Good

"CB" (jrcb) 12/18/2014 at 12:33 • Filed to: Car Crime, Canadalopnik

11

42

She got a fair sentence, I think. Basically what happened was that this woman stopped her car on the highway (in the passing lane) in order to save some ducks because she didn't see their mother, which led to a motorcylce (who happened to be speeding) crashing into the back of her car, killing a man and his daughter. 90 days in jail, 240 hours of community service, and a 10 year driving ban sound reasonable to me.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For more information about the case itself, link is below.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

505Turbeaux > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:35

3

starred for the stupid. She wasn't really malicious, but just very very out of touch with reality in her actions. Fair enough

CB > 505Turbeaux 12/18/2014 at 12:37

2

Exactly. When you park on the highway with no hazards on in the fast lane for such a trivial reason (plus I think it was around a blind corner, can't quite remember), then you deserve some punishment for your negligence.

Alfalfa > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:38

2

A good way to let her know that human lives are valued above that of ducks.

CB > Alfalfa 12/18/2014 at 12:40

0

Especially considering that the ducks weren't even in the road, but on the side of it.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:41

1

Sounds about right. Keeping her off the roads for as long as possible is probably the best way to deal with it.

Party-vi > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:41

2

Two people no longer breathing so she could save animals that are usually eaten by foxes or die naturally. Also, she's only in jail on the weekends, so while it's "fair", it doesn't seem satisfying.

Alfalfa > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:42

1

Seriously!? I only read the first article linked, I figured they were on the road. Wow. That's special.

CB > Party-vi 12/18/2014 at 12:44

1

I see what you mean, but I feel like this is the best outcome that could have come from it. She was a moron, sure, but didn't intend to kill anyone. I feel like anything more than this would be extreme.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:48

1

What if she stopped for a moose or bear in the road? Would it still have been her fault? As dumb as her actions were, some responsibility must belong to the person who didn't see the car stopped and react. I ride a motorcycle. If I run into the back of a stopped car on it, I'd probably be cursing myself for being so dumb as much as I'd be cursing her for being an idiot. Visibility is excellent on motorcycles. The seating position makes it so that you can see over and around other cars with ease. It's not like in a car where you can change lanes to find it blocked because you're fixed to one part of the vehicle that takes up most of the lane and couldn't see around the Equinox.

jariten1781 > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:50

0

Looks good to me. It was naivety not maliciousness. People shouldn't be out for vengeance in a case like this. Keeping her off the road for a decade and giving her a bunch of weekends to dwell on it seems right for the criminal charges.

Now, I don't know how it works in Canada, but I think a civil suit that results in some monetary restitution for the victim's family would be right as well.

Tohru > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:54

1

Her actions led to the death of two people, and that's all she gets?! A human life in Canada is only worth 45 days in jail, 120 hours community service, and a 5 year license suspension?

Yet everyone says the justice system in America is fucked up.

McMike > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:54

0

90 to serve whenever she wants, and 10... TEN years suspended license.

That's like 45 weekends she's going to need to get a ride to and from.

davedave1111 > CB 12/18/2014 at 12:54

0

I'm shocked at the lightness of the sentence, to be honest. 90 days for what was effectively manslaughter is barely more than a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps the closest UK equivalent I can think of is the Heck train-crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hec…

That was definitely less serious an offence, given the circumstances. The driver of the car responsible got five years in jail. If he'd deliberately driven down onto the tracks, he'd have got ten times that.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that in England & Wales Czornobaj would have been charged with manslaughter and given a sentence of at least a decade, possibly more than double that - I'm not quite sure how the sentencing guidelines work for multiple killers.

Don't forget, the perp here shows no remorse, and no acceptance that her actions were either wrong, or unjustified, or criminal. She's actually appealing the driving ban, rather than voluntarily giving up driving for life having killed two people through her own appalling lack of basic skill.

CB > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 12/18/2014 at 12:55

0

I think a moose or a bear would have been different, but that's altering the situation enough in order for the difference to be substantial. A moose or bear you can't run over, and you probably wouldn't be getting out of your car to shoo it off the road (or attempt to bring it home, as she was with the ducks).

I can see where you're coming from, especially since they were speeding, but once again, a car stopped with no brake lights or hazards on in the middle of the highway? I imagine the confusion as to what was going on would affect reaction time, and when paired with speed would cause an accident. The second article mentions another woman almost hit the car as well, so it seems like confusion about the situation could have contributed.

Rico > CB 12/18/2014 at 13:08

1

A motorcycle speeding? What no wayyyy

Racescort666 > Alfalfa 12/18/2014 at 13:11

1

I got into an argument about that with someone on here once over that. Basically, no animal's life is worth more than a human's. Period.

This is why drug testing on animals is morally justifiable.

duurtlang > Tohru 12/18/2014 at 13:25

5

That's not really the point. A justice system isn't meant for revenge. This woman acted incredibly stupid but not malicious.

