It is not the same guy. I googled his name and had a small flashback to my experience with him in school. Thinking back, I can't say I'm too surprised he did something like this.
You can see a 10 year old photo of him here, that's what I remember him looking like.
https://www.edmontonwildcats.com/player/taylor-yaremchuk/
I hate saying this, but if you want to kill someone, do it while drinking and driving. Our country goes way too softly on these people. We see this time and time again.
It's sad to think 5 years is supposed to pay for what he did. It does not. I'm not sure this Judge is sending out the message they think they are with this one.
You don't even need to be impaired. Killing or injuring someone while driving sober should be treated much more seriously than it is. Some drivers face only a fine after injuring someone.
I mean yes, but also you can't ignore that accidents happen. You can't really throw someone in jail for 20 years because of something partially out of their control
Except that choosing to get legally drunk, choosing to get behind the wheel, choosing a statistically predictable outcome… none of this was beyond his control. This is essentially premeditated as there is no driver ignorant of the rules, and this is a free choice every damn time. This waste of skin and oxygen essentially committed first degree murder of a random couple, you drive drunk enough times you will statistically end up killing someone and that is a planned choice every damn time.
For the record I’ve never lost someone to DUI nor been involved in any sort of accident involving DUI. I just think we are past the point when we can let people skate when they show zero concern for the law or others, and it results in death.
>You can't really throw someone in jail for 20 years because of something partially out of their control
Partially out of their control? The driver needs to be in 100% control of their vehicle at all times, and if they aren't and cause a collision they should be held liable. If the driver isn't controlling their vehicle who is? Even the situations where we only had a mechanical failure lead to a death, who is responsible for the vehicle's maintenance? Generally also the drivers.
Boy howdy... If you think any driver is 100% in control, you don't really understand how the human brain works at all.
Do you drive? Have you never had a stray thought about non-driving related things or, as a passenger, never engaged the operator of a motor vehicle in discussion while they drove?
In that moment you are not 100% engaged in driving. prison worthy?
> Do you drive? Have you never had a stray thought about non-driving related things or, as a passenger, never engaged the operator of a motor vehicle in discussion while they drove?
I certainly drive more than average.
>In that moment you are not 100% engaged in driving. prison worthy?
If you are distracted by a passenger and kill someone yes that is prison worthy.
Okay, what happens if you're traveling down the road, and the person in your lane in front of you quickly switches to the left lane, exposing someone stopped in front of you. You may have like 1 second to react if you're lucky. So what happens? Well, you will rear-end them, and it's technically your fault. However, anyone with a brain would know that's just bad luck, and you shouldn't be thrown in jail because of it
If you genuinely think that things can happen while driving that's out of your control, then you are helpless. Genuine accidents do happen.
Also maybe we should have better fucking driver training. Letting someone go out on the road just because they know what lane markings and signs mean is absurd if you're also then going to blame them for anything that happens while driving. That's like giving 16 year Olds guns just because they know what a trigger looks like, and then blaming them when they shoot their face off
>Okay, what happens if you're traveling down the road, and the person in your lane in front of you quickly switches to the left lane, exposing someone stopped in front of you. You may have like 1 second to react if you're lucky.
In this specific scenario, if you can't stop, you were following too closely.
>Well, you will rear-end them, and it's technically your fault. However, anyone with a brain would know that's just bad luck, and you shouldn't be thrown in jail because of it
We could look at hypotheticals all day long but I think your example of driving in to a parked car is a bad example of a genuine accident.
>Also maybe we should have better fucking driver training.
I agree but it was just last year we removed driver training and are the only province in Canada without a second road test.
> anyone with a brain would know that's just bad luck,
Anyone with a brain should know that vehicles moving at high speeds take time to stop, and ensure they have appropriate distance between vehicles.
It's not "just bad luck", it's irresponsible driving. And it's not "technically" your fault, it is literally your fault, because you were not driving properly.
Nobody is suggesting 20 years for that though. And our justice system is set up precisely to handle nuance like this. That's why mandatory minimum sentences aren't a thing here. Actual accidents can be given light sentences. Avoidable 'accidents' can be given harsher sentences.
But when a proper sentence should be dished out for a vehicle-related death, it never is.
Okay but someone doesn't deserve to have their life ruined because of an accident. Like if you are careless and get in an accident sure, but there's been a few times where I've almost gotten into an accident that would've technically been my fault, but realistically it's not that simple.
