this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
61 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7209 readers
504 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 47 points 11 months ago (11 children)

My biggest problem with this whole thing is the legal framing of his actions.

If the bus had instead been a car with a single, middle-aged occupant, I think everything would have gone quite a bit differently.

If that single occupant had not been killed, but made a full recovery, it definitely would have gone a lot differently.

If it had been merely a cop observing the infraction, he would have escaped with just a ticket. At worst, I suppose he might have got a temporary license suspension.

I have difficulty accepting that the identical behaviour should have such radically different punishments just because pure chance leads to radically different outcomes.

Note that I'm not saying that someone who kills someone else should be getting off scott free, regardless of the behaviour that led to the death. But maybe there is room to increase the penalties when dangerous behaviours have little or no consequence as well as room to move on how we handle behaviours that rarely have devastating consequences. Let's face it, the vast majority of those who even deliberately blow through rural stop signs will never even get a ticket, let alone kill someone.

Personally, I don't see this person as a threat to our society, so I see no reason to deport him.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I have difficulty accepting that the identical behaviour should have such radically different punishments just because pure chance leads to radically different outcomes.

That's how the law works, no? The consequence of the action, despite having a random chance factor in it, is one of the factors that decides the application of the law. If you do something dangerous and you're lucky you didn't kill anyone, you're judged with different standards than if you did something dangerous and did kill someone.

In law theory afaik, the damage caused irrespective of intent is a factor on the penalty it warrants.

As for this person being seen as a danger to society and deserving of deportation... I don't disagree. We need better roads, better traffic regulations, better driving safety standards. Tossing someone out of the country because they're in the unlucky bunch of the day isn't helping anything, really.

And I say unlucky bunch of the day because we have more than 300 crashes per day in Canada (with at least 1 person injured).

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Yes, that is how the law works. I think, that within limits, that is how it should work. Where I have difficulty is in figuring out those limits.

For another example, Canada has gone many decades explicitly prohibiting consecutive sentencing. There seems to be some movement in at least softening that prohibition. I can see why that might be a good idea in some cases, but I don't want Canada to just go all-in on consecutive sentencing.

load more comments (9 replies)