What is a fitting sentence for drivers who cause death to others?

A mother broke down sobbing in court on the 28th of February 2008 when a judge sentenced her son, Jacob Duclos, 19, to jail for dangerous driving that caused the death of his 16-year-old girlfriend.

While other charges, including impaired driving causing death, were dropped, the young man was sentenced to 18 months in jail and three years probation for an erratic joyride that ended in tragedy, January 18th of last year.

His girlfriend, Cherise Rijtma, who was days away from her 17th birthday, rode in the back seat and was killed when the car fish-tailed and skidded sideways and traveled 150 feet, then slammed into a cement street light pole.

Justice Gregory Regis heard that Duclos, a G1 driver, (beginner with a restricted licence) had some drinks and borrowed his friend's mother's car, even though he was unlicensed to drive without another experienced driver with him, and was mandated to have zero alcohol in his blood. Breathalyzer tests one hour after the accident showed an alcohol reading of 103 millilitres of alcohol per 100 litres of blood, but, in court, the judge was only told about a later reading of 67 millilitres, taken three hours after the accident. I can’t help but wonder why only the lower reading was used as evidence against Duclos.

The judge heard evidence that Duclos sped along city streets, hit a snow bank, went through a stop sign and passed his friend in another vehicle ahead, reaching 92 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, before the accident. Meanwhile, four other friends in the vehicle warned him to slow down, and one yelled at him to "stop driving like an idiot." But he refused to listen.

Trying to find justice in our courts when the defendants are drunk drivers is no different than trying to get a firm grip on a handful of sand. When you think you have it, it slips through your fingers. Justice slipped through society’s fingers in the Duclos case. I blame both the assistant crown attorney, Kate Hull and the judge for this fiasco.

It makes no sense to present a lower blood/alcohol reading as evidence at a trial of a drunk driver when it is quite conceivable that his reading at the time of the accident would have been higher than the highest reading shown on the breathalyzer after he was arrested.

The Criminal Code of Canada allows for a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison for dangerous driving causing death, while impaired driving causing death has a maximum sentence of life in prison, although maximum sentences are rarely imposed except in extreme circumstances, such as for repeat offenders. Hull had asked for a 12 to 18-month jail sentence for the conviction of dangerous driving.

Defence lawyer Ralph Steinberg had asked for a conditional sentence so that Duclos will not have to go to jail at such a young age. A conditional sentence would mean that this young man would have to remain in his home from six in the evening until six in the morning and on weekends for a year or so.

Why should society care that this young man has to go to jail at a young age, especially considering the fact that he killed a young girl as a result of his drunken driving? The soft-hearted judge said at the sentencing; "Everyone agrees this is a very tragic case. He killed his girlfriend. He must suffer the consequences the rest of his life."

Does anyone in their right mind really believe that the death of this young woman is
going to haunt this drunken killer for the rest of his life? It was a stupid statement on the part of the judge. It was also a stupid sentence by a stupid and uncaring judge that awarded such a low sentence to this young killer. He had an opportunity to send a strong message to others of Duclos ilk that drunk driving will not be tolerated and he blew it.

How much time will this young drunken thug really serve in custody? To begin with, mandatory release makes it possible for him to be released after he has served two thirds of his sentence. He could be released earlier and in this case he will be because he was given credit for time he already spent in jail waiting for his trial. He was given credit of two months for one month he spent in pretrial custody so in essence, he will serve a maximum of 15 months and a minimum of ten months.

In fifteen months or even less, this young thug will be free to enjoy life whereas his young victim will be in her grave, denied her chance at life. The young thug will enjoy Christmas seasons with his family while his victim’s family will only have memories of a loved one they will never see again.

Do you feel the sand slipping through your fingers? Here is another similar example to ponder.

On February 27th of this year, a young Mississauga man was sent to jail for 15 months for causing a car crash that killed two of his friends in the summer of 2003. Based on mandatory release, he will only serve ten months in custody. That’s five months in jail for each of the two young men he killed.

Justice Joseph Fragomeni also banned Ariel Lipovetzky, who has been convicted of dangerous driving causing death, from driving for three years. The 22-year-old will serve two years probation once his sentence is served.

Michael Mizun and Daniel Kordis, Lipovetzky's back-seat passengers, died when Lipovetzky lost control of his mother's Toyota Corolla on Rathburn Rd. in Mississauga and crashed into a tree around 10:30 p.m. on July 11, 2003. Neither of the 16-year-olds were wearing seat belts which would have contributed to some degree their fatal injuries. Alcohol was not a factor in this case.

In giving him a jail sentence, Fragomeni said no sentence would ever be as harsh as having to live with the knowledge that one's actions took the lives of two friends.I doubt that the thug will give it much thought. If he did, he wouldn’t have driven his mother’s car in the way he did.

Fragomeni also said a conditional sentence or house arrest would not have sent a message that such driving cannot be tolerated. I agree with that statement. At the time of his conviction, Fragomeni ruled Lipovetzky had been "apparently racing" with another vehicle when he crashed the car. But Fragomeni acquitted the young man of criminal negligence causing death.