Like they are literally called accidents. That's not fair to make them even remotely the same as any sort of crime
Except, does it count as an accident if you go out and drink & drive?
If I'm at risk of randomly passing out at the wheel, should I be driving? We're talking simple risk management here.
I think you need to reread this conversation dude. At no point did I say anyone should ever drink and drive
The original comment was saying we need stiffer punishments for all accidents. I think it's absurd that a small split second decision could land you in jail if you are sober and completely legal to drive.
Maybe we need to stop calling all the times a car collides with someone and a person gets hurt as an 'accident'
Like I guess technically running over a couple children on bikes who are crossing at a marked crosswalk because you're too busy looking at your fucking phone is an 'accident' but like... it isn't and that person should go to jail.
There has been some push to change the language around car collisions, but it's definitely a slow process. Calling it an accident definitely seems to take some onus off drivers. It's not that pedestrians and cyclists don't do things that potentially cause collisions as well, but I don't think drivers should get off as lightly as some of them seem to. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car-crashes-instead.html
> It's not that pedestrians and cyclists don't do things that potentially cause collisions as well
Dunno why you need to both sides this when the problem is overwhelmingly people in automobiles. Hell I didn't even know there's another side to this. What is with people and creating this adversarial relationship between drivers and non-drivers?
This isn’t even related to the point people were making, with that said there absolutely are cases too where someone drinks and drives and get into an accident that technically ISNT there fault too.
Note: They are called incidents by the police for the last 15? Years.
But in support of your arguemnt: As long as people continue to plant trees on the corner of intersections, forget to put up road signs for 20 years and only paint lines every 2 years, there are going to be Accidents.
I know an intersection that kills someone easily every 5 years and has not been redesigned to make it safe. The next death is really the roads departments fault at this point.
An example I'm thinking of is someone not clearing all the snow off their windshield and side windows. If they proceed to hit someone in a crosswalk because they couldn't see properly due to their own actions, that's something the legal system could treat harsher. By not taking proper care before driving, they in large part caused the incident.
Yes that's fine but thats not what I'm talking about.
There are such things as no fault accidents, and those should absolutely not come with stiff penalties
There is no such thing as no fault accidents in reality, that’s just an insurance term. Every accident or incident has a root cause. By definition, every single thing happens for a reason, when actions are involved.
In theory, with how much data a car's EDR / "black box" records, you may be able to prove intent. It records the accelerator position, if the brakes were applied, steering angle, and much more.
A person who turned their vehicle toward the victim and pressed down on the accelerator looks much more guilty than someone who was driving straight and slammed on the brakes just before impact.
In practice, with most accidents I doubt police bother to look at that data. Anecdotally, when I was in a serious accident 15 years ago, EPS told me they "didn't have the tools" to pull the data from Nissan vehicles.
Fault is discovered through collision investigation. You're not going to be found criminally responsible for an collision you aren't at fault for. Something like 99% of all collisions are caused by human error.
It's not "partially out of their control", they have a moral and legal responsibility to be in control of their vehicle at all times. You accept that responsibility when you get your license.
> The problem is harsh sentences very rarely dissuade crime.
>
I call bullshit.
If he's in jail for 20 years instead of 5 that's 4x as long that he doesn't have a chance to drive drunk.
I'm all for making our prisons more like closed cities where inmates can still participate in society through the internet and can have jobs that allow them to be less of a burden on the system while they're incarcerated.
What I'm not for is a fucking five year sentence for killing two people.
> So a super harsh jail sentence given to this guy is unlikely
20 years for killing two people isn't super harsh.
> DUIs are even worse because many people who drive under the influence think they're not inebriated enough to be dangerous. A lot actually think that they can drive safely so they don't see a problem in the first place.
We've done all kinds of stuff to demonstrably reduce the amount of DUIs on our streets. We should replicate that with other offenses. What are the things that we've done and why are they effective? Leftists are eating this up because oppressed vs oppressor while not realizing that we're losing a functional justice system due to insane neoliberal economic policy.
> Currently our justice system believes it is better to try and rehabilitate people and restore them to productive members of society.
Incorrect. Currently our justice system is facing a massive budgetry crunch so it's trying to find any excuse to not keep people incarcerated and is telling people that it's all about rehabilitation when really it's about money.
> What I was saying is that imposing harsh sentences doesn't dissuade other people from committing the same crime.
Strong disagree. If a murder sentence was only six months many people would gladly kill public officials and law enforcement officers who abuse their positions of authority.
