# What should be done with people like this?



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

A 27 year old woman was charged with impaired driving on Sunday. In 2015 she killed a cyclist. One month prior to that, she had been sentenced for a 2013 offense and was banned from driving for a year. This makes 3 times in 7 years from age 19, that we KNOW of, that this woman has chosen to drive while impaired.








Ontario woman who killed cyclist while driving drunk charged with impaired driving on parole


An Ontario woman convicted of killing a cyclist while driving drunk has again been charged with impaired driving after multiple 911 calls about a vehicle travelling erratically on Highway 400 Sunday.



toronto.ctvnews.ca





Clearly, she has learned nothing from her previous behaviour and the consequences. Clearly, she shows no respect for the law. Now here are my questions. 

1. Access to vehicles. After the first offense and sentence when banned from driving for a year, where did she get access to the BMW she was driving when she killed the cyclist? After getting out of prison and was on parole, where did she get access to the vehicle she was driving on Sunday? Who owned them, who gave her keys to them?

2. If being banned from driving for 10 years means nothing to her, how do you stop her from driving a vehicle? 

3. Should those who knowingly or inadvertently aided and abetted her actions be held to account?

It looks to me like a case of 'spoiled little rich girl' privileged behaviour. This is not unique whether for a young woman or a young man but when the system cannot seem to affect their behaviour, then I see that as a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. The penalties need to be something that WILL register with them.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ... *The penalties need to be something that WILL register with them. *


 ...such as? What do you propose? 

Obviously there is a BIG FLAW in the system with these kind of non-chalant killers on the loose. She's just one screw short of being a serial-killer.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ...such as? What do you propose?
> 
> Obviously there is a BIG FLAW in the system with these kind of non-chalant killers on the loose. She's just one screw short of being a serial-killer.


Well, one suggestion I would have Beaver101 is to 'widen the net'. As I wrote in my point 1 above, where did she get access to the vehicles for the second and third offense? Did mummy or daddy or a friend give her the keys to the car while knowing her license was suspended? If so, charge them with something like criminal negligence and put them in prison. That might put a cramp in her behaviour.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Now don't be so hard-nosed people. Leave us not forget, that alcoholism is a _sickness_; it's not her fault and in no way self-induced. She should not be held to account. She should be put on CPP disability forthwith.

Downright mean-spirited to talk of invoking the machinery of the criminal law to put a cramp (or crimp maybe?) in her behaviour. She needs kindness, compassion, understanding, warm and fuzzies. 

Of course, an even better solution might be to declare prohibition across Canada. Outlaw the demon rum. After al, we know that guns kill people and 99.999% of Canadians want them all banned. I have a sneaking idea that alcohol kills more in a year than guns, so why tolerate that vile substance? Any WCTU members here, please chime in. 

Banning motor vehicles too might help. It would make impaired driving a tad more difficult. There, two major killers taken care of by simple act of the legislature.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> Banning motor vehicles too might help.


That's going a bit too far I think ... maybe make a list of vehicles that have caused a death, let's call them "assault vehicles" and only ban those.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Now don't be so hard-nosed people. Leave us not forget, that alcoholism is a _sickness_; it's not her fault and in no way self-induced. She should not be held to account. She should be put on CPP disability forthwith.
> 
> Downright mean-spirited to talk of invoking the machinery of the criminal law to put a cramp (or crimp maybe?) in her behaviour. She needs kindness, compassion, understanding, warm and fuzzies.
> 
> ...


While I appreciate (a tad) your attempt to tongue in cheek humour Mukhang pera, I think the subject also deserves a serious response. Otherwise, you lead the thread off track and invite comments like the above by cainvest that follow the nonsense vs. the actual serious subject.

So, what in your 'lawyerly' opinion should be done with people like this, seriously?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Is there really a discussion here LTA?

She gets charged and if any other parties are involved that broke the law they get charged as well. Since no details are provided you can only speculate about other parties involved but what's the point?

IMO, send her back to jail, case closed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Now don't be so hard-nosed people. Leave us not forget, that alcoholism is a _sickness_; it's not her fault and in no way self-induced. She should not be held to account. She should be put on CPP disability forthwith.
> 
> Downright mean-spirited to talk of invoking the machinery of the criminal law to put a cramp (or crimp maybe?) in her behaviour. She needs kindness, compassion, understanding, warm and fuzzies.
> 
> ...


