Is this ‘Justice?’
Courts rehabilitate murderers and persecute drunk-drivers
STEPHEN MCCREARY VOLUNTEER STAFF
In June of last year, a friend of mine, Jane (not her real name), was out at the bar with some friends. She had a few drinks and the next thing she knew, she was being awakened by police. She was sleeping in the driver’s seat of her car, parked in the middle of the road. She had driven halfway across the city from the bar she had been at. Jane’s experience signifies what justice means nowadays.
Given the way she was found and her disoriented demeanor, any observer would suspect that there was something else at play. The Winnipeg Police Service has issued several press releases warning about the dangers of date-rape drugs and their recent rising use in our city, however Jane was given no tests for these drugs, and was not asked about what she thought might have happened. The police took only what they needed (a weak breathalyzer reading of 0.09, a whopping 0.01 above the legal limit) to charge her with drunk driving.
Jane may have had no recollection of the crime she supposedly committed, but immediately felt the repercussions. Her driver’s license was suspended for the mandatory three months. She risked losing her new job as it required a valid license. She lived out of town and could no longer drive herself to school. Her mom faced criminal-like interrogation and a $250 impoundment fee to get the car back.
Jane was forced to go see a counsellor at the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba (AFM). The counsellor concluded that Jane did not have a drinking problem and posed absolutely no risk to re-offend. Before Jane could even argue her case in court, she was required to pay $400 and book a day off work to attend a full-day seminar at the AFM. The $400 was not a fine or penalty of any sort. It was simply a grossly overpriced fee to attend a “course,” which was basically just 10-15 other people being lectured by a government employee about the dangers of drunk driving for eight hours. After inquiring, Jane discovered that even if she won in court and was legally absolved of all the charges that got her there in the first place, the $400 fee was non-refundable.
Despite a series of technical errors the police department made at the trial, several pieces of key evidence being rightfully thrown out, and a less than convincing prosecution performance in court, Jane was found guilty on all charges. She was fined over a $1,000, her license was revoked for year, and now has a criminal record that will haunt her for the rest of her life.
According to Statistics Canada, over 80,000 people are charged with drunk driving in Canada every year, yet the “wiggle room” that is too often found in our justice system is missing in cases like this. From one-day prison sentences for unprovoked murders such as that of Chya Raup Saleh in August 2001, to house arrest for extremely violent criminals who inflict brain damage on innocent people, activist judges seem to prefer “rehabilitation” over any traditional sentencing principles for real criminals.
Car thieves are protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, get no jail time, and are sent home to think about what they’ve done. Young mothers in Saskatoon who abandon their babies on doorsteps in -29 C weather face sympathy rather than repercussions. Cases of religious figures who seek to stifle free speech are taken on by publicly funded “Human Rights” commissions, while independent businesses are forced to pay legal fees to exercise their freedoms. As is the case with most situations these days, the victim in all the above scenarios is the law-abiding taxpayer.
The court didn’t care that Jane lived out of town and had no other mode of transportation. They didn’t care that the fines and the now-necessary move to the city would make it almost impossible to afford school next semester. They didn’t care that she would lose her job. They didn’t care that a criminal record would almost certainly dash her particular career aspirations. They didn’t care that she had a squeaky-clean nine-year driving record. And they certainly didn’t consider “rehabilitating” her as an alternative to laying down a sentence — granted, it might be hard to rehabilitate someone who has been deemed not a threat and no danger at all to re-offend.
When murderers are sentenced, judges can credit them 2-for-1 time served — if a 10-year sentence was handed down and the defendant had already spent a year in custody, he could get credited two years, meaning only eight are left to be served. If Jane had been lucky enough to be charged with murder instead of impaired driving, she would have gotten credit for her time served and only had four months left to serve. But again, that is not the case.
You can be a regular guy who works a 9-5 job, pays his taxes, and has never broken a law in his life. But if you dare go out for a couple drinks after work and drive home, you could be in as much trouble as Jane and have your life turned upside down.
Why is the justice system so intent on “rehabilitating” murderers and child rapists while harshly punishing anyone who has a beer and then drives home? The liberal-minded conclusion that prison time for offenders doesn’t deter other people from committing similar crimes is mysteriously forgotten when dealing with impaired drivers.
In cases such as this, where leniency should be granted, it is nowhere to be found. And so, the cycle continues: the violent criminals get off easy, the public remains at risk, lawyers get rich, and the average Joe Taxpayer gets the royal screw job — again.
Stephen McCreary is a University 1 student at the University of Manitoba.