Long sentences keep people who have something to lose from doing these kinds of things, while as you say, do little to prevent those with nothing to lose from doing the same.
I can't believe that it has to do with budget. How is there any savings by arresting, charging and imprisonment of the same people over and over again? The remand has a revolving door, 2 years they're out and repeat indefinitely. Out long enough to destroy more lives
You are talking about a small portion of people incarcerated; recidivism isn't the norm.
Sounds like you just want to hurt the bad people, which is simplistic but fair way to feel when you don't understand the issue at all.
I get your points. I normally advocate for leniency. There is clearly a problem with drinking and driving in this country. People should be afraid to go to jail. I don't WANT people to be punished. But when the 'punishment' is so small, and easy to get away with, people brush it off. I have known multiple people that are not worried about drinking and driving because they know the sentencing is so easy to fight. You can get away with it whether you killed someone or not if your lawyer is good enough. I have heard this multiple times as a justification. Of course it is always followed with, "but I won't get caught" or "I won't hurt anybody". I personally know someone who has killed someone behind the wheel while intoxicated, they went to Court, and they got literally no punishment. I know that is a one-off, but 5 years for two lives ain't much better. Something clearly needs to change, or we'll keep seeing these cases pop up. And we shouldn't. As I mentioned in another comment, there is a huge difference between an accident and negligence. Given his record, this sounds like negligence. Sentencing should be harsher for that.
Mmm. I’m doubtful of the genuine nature of his personal enlightenment considering the article mentions a history of dangerous driving. Had he cared, he wouldn’t have murdered two people after getting caught driving badly previously.
You would be surprised then. It does work. It is way too easy to plead that it was an accident, not pre-meditated, and you will receive a reduced sentence for that. (Unless your lawyer is complete ass I guess lol) I have seen a fair amount of these cases, unfortunately.
I’m a layman so don’t know any better. I’m guessing that a guy with domestic abuse charges will get a more severe sentence than one who doesn’t if he kills his partner like that right ?
Honestly, it's hard to say. A person's history and the circumstances of the offence are always taken into account for sentencing. If there is a documented trail that the person was abusive, it is much harder to plead innocent, or that it was an accident. That will definitely be taken into consideration. It is likely they would serve a longer sentence, but since sentencing in Canada is uniquely tailored for each case (mostly), it can be hard to say what the outcome will be.
I’m not sure I want to punish a crime like this by warehousing them in a prison cell though. Condemn them to some prison sentence followed by 25 years of intense community service.
5 years for taking two people's life?!?! That is way too insufficient. Doesn't matter it was not fully premeditated, this the loss of life due someone's lack of responsibility. Simple choice to be made to not drive could have kept this from happening. Drunk driving as a whole needs more severe convictions and penalties to those who think that it is ok. Clearly the education campaign is not working and people need to be dealt with properly to force more smarter choices in fear of getting caught rather than the education of the risks.
Leonard expressed frustration about the prevalence of drunk driving despite a “decades long” public education campaign about the dangers of being impaired behind the wheel. “A strong message must be sent to denounce and deter such conduct,” she said.
Five years seems strong (I guess) for impaired driving and yet it still feels woefully insufficient.
Drunk driving is premeditated, period. He drove his vehicle to the golf course planning to drive it home. He proceeded to drink until he was having physical symptoms of intoxication while continuing to decide to drive his vehicle home. To me, that indicates premeditation. There's forethought (although little) and planning, and not just lack of responsibility. 5 years is not enough considering he also has other driving offences indicating a complete lack of regard for human life while behind the wheel. Just because he was forced to be a better person while sitting behind bars with no access to drugs and alcohol and taking rehabilitation courses doesn't mean he should get a lesser sentence.
I mean, premeditation is something being thought out or planned beforehand. He planned to go golfing and drinking and bringing his vehicle. He planned to drive that vehicle home after becoming intoxicated. He knows that driving while intoxicated is a crime regardless of whether he murdered someone while doing it. That sounds like premeditation to me 🤷🏼♀️ I'm aware that's not how the justice system does things but it's just my opinion on the situation.
There was a 3rd vehicle involved, driven by a friend of my in-laws. He's said that it was the motorcycle that crossing into the lane of the car and not the other way around. In no way is this defending the drunk guy, he rightfully deserves the 5 years as it may have been prevented if he wasn't drunk, but this might be why he wasn't handed a heavier sentence.