You can hold people accountable for their actions while also having compassion for their substance abuse issues. Lots of alcoholics (if she even is one) manage not to drive drunk and kill people.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cainvest said:


> That's going a bit too far I think ... maybe make a list of vehicles that have caused a death, let's call them "assault vehicles" and only ban those.


There are many rules manufacturers have to comply with to make motor vehicles safer for passengers and pedestrians.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

LTA, true, my post was intended to be somewhat facetious. Although I am against the whole idea of coddling alcohol and drug addicts. Those are not illnesses at all. They are simply anti-social behaviour and any 'illness' is entirely self-induced and deserves no sympathy.

As for how to deal with chronic offenders, there are penologists who, I suppose, study these things to death and debate varying approaches. This applies to the criminal law in general. What do we do with those who commit crimes? I have never found the subject to be of great interest to me, but it's certainly something worthy of due consideration. There are some who believe there should be no prisons, that imprisoning anyone for anything is wrong and ineffective. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe in significant terms of incarceration for even minor transgressions. 

I say I have no interest in the matter since I never had any talent as a criminal defence lawyer. All of my criminal clients went to jail. So I decided to find another niche in law.

If one spends any time reading the sentencing cases (and I have read literally thousands of sentencing decisions), it can fairly be said that the obligation of a sentencing judge to is consider the interrelated objectives of sentencing: retribution, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, and the protection of society.

Deterrence is said to have 2 elements: (i) specific deterrence. The idea is to make things sufficiently unpleasant for the particular individual so as to discourage the miscreant from doing such a bad thing again; and (ii) general deterrence. The idea is to hold out the miscreant as an example to others, saying, in effect "See what happens to those who behave like that? Do you want to meet the same fate? Well then, better behave."

So where does all of that fit in with the recidivist impaired driver? It seems that better minds than mine, who have probably written doctoral theses on topic, have probably not reached a consensus, so I claim no special insight. What would I do, asked here on the spur of the moment? I would probably say we should go somewhat heavy-handed and be considering lifetime driving prohibitions backed up by very long "custodial" sentences. In saying that, I should point out, although most here probably know already, that, in general, most prisoners are released after serving one third of their sentence. So, a federal sentence of 10 years is likely to see the inmate paroled after one third of that time. The 'statutory release date' is at the 2/3 mark and the 'warrant expiry date' comes at 3/3 of sentence.

Accordingly, to really keep these people off the road, and taking 'protection of the public' as the paramount sentencing principle, we probably need to look at imposing sentences much along the lines of those for second degree murder, i.e., life, with a parole ineligibility period of not less than 10 years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Anyone providing their vehicle to someone who doesn't have a license to drive commits a crime. Their insurance company may also not cover any damages.

As there is no feasible way to know if a person has a valid license, the best rule of thumb is not to lend your vehicle to anyone.

This woman will likely get time in custody, but when she gets out there is no way to stop her except don't give her your car keys.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Well, one suggestion I would have Beaver101 is to 'widen the net'. As I wrote in my point 1 above, where did she get access to the vehicles for the second and third offense? Did mummy or daddy or a friend give her the keys to the car while knowing her license was suspended? If so, charge them with something like criminal negligence and put them in prison. That might put a cramp in her behaviour.


 ... at 27 years old, still relying on mummy daddy and friends?

The irony of all her behaviour:

Richmond Hill woman who killed Toronto cyclist while impaired driving arrested again



> ... During her 2017 trial, court heard Selinevich dropped York University law and society studies after a co-op placement led to a job as a law clerk/legal assistant. In a letter to court, *a former employer described her as intelligent and trustworthy. *
> 
> However, she ran with “high-risk” friends and binge-drank, especially after the deaths of four friends within two years, court heard.
> 
> ...


 ... obviously she hasn't learned anything about the "horrendous" crimes she committed despite immersed in multiple supposedly "rehabilitative" studies including "dozens of Bible-" related ones. What a joke. She certainly hood-winked the judge and the entire justice system.

I agree with MP's proposal in post #10:



> ... Accordingly, to really keep these people off the road, and taking 'protection of the public' as the paramount sentencing principle, *we probably need to look at imposing sentences much along the lines of those for second degree murder, *i.e., life, with a parole ineligibility period of not less than 10 years.



This incident is just a few days later of this unimagineable tragedy caused by a 20 year old punk driver:

People tried to stop drunk driver before horrific crash in Brampton


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

This looks like a good case for an ankle bracelet monitor. One that sends its location to the authorities every few minutes. If she is on the move it would be possible to locate her and see if she is driving. It goes without saying she should not be allowed to drive.

