Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well



  • Running over a pedestrian and killing them in process? $1000 and half year probation. @area_can what the fuck is wrong with you!?


  • area_can

    @Gąska I'm the only one in @area_can :frowning2:

    Edit: nvm @Mikael_Svahnberg tf are you doing here



  • @bb36e said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @Gąska I'm the only one in @area_can :frowning2:

    Thanks for excluding me !!!


  • area_can

    @TimeBandit for a few months it was just me :<



  • @bb36e said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @TimeBandit for a few months it was just me :<

    I saw you where alone far up North, in the cold, so I joined :wink:


  • area_can




  • mod

    @Gąska I have a character I'm writing named Erika Stark

    I know how to kill her off now :D



  • @Yamikuronue why would you name a character Erika Stark?

    Hell, why would you name a daughter Erika?


  • mod

    @Gąska Why not? It's a reasonable enough name.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Gąska said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @Yamikuronue why would you name a character Erika Stark?

    Hell, why would you name a daughter Erika?

    You were betting on having Erik, and are neither very creative nor known for good planning?
    Or maybe you just like the name?


  • mod

    @Dreikin said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    You were betting on having Erik, and are neither very creative nor known for good planning?

    That's how I got my name, so it'd be in fine tradition. My parents just swapped a vowel.



  • Similar low sentences are given out in the UK.

    He is unlikely to serve it all.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lucas1 said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    He is unlikely to serve it all.

    The desperation to reduce spending on… well, everything… is shining through there. OTOH, I think the main determinant of whether someone gets out early is whether they are a troublemaker in prison; I can see the point of having that as something to encourage good behaviour.

    IIRC, a 4 year sentence might get 25% reduction as it is actually quite a long sentence as far as the overall criminal justice system goes. Shorter sentences get a larger fraction.



  • @bb36e said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @Gąska I'm the only one in @area_can :frowning2:

    Edit: nvm @Mikael_Svahnberg tf are you doing here

    I fail to see the problem. Half of your hockey league are swedish anyway. :trollface:

    I'm in area_can because noone told me I couldn't be.



  • @Mikael_Svahnberg said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    I'm in area_can because noone told me I couldn't be.

    you mean there isn't an area_can't

    :rimshot:


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    I didn't read the link so I don't know what really happened, but assuming it was an accident and not a murder - why would you want to put him in jail? Unless the guy's a sociopath, having to live with the fact he killed another human is punishment enough, and giving him 10 years in the slammer won't bring the lady back to life. I could understand if the man had to pay a huge amount of money to the family, but a jail sentence for an accident isn't justice, it's just vengeance.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blek said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    but a jail sentence for an accident isn't justice, it's just vengeance.

    It's also an object lesson to convince other people to remember that recklessness when driving can have serious consequences.

    In general, prison sentences have several objectives:

    1. Protection of people.
    2. Punishment (which itself has both a direct discouragement component and a vengeance component, the latter in part to help discourage others from going vigilante).
    3. Discouragement of serious law-breaking by others.

    We do not punish people for just one reason. There are always multiple objectives.



  • In the OP's link, the driver was unwilling to state why and how she left the road.

    In such a case, the judge should be just as unwilling to state why and how she should get her driver's license back.

    She has shown to be an irresponsible driver. Such people shouldn't be allowed to drive.



  • @dkf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    It's also an object lesson to convince other people to remember that recklessness when driving can have serious consequences.

    The article states that there was no reliable proof that the driver was behaving reckless. So it must be assumed that this indeed was an accident (the whole innocent unless proven guilty thing). Since it was an accident, what exactly are you trying to discourage? Because the whole point about accidents is that they are unintentional.



  • @cvi Yes. But there are unavoidable accidents. And there are preventable accidents.

    Since there seemed to be nothing wrong with the car and the accused didn't want to talk about it, this places it firmly in the latter category. As evidenced by the fact that she was fined.

    After all, a car doesn't veer off the streets on a whim. There has to be something wrong with the car or with the driver.

    Manslaughter, by the way, is also unintentional by definition.