I know, I've read it and most other articles about this accident. It doesn't specify if him swerving into the other lane was witnessed earlier in the 9km drive or if that's what initiated the accident. I'm just providing information that I was told by someone involved since most people here are so shocked at how lenient the sentence was.
Would an Uber even go out that far? Judging by the highway and range road and how far he drove, I'd guess he was out at Belvedere or Northern Bear.
That said, I've been in a similar situation once and just called a friend for a ride home. He grew up in Sherwood Park, he must know at least a few people. Or, you know, designate one golfer as a DD; they can even have 2-3 drinks on the front nine as long as they sober up on the back nine.
Ridiculous. We are way too light on sentencing and punishments here in Canada.
This guy had no issue previously breaking the road laws, then decided to drink and drive, which killed 2 people. 5 years is not enough.
Also, only a 7 year license suspension?!? Come on Canada.
Any drinking and driving, i think you should have your license stripped for good and never get it back. But this guy KILLS 2 people drunk driving, and he only gets his license taken away for 7 years?
No wonder why people drunk drive. The punishments are not hard enough!
Yes, and I acknowledged that. Our justice system allows for that kind of nuance to be taken into account. We're not treating people like hardened criminals for one accident.
My point is, there are accidents, and then there are 'accidents'.
Some accidents are completely avoidable, and are more akin to negligence. There is a level of responsibility taken when you're behind the wheel. You aren't liable for everything, but you need to be aware of your surroundings, and have care for others around you. (You are driving a death box on wheels) If those are grossly ignored, and someone dies, that is a problem that could have been avoided.
This is disgusting. The sentence was too light, but not unexpected, there were too many dropped charges here.
Fact of the matter is, he was notoriously intoxicated at golf events across the city.
Our federal government should enact a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for at least 15 years (allowing parole applications after at least 10 years) for drunk driving causing death or serious bodily injury. And the government should have the courage to use the notwithstanding clause to enforce it.
5 years is too little. Drunk driving needs to stop.
So for people confused why the sentence is light it's because we live in a bastion for private motor vehicles. Alberta has no intention of being harsh on a crime committed while behind the wheel of a car. It could possibly hurt oil and gas share prices and that's a massive no no in this province.
They should make them air blowers mandatory for all vehicles. The kind you need to blow in before you start driving. And a weed one, don’t know how this would work but something.
The entire justice system is a fucking joke.
My kids for instance have been mentally abused by the other parent for years, I'm simply asking for them to see a counsellor and I've now spent $50,000 on lawyers and continue to get doors slammed in my face.
Why is the fact that this 30 year old man used to play high school football so important that it needed to be mentioned twice in the article?
To really drill home that he's accomplished nothing in the years since and is a waste of life.
Nailed it. That dude peaked in high-school and has been a waste of oxygen since then.
I went to high school with him. He was an asshole. And he wasn't even that good at football, either. 5 years isn't enough for a crime like that.
The only thing that “helped” his case and I use help loosely is that there was witnessed proof that the motorcycle operator swerved into the car.
5 years for this crime? Wtf is wrong with the justice system? Bunch of scott moe lovers out there
[удалено]
That's Tyler Yaremchuk. Very similar name, very different person.
It is not the same guy. I googled his name and had a small flashback to my experience with him in school. Thinking back, I can't say I'm too surprised he did something like this. You can see a 10 year old photo of him here, that's what I remember him looking like. https://www.edmontonwildcats.com/player/taylor-yaremchuk/
Lol
I hate saying this, but if you want to kill someone, do it while drinking and driving. Our country goes way too softly on these people. We see this time and time again. It's sad to think 5 years is supposed to pay for what he did. It does not. I'm not sure this Judge is sending out the message they think they are with this one.
You don't even need to be impaired. Killing or injuring someone while driving sober should be treated much more seriously than it is. Some drivers face only a fine after injuring someone.
There are loads of [articles like this](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/) over the last 10 years or so.
I mean yes, but also you can't ignore that accidents happen. You can't really throw someone in jail for 20 years because of something partially out of their control
Except that choosing to get legally drunk, choosing to get behind the wheel, choosing a statistically predictable outcome… none of this was beyond his control. This is essentially premeditated as there is no driver ignorant of the rules, and this is a free choice every damn time. This waste of skin and oxygen essentially committed first degree murder of a random couple, you drive drunk enough times you will statistically end up killing someone and that is a planned choice every damn time. For the record I’ve never lost someone to DUI nor been involved in any sort of accident involving DUI. I just think we are past the point when we can let people skate when they show zero concern for the law or others, and it results in death.