A justice system that sentences a person like this, who showed no ill intent, to a decade+ in jail is more fucked up than one that sentences like this Canadian court, imho. I would've liked her to be banned from driving for life though, she proved she's incapable of assessing risk and as a result is too great a hazard to others when she's given the responsibility to operate a motor vehicle.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 12/18/2014 at 13:34

0

As much as I go to the eye for an eye mentality you're right she shouldn't necessarily be jailed but a lifetime driving ban seems more than fair. I do think the 90 days jail time is fair too though, just enough to shock her into being more careful.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 13:38

0

I usually kick into wanting people who do stuff like this jailed forever too but I'm not so sure anymore. She's a collosal idiot but jailing her at great cost to the state isn't accomplishing much. I do agree she should never be allowed near a car again but you have to draw the fine line of wanting to see someone rot for personal gratification and doing what's best for society as a whole.

It really bothers me that she's appealing her ban though. She sounds like an deeply unpleasant person.

ACESandEIGHTS > Alfalfa 12/18/2014 at 13:39

2

You hate to have to sound callous in statements like this, but you're just saying what used to be a reality for anyone over the age of 5. Look, animals die , they suffer all manner of inhumane treatment, we all get it. But a frickin' thousand of them aren't worth the least one of us. That's how it goes. Endanger the public, your brethren, over some beasts? Come on. Come on, PC world, let's get back to prioritizing things correctly.

davedave1111 > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 12/18/2014 at 13:47

0

My personal gratification doesn't come into it. It's about treating people equally under the law. She seems to have been very lightly treated.

As for locking people away, you're really questioning the entire basis of the criminal system there. As long as we accept the principles of deterrence and so-on, then we accept the sentences that go with them.

WasGTIthenGTOthenNOVAnowbacktoGTI > Racescort666 12/18/2014 at 13:49

2

For some reason I have a picture in my head of a dog peeing into a cup before he could be a service dog..........

Tohru > duurtlang 12/18/2014 at 13:52

0

There's a court case that happened where I live a few years back. The incident in question happened 1/2 mile from my house.

A woman went to drive home from a bar after drinking heavily. She pulled out of the parking lot of the bar onto the state highway, and right in front of a man on a Honda dual-sport motorcycle. He slammed into the side of her truck at around 55mph, and was mortally wounded. Witnesses said she got out of the truck, looked at him, and then got back in the truck and drove back to the bar parking lot. She went back into the bar and started talking to the other folks in the bar about a cover story. Not a single person in the bar called 911. A passing motorist stopped to help the motorcyclist and called 911. He died at the scene.

She got 1 year in county jail and permanent revocation of her driver's license... and that sentence was far too lenient for what she did.

This lady in Canada deserves at least a year or two in jail, a couple years probation, and permanent license revocation. I don't know about "ill intent", but what this lady had shown is a callous disregard for anybody else on the road by going, "Yes, ducks are more important than people."

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 14:01

0

It's very hard to determine what is fair though. That rail disaster you cited involved bad driving of a car in motion to cause it, and involved a higher death toll and greater amount of property damage.

Detterence means having something to deter by making an example of the driver. This is an isolated incident that I doubt happens often so making an example of her is problematic as opposed to someone who crashed a car in motion which is obviously more common.

I agree she deserves harsher punishment (a lifetime driving ban and a longer jail sentence maybe a year or two) but I don't think locking her away for a long time solves much.

duurtlang > Tohru 12/18/2014 at 14:04

5

Well, I do think the woman in your story should've gotten a far, far more severe punishment than the woman stopping for ducks. I agree that the drunk woman got off too easy, but I don't think these stories are in any way equivalent. The outcome is similar, but the crime very different.

WhereAreMyPants > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 12/18/2014 at 14:27

0

That's a totally false equivalency.

In this case, the ducks she was "saving" we're not even in the road, but off in the grass, past the shoulder. She stopped in the left lane, crossed active traffic lanes, and was over on the far side verge with the ducks, when the motorcycle hit her car.

nermal > CB 12/18/2014 at 14:28

1

I'm mixed on this one. On one hand her stopping on a ~65mph highway with no 4-ways is dumb, regardless of the reason. Reading the linked article, the motorcycles were actually following a car that swerved outta the way at the last minute. You can't really fault the motorcycle rider either, given the short window of time they had to react.

I definitely don't think the girl is a malicious, just dumb. Things would be different if she had 7 DUIs and plowed into motorcycle. I have zero problems with her license getting suspended for an extended period of time though.

It's definitely a shitty situation for all involved. If there are any take-aways, it's to avoid stopping on a highway if at all possible, and for crying out loud turn on your 4-ways if you do. For motorcyclists, be extra careful and don't stare at the bumper of the car in front of you. Try to look through them if possible to anticipate any upcoming hazards, and leave some extra space.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > WhereAreMyPants 12/18/2014 at 14:30

0

Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse said witness and police testimony will show the accused was on a narrow shoulder patch next to the passing lane , tending to a family of ducks on the roadway.

davedave1111 > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 12/18/2014 at 14:47

0

The rail disaster involved an accident, though. This woman's actions were entirely deliberate.

If you think it unusual to see stupidity by people who don't take account of the fact that driving a car is dangerous, my mind boggles. Obviously few incidents have such adverse consequences as this one, but that's the point of deterrence. It's not like every drunk driver crashes every time, for example.