As for the demon rum if it was newly invented by some drug company or chemical company no government on earth would allow it to be sold to the public. Prohibition in Canada was a big success, a lot of people would be surprised to find this out as we have been told different. But James Gray took the trouble to research the facts and put them in a book titled Booze. One reason prohibition was successful is, we never had the bone dry prohibition they had in the US. It was always possible for a drinker to buy legal liquor but with bars and liquor stores closed most people didn't bother.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> A 27 year old woman was charged with impaired driving on Sunday. In 2015 she killed a cyclist. One month prior to that, she had been sentenced for a 2013 offense and was banned from driving for a year. This makes 3 times in 7 years from age 19, that we KNOW of, that this woman has chosen to drive while impaired.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Death penalty, or life in prison.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

The vehicle should be seized, just like if she was stunt driving.

I lived far from friends growing up, I drank excessively when I was younger.
I never drove drunk, never got in a car with someone who did.
I still drink socially, but never when I'm driving.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Well, since she was on parole, one might guess that breaking the conditions of parole would send her back to the pokey, at least for a while. There would be 3.5 years left on her original sentence. Then whatever new sentence might arise from the new charges. One would hope that the courts would withhold leniency. So she'll be back on the streets in 24 months or so, I guess, on parole again.

I don't have a right answer what the system should do with her. The circumstances don't make me want to advocate the death penalty. It is unclear what sort of specific deterrent value any sort of punishment would have for this individual -- she is completely out of control.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> Well, since she was on parole, one might guess that breaking the conditions of parole would send her back to the pokey, at least for a while. There would be 3.5 years left on her original sentence. Then whatever new sentence might arise from the new charges. One would hope that the courts would withhold leniency. So she'll be back on the streets in 24 months or so, I guess, on parole again.
> 
> I don't have a right answer what the system should do with her. The circumstances don't make me want to advocate the death penalty. It is unclear what sort of specific deterrent value any sort of punishment would have for this individual -- she is completely out of control.


Deterrent value?
If she's gone, she can't hurt anyone else.
"If it saves just one life", it's worth it


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Perhaps we should emulate the United Arab Emirates. In additon to jail time you can be flogged with up to 80 lashes across the arms, back and legs. Yep, FLOGGED. That might get some offenders attention especially if it is a public flogging.

Or we could emulate Bulgaria where a second offense results in a death penalty. They don't mess around obviously. You don't even get a chance at a 'third strike and you're out'.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> That might get some offenders attention especially if it is a public flogging.


Well that's just it. The prior sentences that this woman received should be ample incentive to straighten out. Yet she hasn't. Some might take the view that the punishment must not be great enough to get her attention and should be increased. My perspective is that she is likely unable to control her additictive behaviour, no matter what the punishment might be -- she would likely re-offend under any threat, no matter how gruesome or barbaric. You'd have to either keep her in jail or do her in, to totally neutralize the threat she poses to the public.

Maybe going after the people that enable her -- in particular, whoever provided the vehicle she was caught in this week should feel some pain. Then maybe her friends would help to keep her under control and/or call the police when she violates her conditions. I don't know what sort of liability or insurance risk attaches to lending your vehicle out to a prohibited driver, but if the insurance company cancelled my policy, I might take better care who I lend my car to.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

gardner said:


> Well that's just it. The prior sentences that this woman received should be ample incentive to straighten out. Yet she hasn't. Some might take the view that the punishment must not be great enough to get her attention and should be increased. My perspective is that she is likely unable to control her additictive behaviour, no matter what the punishment might be -- she would likely re-offend under any threat, no matter how gruesome or barbaric. You'd have to either keep her in jail or do her in, to totally neutralize the threat she poses to the public.
> 
> Maybe going after the people that enable her -- in particular, whoever provided the vehicle she was caught in this week should feel some pain. Then maybe her friends would help to keep her under control and/or call the police when she violates her conditions. I don't know what sort of liability or insurance risk attaches to lending your vehicle out to a prohibited driver, but if the insurance company cancelled my policy, I might take better care who I lend my car to.


I agree, some people will never learn no matter the penalty. I also agree that those who enable the behaviour should face criminal charges. 