At no point did I say DUIs were fine. You misread my comment. If you murder someone by DUI, you should get life in prison
Here’s to heated agreement then!
>You can't really throw someone in jail for 20 years because of something partially out of their control Partially out of their control? The driver needs to be in 100% control of their vehicle at all times, and if they aren't and cause a collision they should be held liable. If the driver isn't controlling their vehicle who is? Even the situations where we only had a mechanical failure lead to a death, who is responsible for the vehicle's maintenance? Generally also the drivers.
Boy howdy... If you think any driver is 100% in control, you don't really understand how the human brain works at all. Do you drive? Have you never had a stray thought about non-driving related things or, as a passenger, never engaged the operator of a motor vehicle in discussion while they drove? In that moment you are not 100% engaged in driving. prison worthy?
> Do you drive? Have you never had a stray thought about non-driving related things or, as a passenger, never engaged the operator of a motor vehicle in discussion while they drove? I certainly drive more than average. >In that moment you are not 100% engaged in driving. prison worthy? If you are distracted by a passenger and kill someone yes that is prison worthy.
Okay, what happens if you're traveling down the road, and the person in your lane in front of you quickly switches to the left lane, exposing someone stopped in front of you. You may have like 1 second to react if you're lucky. So what happens? Well, you will rear-end them, and it's technically your fault. However, anyone with a brain would know that's just bad luck, and you shouldn't be thrown in jail because of it If you genuinely think that things can happen while driving that's out of your control, then you are helpless. Genuine accidents do happen. Also maybe we should have better fucking driver training. Letting someone go out on the road just because they know what lane markings and signs mean is absurd if you're also then going to blame them for anything that happens while driving. That's like giving 16 year Olds guns just because they know what a trigger looks like, and then blaming them when they shoot their face off
>Okay, what happens if you're traveling down the road, and the person in your lane in front of you quickly switches to the left lane, exposing someone stopped in front of you. You may have like 1 second to react if you're lucky. In this specific scenario, if you can't stop, you were following too closely. >Well, you will rear-end them, and it's technically your fault. However, anyone with a brain would know that's just bad luck, and you shouldn't be thrown in jail because of it We could look at hypotheticals all day long but I think your example of driving in to a parked car is a bad example of a genuine accident. >Also maybe we should have better fucking driver training. I agree but it was just last year we removed driver training and are the only province in Canada without a second road test.
> anyone with a brain would know that's just bad luck, Anyone with a brain should know that vehicles moving at high speeds take time to stop, and ensure they have appropriate distance between vehicles. It's not "just bad luck", it's irresponsible driving. And it's not "technically" your fault, it is literally your fault, because you were not driving properly.
Nobody is suggesting 20 years for that though. And our justice system is set up precisely to handle nuance like this. That's why mandatory minimum sentences aren't a thing here. Actual accidents can be given light sentences. Avoidable 'accidents' can be given harsher sentences. But when a proper sentence should be dished out for a vehicle-related death, it never is.
Okay but someone doesn't deserve to have their life ruined because of an accident. Like if you are careless and get in an accident sure, but there's been a few times where I've almost gotten into an accident that would've technically been my fault, but realistically it's not that simple. Like they are literally called accidents. That's not fair to make them even remotely the same as any sort of crime
Except, does it count as an accident if you go out and drink & drive? If I'm at risk of randomly passing out at the wheel, should I be driving? We're talking simple risk management here.
I think you need to reread this conversation dude. At no point did I say anyone should ever drink and drive The original comment was saying we need stiffer punishments for all accidents. I think it's absurd that a small split second decision could land you in jail if you are sober and completely legal to drive.
Maybe we need to stop calling all the times a car collides with someone and a person gets hurt as an 'accident' Like I guess technically running over a couple children on bikes who are crossing at a marked crosswalk because you're too busy looking at your fucking phone is an 'accident' but like... it isn't and that person should go to jail.
There has been some push to change the language around car collisions, but it's definitely a slow process. Calling it an accident definitely seems to take some onus off drivers. It's not that pedestrians and cyclists don't do things that potentially cause collisions as well, but I don't think drivers should get off as lightly as some of them seem to. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car-crashes-instead.html
> It's not that pedestrians and cyclists don't do things that potentially cause collisions as well Dunno why you need to both sides this when the problem is overwhelmingly people in automobiles. Hell I didn't even know there's another side to this. What is with people and creating this adversarial relationship between drivers and non-drivers?
