USE THE LAWS THAT ARE THERE

Frustration With Leniency Rooted In Judges' Decisions

Justice Minister Vic Toews introduced legislation Tuesday to raise the
maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death to life in prison.
He didn't need to.

The provisions for such a sentence already exist in the Criminal Code,
under sections dealing with both manslaughter, which includes via
vehicular use, and impaired driving itself.

Toews's frustration appears to be with the infrequency with which
judges use those provisions. Yet, bringing down a sledgehammer can
cause unwanted damage, even as it appears to solve the problem on the
surface. While the public would like to see stiffer sentences handed
down, not only as punishment for drunk drivers who kill, but also as a
deterrent to others, few would agree that a 19-year-old whose one-time
irresponsible behaviour results in a death should be locked away to
rot in prison for the remainder of his adult life. Any such tragic
foolishness should not be equated to that of a violent offender who,
for example, assaults and kills a young woman jogger for whom he has
been lying in wait in a wooded area.

Thus, while judicial discretion must continue to be meted out on a
case-by-case basis, it would be encouraging to see judges avail
themselves of the full range of penalties available to them, rather
than tilting to the lenient end of the scale in instances in which the
public would like to see more severe sentences.

Toews's bill also includes provisions for allowing police officers to
compel drivers suspected of being high on drugs to perform subjective
tests, such as walking a straight line by the side of the road.
Failing these tests would further compel them to submit samples of
bodily fluids for testing at the police station.

Toews says such tests have been used for years in the U.S., have been
"perfected" and are objective. Actually, they are nothing of the kind.

They are subjective because, unlike breathalyser tests, they rely upon
the assessment of the officer at the scene, at whose whim a
potentially innocent person may be ordered to go immediately to the
nearest police station to surrender bodily fluids. That represents the
potential for abuse and an intolerable erosion of individual rights,
which would be instant fodder for Charter challenges -- one reason a
similar bill failed twice to pass under the previous Liberal
administration.

The Canada Safety Council has added its authoritative voice to
objections to roadside drug testing, asking which types of drugs
police would test for, and citing the problems of distinguishing
between prescription and illegal drugs, as well as the fact that drugs
such as marijuana may linger in the body after the initial high is
over.

Educating people about the dangers of drinking and driving has
resulted in a paradigm shift, much as with cigarette smoking. Twenty
years ago, driving home drunk from a party was not taken so seriously;
today, the proliferation of such things as designated driver programs
shows that people realize drunk driving is no joke.

Educational campaigns can do the same for drivers who think it's OK to
drive while stoned. Such campaigns are preferable to further alarming
incursions on the rights of individuals.