However, if we just applied the laws we have, it could make a difference. The reality is that hardly anyone ever gets punished 'to the full extent of the law'. For example, someone charged with 'dangerous operation causing death' CAN be sentenced to LIFE in prison. When the woman in this case killed the cyclist in 2015, she had already had a conviction for impaired driving and was driving while her license was suspended. Instead, she was only sentenced to 7 years and was out and driving again in 3 years. My view is it isn't our laws that are inadequate, it is our sentencing that is inadequate. If she had been sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 30 years, she'd still be behind bars.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> Perhaps we should emulate the United Arab Emirates. In additon to jail time you can be flogged with up to 80 lashes across the arms, back and legs. Yep, FLOGGED. That might get some offenders attention especially if it is a public flogging.


Yeah, too bad Canada gave up on flogging. Our Criminal Code used to contain sentencing provisions that would prescribe a prison sentence of a certain duration, adding that the offender shall be liable to such a sentence "and to be whipped".

The most recent provision, before abolition in 1972, read thus:

*Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 668.*
*[Execution of sentence by whipping]*
668. (1) Where a person is liable to be sentenced to be whipped, the court may sentence him to be whipped on one, two or three occasions within the limits of the prison in which he is confined.
*[Number of strokes to be specified]*
(2) A sentence of whipping shall specify the number of strokes to be administered on each occasion.
*[Supervision]*
(3) A sentence of whipping shall be executed under the supervision of the prison doctor or, if he is unable to be present, it shall be executed under the supervision of a duly qualified medical practitioner to be named by the Attorney General of Canada, where the sentence is executed in a prison administered by the Government of Canada, or, where the sentence is executed in a prison administered by the government of a province, to be named by the Attorney General of the province.
*[Instrument to be used]*
(4) The instrument to be used in the execution of the sentence of whipping shall be a cat-o'-nine tails, unless some other instrument is specified in the sentence.
*[When to be used]*
(5) A sentence of whipping shall be executed at a time to be fixed by the keeper of the prison in which it is to be executed, but, whenever practicable, a sentence of whipping shall be executed not less than ten days before the expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the convicted person has been sentenced.
*[Prohibition]*
(6) No female person shall be whipped. 1953-54, c. 51, s. 641.

Not sure why the females were exempted. Seems a violation of equality laws. Today, they would be out protesting, saying they want to feel the lash along with the boys. 

A complete aside, but I when I was a kid, my mother recalled a diary products vendor advertising: "You can whip our cream, but you can't beat our eggs". Just a random thought, apropos of not much. Totally off topic and worthy of rebuke.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Prison is not a solution. This person clearly has issues and would need rehabilitation in every sense. Its the only chance she would have to function normal in society - that is, if she becomes rehabilitated. If that doesn't work, well then the only option is to put her in prison since she is a threat to society. The sad part about throwing people in jail is they will come out one day and become a nuisance to society. They can't get a normal job, may or may not have learned their lesson, and have a high probability to re-offend.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Mortgage u/w said:


> Prison is not a solution. This person clearly has issues and would need rehabilitation in every sense. Its the only chance she would have to function normal in society - that is, if she becomes rehabilitated. If that doesn't work, well then the only option is to put her in prison since she is a threat to society. The sad part about throwing people in jail is they will come out one day and become a nuisance to society. They can't get a normal job, may or may not have learned their lesson, and have a high probability to re-offend.


Problem with prison is trying to determine the purpose. Is it to rehabilitate, or is it to "punish"? Look how people get excited when they hear that prisoners undergo some learning/training, or aren't being punished enough. Obviously, the expectation is to rehabilitate, and ensure they end up re-integrating into society, but what do we do with people who can't? Imprison them forever? Or just appoint them as CEO of a top 100 company?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> Now don't be so hard-nosed people. Leave us not forget, that alcoholism is a _sickness_; it's not her fault and in no way self-induced. She should not be held to account. She should be put on CPP disability forthwith.
> 
> Downright mean-spirited to talk of invoking the machinery of the criminal law to put a cramp (or crimp maybe?) in her behaviour. She needs kindness, compassion, understanding, warm and fuzzies.


I think you are on the right track here. After all she is a woman, and therefore a victim. No doubt there is one or more males who are responsible for her alcoholism and driving. She might be eligible for a free car and free driving lessons. I think there is a precedent for this: A Vancouver woman cut off the penis of her philandering husband in front of some or all of her many children. She got probation, custody of the children, and free English lessons. Obviously a just outcome and a guide on how to handle the drunk driving gal who killed the cyclist -- free car and free driving lessons.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> Problem with prison is trying to determine the purpose. Is it to rehabilitate, or is it to "punish"? Look how people get excited when they hear that prisoners undergo some learning/training, or aren't being punished enough. Obviously, the expectation is to rehabilitate, and ensure they end up re-integrating into society, but what do we do with people who can't? Imprison them forever? Or just appoint them as CEO of a top 100 company?