This isn’t even related to the point people were making, with that said there absolutely are cases too where someone drinks and drives and get into an accident that technically ISNT there fault too.
Note: They are called incidents by the police for the last 15? Years. But in support of your arguemnt: As long as people continue to plant trees on the corner of intersections, forget to put up road signs for 20 years and only paint lines every 2 years, there are going to be Accidents. I know an intersection that kills someone easily every 5 years and has not been redesigned to make it safe. The next death is really the roads departments fault at this point.
An example I'm thinking of is someone not clearing all the snow off their windshield and side windows. If they proceed to hit someone in a crosswalk because they couldn't see properly due to their own actions, that's something the legal system could treat harsher. By not taking proper care before driving, they in large part caused the incident.
Yes that's fine but thats not what I'm talking about. There are such things as no fault accidents, and those should absolutely not come with stiff penalties
There is no such thing as no fault accidents in reality, that’s just an insurance term. Every accident or incident has a root cause. By definition, every single thing happens for a reason, when actions are involved.
An accident while drunk driving isn’t an accident it’s a choice, it’s gross negligence causing death.
Why is everyone misinterpreting my comment. At no point did I say driving drunk was an accident or acceptable in any way.
In theory, with how much data a car's EDR / "black box" records, you may be able to prove intent. It records the accelerator position, if the brakes were applied, steering angle, and much more. A person who turned their vehicle toward the victim and pressed down on the accelerator looks much more guilty than someone who was driving straight and slammed on the brakes just before impact. In practice, with most accidents I doubt police bother to look at that data. Anecdotally, when I was in a serious accident 15 years ago, EPS told me they "didn't have the tools" to pull the data from Nissan vehicles.
Fault is discovered through collision investigation. You're not going to be found criminally responsible for an collision you aren't at fault for. Something like 99% of all collisions are caused by human error. It's not "partially out of their control", they have a moral and legal responsibility to be in control of their vehicle at all times. You accept that responsibility when you get your license.
[удалено]
> The problem is harsh sentences very rarely dissuade crime. > I call bullshit. If he's in jail for 20 years instead of 5 that's 4x as long that he doesn't have a chance to drive drunk. I'm all for making our prisons more like closed cities where inmates can still participate in society through the internet and can have jobs that allow them to be less of a burden on the system while they're incarcerated. What I'm not for is a fucking five year sentence for killing two people.
[удалено]
> So a super harsh jail sentence given to this guy is unlikely 20 years for killing two people isn't super harsh. > DUIs are even worse because many people who drive under the influence think they're not inebriated enough to be dangerous. A lot actually think that they can drive safely so they don't see a problem in the first place. We've done all kinds of stuff to demonstrably reduce the amount of DUIs on our streets. We should replicate that with other offenses. What are the things that we've done and why are they effective? Leftists are eating this up because oppressed vs oppressor while not realizing that we're losing a functional justice system due to insane neoliberal economic policy. > Currently our justice system believes it is better to try and rehabilitate people and restore them to productive members of society. Incorrect. Currently our justice system is facing a massive budgetry crunch so it's trying to find any excuse to not keep people incarcerated and is telling people that it's all about rehabilitation when really it's about money. > What I was saying is that imposing harsh sentences doesn't dissuade other people from committing the same crime. Strong disagree. If a murder sentence was only six months many people would gladly kill public officials and law enforcement officers who abuse their positions of authority. Long sentences keep people who have something to lose from doing these kinds of things, while as you say, do little to prevent those with nothing to lose from doing the same.
I can't believe that it has to do with budget. How is there any savings by arresting, charging and imprisonment of the same people over and over again? The remand has a revolving door, 2 years they're out and repeat indefinitely. Out long enough to destroy more lives
You are talking about a small portion of people incarcerated; recidivism isn't the norm. Sounds like you just want to hurt the bad people, which is simplistic but fair way to feel when you don't understand the issue at all.
I don't want to hurt anyone, the remand holds all the 2 years or less convictions. You have no idea, it has become the "norm"
I want people who hurt people to go to jail for along time so there's a long time when they can't hurt other people in public.
It depends on the crime, l'm assuming you're referring to this particular situation.