Your last paragraph is still an argument against the effectiveness of deterrent sentences, but in fact they're one of the few parts of the criminal justice system that can actually be proven to work.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 14:59

0

I believe strongly that there's huge stupidity on the roads, it just rarely manifests in someone pulling over in the fast lane of a road and exiting the vehicle. Making an example of someone doing something that rarely ever happens is hard to justify.

I'd have had no sympathy for her if she had gotten a huge sentence, I just don't necessarily believe it would've been worthwhile as opposed to keeping her off the roads and given a small sentence to scare her enough to think next time.

In regards of it being a deterrent I just don't think it would make anyone take notice. You come down on a drink driver and people think twice about having that extra pint, you come down on someone with such an obscure offence I don't believe it would change the mindset of people much.

davedave1111 > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 12/18/2014 at 15:11

0

Hers was an extreme example of stupidity. Less extreme examples are commonplace. They're all the same thing, although it may be necessary to hammer that home to the idiots with ad campaigns.

As for deterrence, it's pretty clear from the academic literature that there's a direct link between the degree of deterrence and the length of sentence. Whatever deterrent effect this incident has would be much greater with a longer sentence.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 15:28

1

You make a good point I'm just not sure she'd be a very usable example for idiots to take notice of. The best course of action was just to give enough to stop her endangering anyone again, I feel they did that.

CB > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 15:31

0

Actually, there isn't much consensus on the effectiveness of deterrence. If there was a causal link, then the United States would have a lower crime rate than Canada, due to their harsher penalties and the fact that they have the death penalty. However, that isn't the case. So by making an example out of her, especially as Car Guy said that it's a very rare case, it wouldn't make sense.

davedave1111 > CB 12/18/2014 at 15:36

0

There's a very strong link between lengths of sentences and deterrence, other things being equal. Other things aren't normally equal, though, so it's hard to compare between different jurisdictions.

There's a very simple equation, which is basically length-of-sentence x chances-of-being-convicted, that largely explains differential crime rates after socio-economic factors are accounted for.

CB > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 15:41

0

I haven't seen anything yet saying harshness of sentences, even in similar places, resulting in lower crime rates. There is usually some intervening factor that occurs at the same time (I'm on my phone right now, so pardon me for not flushing out my answers more).

davedave1111 > CB 12/18/2014 at 15:53

0

I can't be bothered to go look up academic papers to find the stats, I'm afraid. Feel free to dig more and correct me later :)

WhereAreMyPants > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 12/18/2014 at 16:19

0

That's different than what was originally reported. I still don't think it matters. Ducks aren't bears. Running over a duck, while sad, isn't likely to kill anybody. Running into a bear is.

Stopping on a busy highway should always be your last option. I think this came out to a reasonably fair sentence. It's a tragic situation all around, but this woman's poor decision making lead to two people's deaths. Yes, she was well intentioned, and just being dumb isn't illegal, but there had to be accountability.

CB > davedave1111 12/18/2014 at 21:30

0

I remember that Britain cut the number of crimes punishable by death from 225 to 10 or so in the 1700s and it had no major effect on the crime rate. I study criminology and most of my profs have stated that deterrence alone doesn't work because it assumes all offenders are calculating and weighing the pros and cons of committing crime, which isn't always the case.

davedave1111 > CB 12/18/2014 at 22:51

0

The case of Britain is the famous example that the chances of being caught are equally important. You could be hanged for stealing a handkerchief, but the chances of actually being hanged for doing so were pretty close to zero.

Your professors' argument is bizarre, coming from professors of criminology. No-one suggests everyone has to be constantly calculating things for a broad average to work. Other than that, though, I think I've been pretty clear in stating that deterrence is not an effect caused by a single factor, or that can be viewed in isolation.

To repeat what I said originally, where other factors are equal , as when debating a specific case (like we are here), a longer sentence has a greater deterrent effect. That's really just basic common sense: however much people are put off doing something similar by hearing about this crime, they'd be somewhat more put off by hearing about this woman going to jail for a decade (and we haven't even mentioned wider reporting of unusual and very stiff sentences). The alternative, of course, is the obviously daft idea that people would be just as deterred by hearing about this woman being sentenced to a $10 fine as they are by hearing about the penalties she actually is subject to.

pip bip - choose Corrour > CB 12/19/2014 at 08:14

0

should have been 25 years prison , then when / if released , 10 years loss of license.

theuserformerlyknownasaluminumfoil > CB 12/19/2014 at 08:55

0

I think that she should lose her license indefinitely. I know someone mentioned it would be harder to get insurance but.. c'mon.. I also heard she was appealing the sentence.. If she can't operate a motor vehicle safely.. she shouldn't be able to operate one at all.

NJAnon > CB 12/19/2014 at 20:27

0

Wait, did someone say that 1,000 animals aren't worth one life? So we're attempting to quantify ratio here? really? Point is; she puts herself in a very big dilemma. We're all on the outside looking trying to do theory on scenarios. We weren't in the car with her so we don't have the tangible information. I know this:

-I am glad she attempted to save the ducks (humans will die without animals)

-It sucks that people died as a result

What possible decision can you make of that?