In his earlier judgment, Fragomeni concluded Lipovetzky had been traveling close to 99 km/h in a 50 km/h zone on wet conditions. At 18, he described the accused as an inexperienced driver.

There we have it. Two more families who will mourn the loss of their loved ones because of the stupidity of a young thug.

Consider the case of Knolly Rampersad, a 34-year-old Mississauga computer programmer and father of two, who caused a terrible traffic accident in March, 2005 that claimed the lives of Dora and Allan Ruiz, a mother and son, and seriously injured three of their relatives. Rampersad had been drinking during that day.

After an eight-day trial, Rampersad was convicted of five counts of dangerous driving, sentenced to 18 months in provincial jail and banned from driving for two years. He will be eligible for release after serving two-thirds of his sentence which in effect means that he will serve only six months for each of the two people he killed. Do you still feel the sand slipping through our fingers?

The majority of Canadians agree that governments need to enforce tougher measures to prevent drunk driving.

According to Julian Fantino, the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, the Canadian justice system needs to eliminate ‘discount sentences’ and ensure career criminals are nailed with severe penalties that reflect society's contempt for their crimes. He said that arrangements that let convicted criminals get credit for three days for a single day served before trial do not serve justice.

I remember many years ago when a person serving time in jail while waiting for his trial and during his trial would get no credit for the dead time he served. This was wrong. Many accused persons, and possibly some who were innocent, offered to plead guilty so that they could serve their sentence right away instead of serving many months of dead time in pretrial custody.

As the years passed, accused persons were given credit for time served on a one-to-one basis but that was increased to two for one and now it is three for one. The reasoning behind this is that waiting for a trial in a detention centre is not the same as serving time in a correctional institution. In a detention centre, the inmates’ only physical activity is walking around a large circle outside whereas in a correctional institution, they can play baseball and even go skating in the winter. In detention centres, they don’t have access to a library whereas in correctional institutions, they do. In detention centres, the inmates are generally watching TV or talking or playing cards whereas in correctional institutions, they have the opportunity to work and earn money (although not much) and go to school or learn a trade. It is for this reason that I applaud the concept of two for one. I don’t applaud the concept of three for one.

The American courts don’t have much sympathy for impaired drivers or those who drive recklessly. Here are some examples.

A Denver, Colorado woman who blacked out behind the wheel and ran down two teenaged boys 15 months ago was sentenced on February 29th 2008 to eight years in state prison.

Sandra Maul, 65, has suffered from alcoholism, depression and drug addiction, was under the influence of three prescription medications on the afternoon of November 17, 2006 when she passed out behind the wheel. Her car, which was going at a speed of roughly 30 mph, jumped the curb and hit two boys from behind. Jesse Aguirre and Nhan Nguyen, who were walking home from Lincoln High School that afternoon, were knocked out of their shoes, dragged 30 feet under the hood of Maul's SUV that then smashed into a tree. Both boys died as a result of their injuries.

A woman, Tonya Bell, 30, from Maryland, USA who injured 49 people when she plowed her car through a street festival in Washington D.C., on June 2nd 2007 while high on crack cocaine, was sentenced to 25 years in prison on January 8th 2008.

She pleaded guilty in October to multiple counts of aggravated assault while armed and assault with a dangerous weapon, (the vehicle) along with a charge of cruelty to children. (her own child was a passenger in the car) District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Herbert Dixon gave Bell the maximum sentence allowed under the plea agreement she reached with prosecutors.

According to prosecutors, Bell had gone on a crack binge in the 24 hours before the street festival, consuming $700 worth of the drug. She then placed her 7-year-old daughter in the back seat of her station wagon and headed toward Unifest, a church-sponsored street festival in southeast Washington, D.C.

At speeds of up to 70 mph, Bell made two passes through the area, knocking people to the side and under the car. A police officer who tried to pull her over said she was laughing as she drove. Her station wagon was finally stopped when officers crashed their scooters under the vehicle and a man jumped through the window to put the transmission in park. Some of the injured were dragged for several blocks under the car or thrown into the air by the impact.

The sentence of 25 years was appropriate considering the danger to society this woman was and still is.

I remember reading years ago about a woman in Nevada who plowed through a crowd of people. A number of the pedestrians were killed. She was sentenced to death. She is still on death row.

Years ago, a drunk driver in Peru who had many drunk driving convictions but hadn’t killed anyone infuriated the judge when the judge realized that nothing was keeping this man from driving his car. He ordered that the man was to be taken to a nearby lamppost and hanged. The man was hanged by the police immediately after the sentence. The government was quite upset but the judge was not removed from the bench.

These last two sentences are not appropriate but if gives you some idea of how those who are impaired or drive recklessly are looked upon with contempt by the courts; and rightly so.

I think that anyone who kills another person as a direct result of impaired driving or dangerous or reckless driving should serve a minimum of 14 years in prison.

Further, I think that if the defendant has a prior record for impaired driving, racing or dangerous driving or reckless driving, another five years should be added to the 14 years.

We as a society have a right to life and we should not be deprived of our lives by unthinking, uncaring drivers who don’t give a damn about us at all. As I see it, if these highway and street thugs want to do the crime, they shouldn’t be complaining about doing the time.