Marco Muzzo

[Joe Bass]

Agreed; do we punish based on intent or impact? Ex. I intended to shoot someone but missed vs. I intended to shoot and hit 4 people.


In the same token, I intended to drive home drunk, but did not intend on killing 4 people.

I didn't intend to become a fat diabetic, but through my bad decisions, that was the result. Now I have to deal with the repercussions. Same thing, imo. Except the only person I'm killing is myself.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk

 

[nobbie48]

Agreed; do we punish based on intent or impact? Ex. I intended to shoot someone but missed vs. I intended to shoot and hit 4 people.


In the same token, I intended to drive home drunk, but did not intend on killing 4 people.

The reason a person gets a $600.00 fine for an illegal left turn that kills a motorcyclist is that there was no intent. Unlike a shooter MM didn't intend to kill.

So why does a drunk driver that kills get a harsher punishment than a sober minded driver that kills? The sober one was more aware of the consequences.

Sometimes life just sucks.

 

[mmmnaked]

When you drive drunk you intentionally endanger others

 

[nobbie48]

When you drive drunk you intentionally endanger others

When you make an illegal turn while sober you intentionally endanger in full knowledge of that danger.

The "Drunk defense" could make the illegal turn a bigger issue.

I'm doing a bit of chain jerking but what this really boils down to is that driving skills and attitudes have hit bottom but somehow continue to descend. I'm not in favour of capital punishment but some other penalties aren't much of a deterrent.

 

[Joe Bass]

When you make an illegal turn while sober you intentionally endanger in full knowledge of that danger.

The "Drunk defense" could make the illegal turn a bigger issue.

I'm doing a bit of chain jerking but what this really boils down to is that driving skills and attitudes have hit bottom but somehow continue to descend. I'm not in favour of capital punishment but some other penalties aren't much of a deterrent.

I see what you're getting at now.
The end result is the same, so should then be the punishment. Interesting view.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk

 

[nobbie48]

I see what you're getting at now.
The end result is the same, so should then be the punishment. Interesting view.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk

I hadn't thought of it that distinctly but if you kill a person through error, drunk or sober, why does one situation get jail time and the other a $600.00 fine?

I'm not saying I'm for a brutal penalty but a debate would bring up some interesting facts, assumptions and points of view.

It bothers me that a person can make an illegal turn and kill someone and walk away with a few points on their license and a $600.00 fine. If they have accident forgiveness their insurance doesn't even punish them.

I'm not in favour of DUI but there are other dangers that drivers have to keep in mind.

 

[Dresden]

I hadn't thought of it that distinctly but if you kill a person through error, drunk or sober, why does one situation get jail time and the other a $600.00 fine?

I'm not saying I'm for a brutal penalty but a debate would bring up some interesting facts, assumptions and points of view.

It bothers me that a person can make an illegal turn and kill someone and walk away with a few points on their license and a $600.00 fine. If they have accident forgiveness their insurance doesn't even punish them.

I'm not in favour of DUI but there are other dangers that drivers have to keep in mind.

This was the train of thought I was trying to provoke with the 'punish based on intent vs. impact' question previously asked.

The Muzzo episode ended in a bad way, but it makes you wonder about appropriate punishment. I think in this case it is just to charge him with a DUI as well as 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter. I'm sure the prosecution will throw more charges to make something stick (I'm not a lawyer)

 

[griff2]

This was the train of thought I was trying to provoke with the 'punish based on intent vs. impact' question previously asked.

The Muzzo episode ended in a bad way, but it makes you wonder about appropriate punishment. I think in this case it is just to charge him with a DUI as well as 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter. I'm sure the prosecution will throw more charges to make something stick (I'm not a lawyer)

The charge wasn't just impaired driving, which carries a certain penalty range up to a max of 18 months imprisonment.

One set of charges was impaired driving causing bodily harm, up to 10 years imprisonment.

Another set of charges was impaired driving causing death, which can carry a sentence of up to life imprisonment.

His charges also include "over-80 causing bodily harm" and "over-80 causing death", each punishable by 10 years and life imprisonment respectively.

Yet another set of charges was dangerous driving causing injury, up to 10 years imprisonment, plus dangerous driving causing death punishment, up to 14 years imprisonment.

Just what additional "justice" do you think piling on manslaughter charges will achieve given that he has already effectively been charged with killing via multiple layers of charges of impaired causing death, over-80 causing death, and dangerous driving causing death?

 

[Slick_Steveo]

curious as what the difference between impaired driving causing death and over-80 causing death is

 

[griff2]

curious as what the difference between impaired driving causing death and over-80 causing death is

You can be charged with criminal impaired driving even with zero BAC. Impaired driving charges can be laid for any form of functional impairment, whether alcohol, drugs, or even severe lack of sleep.

Proving functional impairment can be subjective though, and any subjective opinion based on personal observations can be challenged with relative ease.

If you can't prove the driver was actually "impaired" (as in functionally impaired), then the over-80 charge provides alternate grounds for conviction, where the machine-measured BAC provides objective evidence that does not rely on personal opinion or observation of the arresting officer.