  • @blek said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    I didn't read the link so I don't know what really happened, but assuming it was an accident and not a murder - why would you want to put him in jail?

    It was an accident - in the same sense that burning a tree with a flamethrower and singeing your dog that was sitting next to you because you were holding the flamethrower one-handed and had problems controlling it, is an accident.

    Careless driving kills people. Everyone knows it. If someone knowingly participates in an activity that kills people, and they kill people, they should be put in jail.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Gąska said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    Careless driving kills people. Everyone knows it. If someone knowingly participates in an activity that kills people, and they kill people, they should be put in jail.

    The problem in this case was that there is no proof that the driver was indeed reckless. I'm pretty sure the judge would have ruled differently if there had been proof that the vehicle was going too fast or that the driver was on the phone.

    If there is no definite proof of gross negligence, you cannot simply assume it and put the person in jail anyway. That's not how a justice system works or should work. "In dubio pro reo" is an important principle for a reason.



  • @asdf Yes, a case for recklessness cannot be made. However, a case for gross negligence can.

    Which I why I'm advocating for taking such peoples' licenses away forever. As a driver's license is a right granted by the state, the bar to revoking this right is lower than an inherent right (like the right to liberty).


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    Which I why I'm advocating for taking such peoples' licenses away forever.

    AFAIK, this is not even possible under German law; and probably impossible under Canadian law as well.

    Taking away the license without any chance of ever getting it back would also be unconstitutional here in Germany, I think, since you're severely restricting a person's rights without any chance of rehabilitation. Our law already allows invalidating the license instead of merely suspending it and states a "minimum sentence" of half a year before you can request another license. (A quick Google search suggests that verdicts usually require longer pauses.) A judge can also force the driver to take the infamous "idiot test" (MPU = medical and psychological evaluation) before they're granted a new license. What else do you want?



  • @asdf No, taking it away without a chance of getting it back is already possible. It has been done several time for people with epilepsy. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

    And, again, it's not an innate right like the right to a fair process or the right to liberty. Instead, it's a conditional right, granted to you only after you have shown that you understand the consequences.

    That's why we have this extensive schooling and testing process.

    And, by the way, in some cases the MPU can and will also yield an indefinite revocation of your license. It's just way too rare for my liking.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    No, taking it away without a chance of getting it back is already possible. It has been done several time for people with epilepsy. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

    That's an entirely different case. I was suggesting that taking away the license indefinitely as a punishment would probably be unconstitutional. Medical reasons are a different beast.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    No, taking it away without a chance of getting it back is already possible. It has been done several time for people with epilepsy. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

    That's an entirely different case. I was suggesting that taking away the license indefinitely as a punishment would probably be unconstitutional. Medical reasons are a different beast.

    It's not a punishment. It's a consequence. Now that I think about it, "right" is not the proper word. "Privilege" is much more fitting.

    You're granted the privilege to drive a car under the condition that you drive carefully and with consideration to other people.

    If you negligently kill a person you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted with that privilege. As such, withdrawing this privilege is only logical.

    And even if it was defined as a punishment: There's nothing unconstitutional about a punishment related to the deed.

    It would be unconstitutional to revoke your driver's license for tax fraud - the two are not related. Revoking the license to drive a car because you killed someone with a car? No one will bat an eye for that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    It's not a punishment. It's a consequence. Now that I think about it, "right" is not the proper word. "Privilege" is much more fitting.
    You're granted the privilege to drive a car under the condition that you drive carefully and with consideration to other people.

    I don't think that's correct (legally speaking).

    In general, you're free to do whatever the fuck you want. ("Handlungsfreiheit") Laws can restrict that constitutional right for good reasons, but driving is certainly not a "privilege" granted to you by the state.

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    And even if it was defined as a punishment: There's nothing unconstitutional about a punishment related to the deed.

    An indefinite suspension without any chance of rehabilitation might violate the "Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip" (principle of proportionality), especially for people who live in rural areas and are severely restricted if they're not allowed to drive a car. I cannot find any relevant Supreme Court cases, so both of us are only speculating, but I'm pretty sure the legal side of this is more complicated than you think.