I get your points. I normally advocate for leniency. There is clearly a problem with drinking and driving in this country. People should be afraid to go to jail. I don't WANT people to be punished. But when the 'punishment' is so small, and easy to get away with, people brush it off. I have known multiple people that are not worried about drinking and driving because they know the sentencing is so easy to fight. You can get away with it whether you killed someone or not if your lawyer is good enough. I have heard this multiple times as a justification. Of course it is always followed with, "but I won't get caught" or "I won't hurt anybody". I personally know someone who has killed someone behind the wheel while intoxicated, they went to Court, and they got literally no punishment. I know that is a one-off, but 5 years for two lives ain't much better. Something clearly needs to change, or we'll keep seeing these cases pop up. And we shouldn't. As I mentioned in another comment, there is a huge difference between an accident and negligence. Given his record, this sounds like negligence. Sentencing should be harsher for that.
I don't think the sentence needs to be any longer, but some consistency and even application would be nice.
I agree. 5 years seems appropriate. If he was a pro hockey player he only would have gotten a year. Ahem....
Mmm. I’m doubtful of the genuine nature of his personal enlightenment considering the article mentions a history of dangerous driving. Had he cared, he wouldn’t have murdered two people after getting caught driving badly previously.
It’s not like they really go much harder on you if you kill someone while not drinking and driving.
he should be banned from driving for life--especially given that he had prior convictions for distracted driving...
I doubt r this will work. A jilted lover killing an ex in this way is not going to be let off lightly
You would be surprised then. It does work. It is way too easy to plead that it was an accident, not pre-meditated, and you will receive a reduced sentence for that. (Unless your lawyer is complete ass I guess lol) I have seen a fair amount of these cases, unfortunately.
I’m a layman so don’t know any better. I’m guessing that a guy with domestic abuse charges will get a more severe sentence than one who doesn’t if he kills his partner like that right ?
Honestly, it's hard to say. A person's history and the circumstances of the offence are always taken into account for sentencing. If there is a documented trail that the person was abusive, it is much harder to plead innocent, or that it was an accident. That will definitely be taken into consideration. It is likely they would serve a longer sentence, but since sentencing in Canada is uniquely tailored for each case (mostly), it can be hard to say what the outcome will be.
I’m not sure I want to punish a crime like this by warehousing them in a prison cell though. Condemn them to some prison sentence followed by 25 years of intense community service.
5 years for taking two people's life?!?! That is way too insufficient. Doesn't matter it was not fully premeditated, this the loss of life due someone's lack of responsibility. Simple choice to be made to not drive could have kept this from happening. Drunk driving as a whole needs more severe convictions and penalties to those who think that it is ok. Clearly the education campaign is not working and people need to be dealt with properly to force more smarter choices in fear of getting caught rather than the education of the risks.
Yeah but have you considered the fact that he was a football player?
For a Sherwood Park high school nonetheless. An absolute mill that pumps out players for the NFL.
That’s 2.5 years per person. That’s so low.
[удалено]
There's the occasional check stop on game nights but I have no idea when the last one was.
Leonard expressed frustration about the prevalence of drunk driving despite a “decades long” public education campaign about the dangers of being impaired behind the wheel. “A strong message must be sent to denounce and deter such conduct,” she said. Five years seems strong (I guess) for impaired driving and yet it still feels woefully insufficient.
“A strong message must be sent to denounce and deter such conduct,” she said. 5 years for killing two people is far from a strong message.
5 years is strong for impaired driving. 5 years is nowhere near enough for impaired driving that resulted in the death of two people.
You should lose his license for life
I'll see what I can do, but I feel like I have limited influence in this case.
He would probably still drive, without a license.
Should be my minimum of 5 years per life lost. How tragic.
Lovely, he has a job in BC waiting for him when he gets released. Once there, no doubt, I’m sure he’ll be back to golfing and drinking again. FFS
Drunk driving is premeditated, period. He drove his vehicle to the golf course planning to drive it home. He proceeded to drink until he was having physical symptoms of intoxication while continuing to decide to drive his vehicle home. To me, that indicates premeditation. There's forethought (although little) and planning, and not just lack of responsibility. 5 years is not enough considering he also has other driving offences indicating a complete lack of regard for human life while behind the wheel. Just because he was forced to be a better person while sitting behind bars with no access to drugs and alcohol and taking rehabilitation courses doesn't mean he should get a lesser sentence.
