Simply put, because the outcome does not change the nature of the initial violation which caused it.
|
|
|
Tipping point: If an ambulance attends.
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
If a person aims a shotgun at someone's head and pulls the trigger but the gun doesn't fire because of a dud load does the shooter get the same sentence he would have if the gun went off killing the intended target? In short, does attempted murder carry the same weight as murder?
The purpose of the tipping point law would be to up the punishment unfairly as HTA 172 does. I'm not in favour of HTA 172 but hey, Fantino IIRC opened the bottle so why don't we get a sip.
As it stands now a careless driver gets off killing someone by paying a $600 fine. If they have accident forgiveness their insurance rates don't go up. If they are driving a company car they don't see the rate go up either.
From a psychological point, if the careless driver gets a ticket and has to appear it will be months before they face the court. Those are months they can be consoled by their friends who tell them they're not a bad person. "Tisk, tisk, you poor thing. It was just an accident." They have months to reinforce their self centered opinion of themselves and why they shouldn't be punished.
While I agree the tipping point is akin to HTA 172 although not as bad. HTA 172 could be argued as No harm no foul. No one got hurt. The driver just did something stupid.
In the tipping point law someone got hurt. We could argue the "what if's" about tipping point injuries but there are no arguments on rules under HTA 172.
I agree that both laws are punish first but Fantino opened the Gestapo's door.
In reality the answer is a rework of the whole system.
1) Traffic laws are outdated. You don't have to signal. Solid lines are just a hint. Traffic lights merely verify the circuits are live.
2) Law enforcement is more and more becoming an income generator and they pick the low hanging fruit. Charges based on the cop's judgement is less profitable so driving like a wandering twit isn't punished. Lane discipline is a joke as are proper turns.
While we don't condone an instant punch in the face it does have it's merits. You can't train a dog to not crap on the carpet by punishing or rewarding the behavior months later. People are little different especially when the punishment is a slap on the wrist.
The tipping point is just my venue to discuss a change in attitude. A polite rant.
I'm off to buy aluminum foil. The next chapter in my book will be on psychological assessments before one gets any motorized vehicle license. No M-1, G-1 without a note from a shrink.
You do not enhance the application of justice, but employing more injustice.
In your scenario the intent is to do harm. In the traffic scenario the intent might be as little as to make an imprudent lane change, for example. You state "careless driving" (actual legal term "operation without due care and attention"). That's an assumption, as the standard for showing lack of care is significantly higher than for a simple offence, such as an illegal turn.
The law is fine. The lapse is in its application.
In your scenario the intent is to do harm. In the traffic scenario the intent might be as little as to make an imprudent lane change, for example. You state "careless driving" (actual legal term "operation without due care and attention"). That's an assumption, as the standard for showing lack of care is significantly higher than for a simple offence, such as an illegal turn.
The law is fine. The lapse is in its application.
Your theory is flawed, in that you believe everyone involved in a collision that results in injury or death, simply are heartless, soulless people, who are unaffected by the consequences. I have dealt with people who have been involved in collisions where someone died, it would be extremely RARE, for the other party to walk away unscathed, by the idea that another life was lost.
It also assumes that the vehicle driver, DID something which was careless, and could have been foreseen, to cause injury or death. What if 2 days into the investigation, (after your draconian "justice" has been dispensed), it was discovered the rider was doing 3 times the legal limit and that the driver couldn't have REASONABLY expected a vehicle to be traveling at such a speed? Or that the rider "contributed" to the collision by impairment, (alcohol or drugs)? The state can't then possibly go back and make the other party "whole again".
As Rob pointed out we already have laws, that cover truly "careless" acts. Because the punishment "can be" MUCH more severe, than most HTA violations the standard of proof is also MUCH higher. That is why we see many of those charges plead out to a lesser charge. So rather than introduce yet another draconian law, let's lobby for better enforcement of current statutes, which if applied correctly, would get a similar result.