  • @asdf I think in NL the worst they can do is a temporary ban followed by having to re-take the driving test.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    In general, you're free to do whatever the fuck you want. ("Handlungsfreiheit") Laws can restrict that constitutional right for good reasons, but driving is certainly not a "privilege" granted to you by the state.

    Explain the legal requirement for driver's licenses then.

    And, no, you can never do "whatever the fuck you want". You may not murder, you may not steal, you may not embezzle, ...


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @PleegWat said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    I think in NL the worst they can do is a temporary ban followed by having to re-take the driving test.

    So you don't have mandatory "idiot tests" (evaluations) for drunk driving before they are allowed to re-take the driving test?



  • @asdf well there's definitely mandatory drunk driving courses. Wouldn't know about tests attached to that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    Explain the legal requirement for driver's licenses then.

    I hope it's okay if I refer you to Wikipedia, since I don't have a degree in constitutional law:

    Einschränkbarkeit der Grundrechte (Wikipedia)

    Basically, only certain basic rights can be restricted at all, and those can only be restricted if the conditions of GG Art 19 are met. See also:

    And, no, you can never do "whatever the fuck you want". You may not murder, you may not steal, you may not embezzle, ...

    You know that our civil rights have to be weighed against each other, and that the inviolability of the honor of the human being is the strongest civil right in our constitution, right? The right to personal property is also a constitutional right. Are you intentionally playing dumb?



  • @PleegWat said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    mandatory drunk driving courses

    so they first liquor you up and then you have to take the driving courses? where can I sign up?



  • @asdf But being allowed to drive a car is not a basic right.

    That's where your argument falls flat on its face.

    Or do you next want to tell me that I have the basic right to practice medicine? (And by that I mean: Treat patients with cancer, prescribe opioids and such. Not this homeopathy-shit)



  • @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    Which I why I'm advocating for taking such peoples' licenses away forever. As a driver's license is a right granted by the state, the bar to revoking this right is lower than an inherent right (like the right to liberty).

    @asdf said:

    [...] severely restricting a person's rights without any chance of rehabilitation.

    ^This.
    Any of this "forever" stuff is at its core inhumane because it inherently negates people's ability to change.
    I'm telling this as someone whose father was killed while cycling to work in a hit-and-run accident by a guy who was probably (he turned himself in a day later) completely pissed—the road was straight,the weather good and the bicycle had lights and all the reflectors and what have you. At the time I thought taking away his license forever would have been fair but a few years on I changed my mind. It was a mistake. One of the worst possible ones but still a mistake, a consequence of shit almost everyone has done in one form or another at some point in their lives (I sure have), just that most of us were lucky and nothing bad happened.
    The guy got two years in jail, which would have been completely counter-productive, then he got it commuted to two years suspended in the revision. I think they could have been more creative with that, like have him pay 20% of his income to the Red Cross for the next 10 years or so. Significant but not crippling, lengthy but still limited, and somehow designed to make up for what he did. Jail is completely fucking useless for that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    But being allowed to drive a car is not a basic right.

    Not per se, but the following to are:

    • Allgemeine Handlungsfreiheit (the right to do whatever you want, unless it violates the constitution)
    • Freizügigkeit (the right to go and move wherever you want)

    Both are potentially touched by a law that allows to revoke drivers licenses indefinitely, so it's not immediately clear whether such a law is constitutional. See above for the restrictions that apply and would have to be checked by our highest court.

    That's where your argument falls flat on its face.

    No, it doesn't. In a Rechtsstaat, laws cannot arbitrarily disallow things without a rationale rooted in the constitution.

    Or do you next want to tell me that I have the basic right to practice medicine? (And by that I mean: Treat patients with cancer, prescribe opioids and such. Not this homeopathy-shit)

    So you are intentionally playing dumb, and completely ignoring what I'm saying? Okay, I'll stop arguing with you, then.