 

[DOHC1]

Agreed; do we punish based on intent or impact? Ex. I intended to shoot someone but missed vs. I intended to shoot and hit 4 people.


In the same token, I intended to drive home drunk, but did not intend on killing 4 people.

I believe this is covered with absolute liability offences... You dont need the mens rea to be convicted of speeding, simply the fact that it happened is enough. Kind of like impregnating the local slut, you're liable for the kid

 

[Dirty Frank]

The charge wasn't just impaired driving, which carries a certain penalty range up to a max of 18 months imprisonment.

One set of charges was impaired driving causing bodily harm, up to 10 years imprisonment.

Another set of charges was impaired driving causing death, which can carry a sentence of up to life imprisonment.

His charges also include "over-80 causing bodily harm" and "over-80 causing death", each punishable by 10 years and life imprisonment respectively.

Yet another set of charges was dangerous driving causing injury, up to 10 years imprisonment, plus dangerous driving causing death punishment, up to 14 years imprisonment.

Just what additional "justice" do you think piling on manslaughter charges will achieve given that he has already effectively been charged with killing via multiple layers of charges of impaired causing death, over-80 causing death, and dangerous driving causing death?

That's merely crown SOP they lay as many charges as possible with the hope that the defendant will be overwhelmed by it all and plead guilty to a few to see the top counts thrown out. This practice is good for the defense councils bottom line as well cynical me thinks.
Regardless any custodial sentence will no doubt be concurrent anyhow.

 

[griff2]

That's merely crown SOP they lay as many charges as possible with the hope that the defendant will be overwhelmed by it all and plead guilty to a few to see the top counts thrown out. This practice is good for the defense councils bottom line as well cynical me thinks.
Regardless any custodial sentence will no doubt be concurrent anyhow.

Sure, but the poster I was replying to sounded like he thought that the charges were not appropriate or sufficient enough because they did not include manslaughter charges.

 

[griff2]

Now we're getting into the aggravating factors that will have a heavy impact on sentencing.

Do I hear 8 to 10 years?

Latest news, Muzzo is still in jail and has not requested bail. Next appearance will be in January, Look for a plea bargain to happen, some substantial compensation for the parents and accident survivors.

Still probably looking at a sentence in the 8 to 10 years range less recognition of time spent in jail awaiting trial at the usual pretrial custody discount, worth maybe 6 to 12 months off the 8 to 10 year sentence.

 

[crankcall]

His legal council has probably told him he's cooked on way or another and the best way to minimize his oven time is take the heat now. Look very sorry, stay in jail, offer compensation. If he sits in lockup, looks sorry, he may see 8-10 sentence? And in Canada that's actually 3-4? served, then he gets the rest of his life to be a baller.

 

[Slim Jim]

His legal council has probably told him he's cooked on way or another and the best way to minimize his oven time is take the heat now. Look very sorry, stay in jail, offer compensation. If he sits in lockup, looks sorry, he may see 8-10 sentence? And in Canada that's actually 3-4? served, then he gets the rest of his life to be a baller.

If he gets 8 to 10 he will serve 5.2 to 6.2

 

[inreb]

This will give him time to get to know and fully appreciate Jesus. He's probably already well on his way to becoming a new man. Can a speaking tour be far off?

 

[Boots]

You guys realize this dude wiped out a whole generation right? If he gets 8 to 10 years there would be huge backlash...

 

[griff2]

You guys realize this dude wiped out a whole generation right? If he gets 8 to 10 years there would be huge backlash...

There would be a backlash if he got anything short of life imprisonment which would only ever be imposed on the worst of the worst.

To my knowledge, that kind of sentence has only ever been imposed once since the law changed to allow tougher sentences a few years ago. That was for a Quebec guy who killed only one person in a drunk hit and run crash, but he already had 18 previous impaired driving convictions and over 100 other criminal convictions for various petty crimes before his killer crash. The Crown asked for 20 years and a dangerous offender designation on him, defence asked for 10 years. Everyone was surprised when the judge refused the dangerous offender application and gave him life instead.

Muzzo's death toll is higher, but he has no prior impaired driving or other criminal convictions. He does have a record of previous minor provincial offences incidents but nothing rising to an outright criminal nature. Between his excess drinking and his reckless driving, he did some incredibly stupid things that he should have known would increase the chance of a serious crash, but he did not intentionally go out to kill.

Like it or not, even with four dead he simply doesn't fall into the worst of the worst realm that a life sentence would be appropriate for. Eight to ten years may not seem like a lot for 4 lives, but it and the after-release repercussions are still a huge sentence for a first offender. And no sentence as harsh as it could be will bring the dead back.

 

[kellen]

Latest news, Muzzo is still in jail and has not requested bail. Next appearance will be in January, Look for a plea bargain to happen, some substantial compensation for the parents and accident survivors.

Still probably looking at a sentence in the 8 to 10 years range less recognition of time spent in jail awaiting trial at the usual pretrial custody discount, worth maybe 6 to 12 months off the 8 to 10 year sentence.

2 for 1 time