It also assumes that the vehicle driver, DID something which was careless, and could have been foreseen, to cause injury or death. What if 2 days into the investigation, (after your draconian "justice" has been dispensed), it was discovered the rider was doing 3 times the legal limit and that the driver couldn't have REASONABLY expected a vehicle to be traveling at such a speed? Or that the rider "contributed" to the collision by impairment, (alcohol or drugs)? The state can't then possibly go back and make the other party "whole again".
As Rob pointed out we already have laws, that cover truly "careless" acts. Because the punishment "can be" MUCH more severe, than most HTA violations the standard of proof is also MUCH higher. That is why we see many of those charges plead out to a lesser charge. So rather than introduce yet another draconian law, let's lobby for better enforcement of current statutes, which if applied correctly, would get a similar result.
Riceburner
Well-known member
Hence the criminal charges in the Humboldt case? What are the HTA charges for operate vehicle, causing death?
There are no HTA sections dealing with cause death, that is why, same as in Sask, here it would be a criminal charge. When I referenced HTA charges earlier, the point was that, they have a much lower burden of proof, than would the applicable CCofC charges. It is very difficult to prove that a driver had an "intent" or did something SO egregious to cause the death. The simple act, (from a purely LEGAL definition and standpoint), for example of pulling out in front of someone, which results in their death, would be nigh to impossible to get a conviction on for careless causing death. This is why a Crown will deal down or refuse to even prosecute the charge.
To use the OPs analogy of pointing a gun. If the gun jammed and no round was expelled, BUT the victim suffered a massive heart attack, and died the resulting charge would likely be manslaughter, as opposed to murder. As the resultant death by a coronary, would not be "a foreseen consequence" of pulling the trigger. Hence why the Cst was charged with attempted murder in the Sammy Yatin case despite the end result being death.
In the end it all comes down to LEGAL definitions and the "elements of the crime", which in some cases seemingly are not logical. I doubt anyone, gets out of bed in the morning and thinks to themselves.Hey I can go pull out in front of a motorcycle or hit and kill a cyclist today and "all" I am going to get is a simple ticket. NOW, If the police could beyond a reasonable doubt prove that was the mindset of a driver, then they certainly would lay the Careless charge.
To use the OPs analogy of pointing a gun. If the gun jammed and no round was expelled, BUT the victim suffered a massive heart attack, and died the resulting charge would likely be manslaughter, as opposed to murder. As the resultant death by a coronary, would not be "a foreseen consequence" of pulling the trigger. Hence why the Cst was charged with attempted murder in the Sammy Yatin case despite the end result being death.
In the end it all comes down to LEGAL definitions and the "elements of the crime", which in some cases seemingly are not logical. I doubt anyone, gets out of bed in the morning and thinks to themselves.Hey I can go pull out in front of a motorcycle or hit and kill a cyclist today and "all" I am going to get is a simple ticket. NOW, If the police could beyond a reasonable doubt prove that was the mindset of a driver, then they certainly would lay the Careless charge.
I actually got a little video, yesterday, of someone whose behaviour would rise to careless, or even dangerous, if it resulted in a collision. Said driver came up the on-ramp from Spadina to Gardner west, ignored the ten car length empty space behind me, drove past the end of the merge lane, ignored the one and a half car lengths in front of me, and forced his way in front of the car in front of me. I watched as he then proceeded to cut off at least a half dozen more cars, somehow manage to exceed the 90 Kmh speed limit in packed traffic moving at no more than 40 Kmh, and go out of sight.
Guess who was riding my rear bumper at the Humber Bridge.
Riceburner
Well-known member
But he was in front for a while....so he wins.
...trying green for sarcasm.
...trying green for sarcasm.
:lmao:
He caught up to me at Humber Bridge and tried to push me to go faster in the slow lane. I think that he saw my camera at that point because after that he dropped back. There was a car between us. Then 5. Then 10. After that I didn't see him again until I exited at 427, where the elevation let me see him half a Km behind me
Riceburner
Well-known member
I never get ppl doing stupid things to get a couple of car lengths ahead. Same as the idiot I encountered yesterday.
PLau
Well-known member
But then the person you punched will call 911 on you for assault.
|
|
|
|
|