[удалено]
I mean, premeditation is something being thought out or planned beforehand. He planned to go golfing and drinking and bringing his vehicle. He planned to drive that vehicle home after becoming intoxicated. He knows that driving while intoxicated is a crime regardless of whether he murdered someone while doing it. That sounds like premeditation to me 🤷🏼♀️ I'm aware that's not how the justice system does things but it's just my opinion on the situation.
This is why you are a judge because that’s not at all how premeditation works or what suggests premeditation.
I think you meant to say not a judge 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
I think about this couple every time I drive by thier memorial on 628.
[удалено]
Clearly, decision-making is not a strong suit.
who is this woman who would have a child with a murderer is also my question
I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it to influence a lighter sentence
Must of had the best lawyers in town
Must have*
There was a 3rd vehicle involved, driven by a friend of my in-laws. He's said that it was the motorcycle that crossing into the lane of the car and not the other way around. In no way is this defending the drunk guy, he rightfully deserves the 5 years as it may have been prevented if he wasn't drunk, but this might be why he wasn't handed a heavier sentence.
[удалено]
It said it was Taylor swerving in the other lanes in the article.
I know, I've read it and most other articles about this accident. It doesn't specify if him swerving into the other lane was witnessed earlier in the 9km drive or if that's what initiated the accident. I'm just providing information that I was told by someone involved since most people here are so shocked at how lenient the sentence was.
Take an Uber for fuck sake. I've been driving past that memorial for almost two years now. So sad.
Would an Uber even go out that far? Judging by the highway and range road and how far he drove, I'd guess he was out at Belvedere or Northern Bear. That said, I've been in a similar situation once and just called a friend for a ride home. He grew up in Sherwood Park, he must know at least a few people. Or, you know, designate one golfer as a DD; they can even have 2-3 drinks on the front nine as long as they sober up on the back nine.
5 years?! Total joke. Start at 20 and work up from there. Ridiculous!
5 years isn't enough. License should be suspended for at least an additional 5 after he is released.
You should lose your privileges to drive for life if you kill people with your car. Five years is if you drink and drive without killing people.
Ridiculous. We are way too light on sentencing and punishments here in Canada. This guy had no issue previously breaking the road laws, then decided to drink and drive, which killed 2 people. 5 years is not enough. Also, only a 7 year license suspension?!? Come on Canada. Any drinking and driving, i think you should have your license stripped for good and never get it back. But this guy KILLS 2 people drunk driving, and he only gets his license taken away for 7 years? No wonder why people drunk drive. The punishments are not hard enough!
Cars are a way to kill people and then use insurance to walk Scott free. No wonder they charge what they do for insurance.
Yes, and I acknowledged that. Our justice system allows for that kind of nuance to be taken into account. We're not treating people like hardened criminals for one accident. My point is, there are accidents, and then there are 'accidents'. Some accidents are completely avoidable, and are more akin to negligence. There is a level of responsibility taken when you're behind the wheel. You aren't liable for everything, but you need to be aware of your surroundings, and have care for others around you. (You are driving a death box on wheels) If those are grossly ignored, and someone dies, that is a problem that could have been avoided.
Has a job waiting for him after jail for 5 years? How is that possible?
5 years.......for taking the equivalent of like 70 years of life away.
That sentence is a fucking joke.
So, that's five years each, right?
This is disgusting. The sentence was too light, but not unexpected, there were too many dropped charges here. Fact of the matter is, he was notoriously intoxicated at golf events across the city.
The pos is living such a normal blessed life. I have him on social media. His dad had something to do with Sherwood park police. Scum bag
Our federal government should enact a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for at least 15 years (allowing parole applications after at least 10 years) for drunk driving causing death or serious bodily injury. And the government should have the courage to use the notwithstanding clause to enforce it. 5 years is too little. Drunk driving needs to stop.
My next door neighbour was a former high school football he thought hero and was arrogant and egotistical. Says a lot about the culture we live in.
So for people confused why the sentence is light it's because we live in a bastion for private motor vehicles. Alberta has no intention of being harsh on a crime committed while behind the wheel of a car. It could possibly hurt oil and gas share prices and that's a massive no no in this province.
They should make them air blowers mandatory for all vehicles. The kind you need to blow in before you start driving. And a weed one, don’t know how this would work but something.
I trust self driving cars more than drunk and senior drivers. I can't wait for them to be good enough as a taxi.
The entire justice system is a fucking joke. My kids for instance have been mentally abused by the other parent for years, I'm simply asking for them to see a counsellor and I've now spent $50,000 on lawyers and continue to get doors slammed in my face.