    In case you are actually being serious: Of course laws can disallow certain actions, but the constitution restricts the content of any law that disallows anything. That's why you are allowed to practice "alternative medicine" in Germany: Because lawmakers cannot find a good, constitutional reason for disallowing it.

    The reason why you need a license for practicing invasive medicine is because it touches another civil right: The right not to be physically harmed (Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit). That's why the law can restrict practicing medicine in the first place.



  • @asdf No, you're reaching. Freizügigkeit is covering a completely different aspect - namely, that no one can tell you where to live. It has nothing to do with the mode of transportation.

    And, using your logic, requiring a driver's license would violate the constitution because it stands in the way of your Handlungsfreiheit.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    An indefinite suspension without any chance of rehabilitation might violate the "Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip" (principle of proportionality), especially for people who live in rural areas and are severely restricted if they're not allowed to drive a car.

    I don't think you could argue proportionality there—if you killed someone it's hardly unusually harsh to require you to live somewhere where you can take a fucking bus to work. It's more that the principle of rehabilitation always as to be present; even the most savage psychopathic murderer usually has a right to a medical reevaluation after a few decades.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    The reason why you need a license for practicing invasive medicine is because it touches another civil right: The right not to be physically harmed (Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit). That's why the law can restrict practicing medicine in the first place.

    Okay, then take "practice law". Or "being a teacher". Or any of the other countless examples.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    And, using your logic, requiring a driver's license would violate the constitution because it stands in the way of your Handlungsfreiheit.

    You're still not listening, are you? As stated above, laws can restrict constitutional rights. But there are restrictions on that.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    And, using your logic, requiring a driver's license would violate the constitution because it stands in the way of your Handlungsfreiheit.

    You're still not listening, are you? As stated above, laws can restrict constitutional rights. But there are restrictions on that.

    And being allowed to drive a car still isn't a basic right. Sorry, dude, but you're over-interpreting the Grundgesetz here.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    And being allowed to drive a car still isn't a basic right. Sorry, dude, but you're over-interpreting the Grundgesetz here.

    I never fucking said that. You're still arguing against a straw man, and not even trying to understand how our law is constructed.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    And being allowed to drive a car still isn't a basic right. Sorry, dude, but you're over-interpreting the Grundgesetz here.

    I never fucking said that. You're still arguing against a straw man, and not even trying to understand how our law is constructed.

    Here's the thing: If I go against the rules when practising law, medicine or being a teacher, there's a good chance my license to practice this particular job will be revoked.

    Indefinitely. And no chance of parole or rehabilitation.

    Having to take the bus is small fry in comparison to being banned from practicing your livelihood.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    Here's the thing: If I go against the rules when practising law, medicine or being a teacher, there's a good chance my license to practice this particular job will be revoked.

    Is there even such a thing as a teaching license? I thought you can still teach at a private school if you're thrown out of a public one.

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    Having to take the bus is small fry in comparison to being banned from practicing your livelihood.

    If you would have listened to what I said, you'd know that I was questioning the constitutionality in cases where taking the bus is not even an option, because those buses don't even exist where you live.



  • @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    The reason why you need a license for practicing invasive medicine is because it touches another civil right: The right not to be physically harmed (Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit). That's why the law can restrict practicing medicine in the first place.

    Okay, then take "practice law". Or "being a teacher". Or any of the other countless examples.

    :wtf: You can be a teacher all you like, just don't expect to be employed in a public school if you don't comply with the state's requirements. Or for the government to recognize your teaching skills when it comes to giving a private school a license to teach kids in lieu of public schools for that matter.
    Same with the law of course: you are even freer to give legal counsel if you don't take the bar exam, just don't expect to be allowed at a regular court.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @LaoC said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    you are even freer to give legal counsel if you don't take the bar exam

    Not in Germany.



  • @asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    If you would have listened to what I said, you'd know that I was questioning the constitutionality in cases where taking the bus is not even an option, because those buses don't even exist where you live.

    That's not the problem of the court.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:

    That's not the problem of the court.

    :wtf:

    Yes, it is! Because the punishment has to be constitutional, FFS!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.