To rehabilitate and to protect the public. Punishment is ineffective--criminals don't think they are going to get caught.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mortgage u/w said:


> Prison is not a solution. This person clearly has issues and would need rehabilitation in every sense. Its the only chance she would have to function normal in society - that is, if she becomes rehabilitated. If that doesn't work, well then the only option is to put her in prison since she is a threat to society. The sad part about throwing people in jail is they will come out one day and become a nuisance to society. They can't get a normal job, may or may not have learned their lesson, and have a high probability to re-offend.



You fail to support your claim that "Prison is not a solution".
If she was in prison, she would be unable to hurt people in this manner. 
It solves the problem, therefore it IS a solution.

In fact you acknowledge that if she doesn't get rehabilitated, the "only option" is to put her in prison.
We already know that she isn't interested in changing her behavior. Even after killing someone, she's still doing it. She's clearly a danger to society, and our "justice" system seems completely unconcerned with protecting the public.

That's why sentencing her to prison, or death are the only remaining solutions.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> You fail to support your claim that "Prison is not a solution".
> If she was in prison, she would be unable to hurt people in this manner.
> It solves the problem, therefore it IS a solution.
> 
> ...


That’s pretty harsh. 
She’s a threat to society if she’s not rehabilitated. Keeping her imprisoned does not guarantee rehabilitation.
She reoffended because alcohol is affecting her ability to reason. You don’t think straight when you’re drunk.

so anyone who gets caught for drinking and driving should be given no chance and locked up forever? why not remove alcohol from society? Or better yet, get rid of cars?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mortgage u/w said:


> That’s pretty harsh.
> She’s a threat to society if she’s not rehabilitated. Keeping her imprisoned does not guarantee rehabilitation.
> She reoffended because alcohol is affecting her ability to reason. You don’t think straight when you’re drunk.
> 
> so anyone who gets caught for drinking and driving should be given no chance and locked up forever? why not remove alcohol from society? Or better yet, get rid of cars?


She's a threat because she doesn't care if she kills people

I think that after you kill someone, you should be locked up, until it is unlikely you are going to kill someone.
If you get out, and go back to the same behaviour that killed someone before, then yes, you should be locked up again.

You know what's harsh? When dangerous criminals, who get out of jail kill or hurt their second person.
Imagine it was your spouse, child, parent who is the next victim of this killer?
I want to know, would you be able to look your child in the eyes, and say "we know this woman kills people, and that once she got out of jail, she went out to kill people again, but Mommy is dead because it's "too harsh" to keep this woman where she can't hurt people"?

I'm okay with a conditional release as long as there is compliance with a substance abuse program and no further related offenses. She doesn't meet this criteria.

I have a question for you, if you show no signs of changing your behaviour, how many people should you be allowed to kill?
1, 2, 10, 20?

Seriously, I want an answer, how many more people does she need to kill? Because she's sure as hell on her way to her second.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Since I was a teenager I wanted to become a defense lawyer advocating for people. I would never have wanted to be a Crown Attorney or Judge.

Employment where you have to make the kind of decisions necessary in this case, would not have been a career I would have wanted.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not every vehicle have about $4000 worth of air bags installed. I recall reading that car alcohol lockouts are custom installed at about $2000. I would think it reasonable to think that if every vehicle had one factory installed, the cost would be perhaps $200. Why don't we make these mandatory safety gear? Sure does nothing for drug impairment, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Probably not a bad idea. But I imagine we'll get autonomy before the public accepts that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

hboy54 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but does not every vehicle have about $4000 worth of air bags installed. I recall reading that car alcohol lockouts are custom installed at about $2000. I would think it reasonable to think that if every vehicle had one factory installed, the cost would be perhaps $200. Why don't we make these mandatory safety gear? Sure does nothing for drug impairment, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?


Well they are easily defeated, unless they're monitored.

Some people have medical conditions that make it impossible for them to blow.

The fancy new features could cause your vehicle to be randomly disabled while driving (rolling retest), isn't that fun.

The reality is, drunk driving, like pretty much every other serious crime, is committed by a small number of repeat offenders. 

Seize and destroy the car, throw her in jail and be done with it.


----------

