... its some god-given right and
therefore no politician is going to touch it.

look at the nonsense over gas prices ... everyone
wants more this and more that and will pay $2 for
a small cup of coffee but god forbid your stupid
gas costs more than a nickel a gallon!

I'd make gas $5 a litre and ban any car 20 years
old from the road ... I'd make parking $10 an hour
downtown and tow every car with a violation to
Hope ...

until people give up their 'right' to drive we
will NEVER have a meaningful law with regard to vehicles.

ps: easiest way to get away with murder? go to a bar,
get stinking drunk, jump in your car and run over your
neighbour, friend, business associate, whatever ...

6 months suspended sentence.

gotta love it.

Actually if you go back a few years, there was a big case in the BC supreme court where someone who had a bunch of drunk driving convictions had a judge say that they lost their right to drive FOR LIFE. The leftie wankers in the BC supreme court ruled that driving is a right and overturned the sentence. So, according to that ruling no one can have their 'right' to drive taken away in BC. If I remember right, they ruled that there was a maximum of 5 years or some such for non-work related driving, and that the person always had a right to drive for the purpose of going to work or working, but I'm not sure on that one.

Last time I checked, BC was the ONLY province where driving has been found to be a legal right.

So, the problem is the leftie judges (again) on the BC supreme court protecting the rights of criminals instead of pedestrians etc...

Big surprise there...

Of course the usual folks are going to say "There he goes again, blaming the leftie judges". Hey it's not MY fault that they are causing so much trouble, I've been an advocate of elected judges for a looooong time. Who exactly do you want to blame the ruling of the BC supreme court on, if not the judges?

 

[jjinvan]

By the way, if you read the ruling by the judge in this particular case, the moronic judge actually said that the guy wasn't intelligent/mentally ok enough to understand right from wrong or to be responsible for his actions.

But he ignored the crown's argument that the guy was intelligent/mentally ok enough to get his driver's licence...

Also, the judge did not rule him ineligable for a licence on the grounds of mental deficiency. So, this guy who is not smart enough to know not to run people over and run away is going to be back on the roads and driving again in a few years...

Maybe the judge is the one who needs to take an IQ test...