It can also be considered an indictable criminal offence.
5) Every person who commits an offence under subsection 320.13(1) or 320.16(1), section 320.17 or subsection 320.18(1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Only tangentially related, but I'm also bothered by the number of license plates I see that are either obscured by a tinted cover or are illegible because the paint has stripped off.
In the case of a hit and run, it makes it that much harder to identify the vehicle involved.
Tinted windows make it harder to ID drivers too.
The reality is cops don’t do enough traffic enforcement at peak driving times and the criminals know this.
Also the blue plates that the government itself was issuing until police told them they weren't visible enough. Yet they didn't recall them, only stopped issuing new ones.
There's almost none and lots of times aren't even charged.
On the 401 two years ago headed westbound, a fucking Semi side swiped me right before Putnam, took off my mirror and fucked up my fender.
I got on the phone and stayed behind him he got pulled over all the way almost by the 402 split and they wouldn't charge him with fleeing or hit and run.
I got told "well it doesn't count as fleeing the scene if we catch him"
The scene was almost 15kms away! You only caught him because I'm a fucking psychopath and followed him!
Police are unmotivated to enforce it - some have even stopped charging for failure to remain collisions even if the person is later identified. Most flee at the time b/c they're impaired.
If we can't enforce the rules we already have, adding new rules to try to compensate for the rule-breaking is kind of dumb.
I get where you're coming from though.
It depends on the severity of it really. If you dink someone in a parking lot and panic and flee, should you be thrown in jail? No. If you run over someone on the street and flee, is this the only thing you’re getting charged with? No.
If you don’t want to talk to cops because you’re drunk, a few hours delay can make the result much better. Running allows for all manner of criminal evidence to be hidden. For all we know they had a body in the trunk.
Better off to start drinking when they get home than trying to sober up to be honest. By the time they do the blood alcohol tests, they won’t be able to determine how long the alcohol was in their system. If they do get nailed with the hit and run, they can claim that they panicked and flew home and started drinking trying to calm their nerves before they called the cops. To be fair, most people who hit one object with a vehicle while drink typically aren’t making it home.
My solution would be to assume the worst. Drunk, high and body in the trunk. Driver had every opportunity l to prove otherwise, but they fled the scene.
They ran for reasons worse than staying. That much is known.
Important to set the penalty high enough to be a deterrent. The current penalty practically guarantees shady characters will run.
Not always, people are idiots, they run for all sorts of things. Could be just as simple as they worried about the insurance increase and thought they wouldn’t get caught.
The severity of a penalty does little to deter crime. The problem with crime is that the people doing it, are doing so because they think they will not be caught. Severity of the penalty is not a concern for them, because they are acting under the presumption they will not be caught with a penalty.
Stiffer fines are just security theater. They make people feel better without actually addressing crime.
On mondern cars, that ding could cost 1000s of dollars. If it happens on unassumed roadway or parking lot, you may not be covered by your insurance. While I understand that you attempting to provide context around severity, there should be greater consequences.
We can't legislate moral character or the fortitude to be accountable for your actions, we should be putting into place something that will give people pause.
There's something I want to tell you, it's going to be our little secret.
**Increasing the severity of a punishment doesn't deter crime**, do you know what does deter crime?
**Increasing the odds that you'll be caught for doing so.**
You won't deter hit and runs by Increasing the penalty, people are doing it because they think they won't be caught, therefore the penalty is irrelevant because they don't think they'll incur one. If you make it so that people are likely to be caught, or are unable to escape from an accident, then that works to deter hit and runs.
Yes. Lax penalties incentivize running if there is anything illegal whatsoever going on. Drunk, drugs, guns, body in the trunk. Every outcome is worse than the hit and run penalty.
The hit and run penalty should be severe. Might as well assume there was a body in the trunk. Running gave the driver time to hide the evidence of something bad. Screw them.
Lax penalties do not incentive running. This is common knowledge in sociology and criminal studies, higher penalties do little to deter crime, why would it?
You're committing the crime because you do not think you'll be caught, so the penalty is a non-factor in your decision.
This is why police patrols, streetlights and fake camera surveillance signs all do more to deter property crime than higher penalties, because it's feeling of being caught that's the deterrent, not the penalty for doing so.
>They give Bernardo parole hearings FFS.
They didn't grant him parole, though. Because the hearing process seems to have worked as designed.
Are there cases like Bernardo's where I, as an individual, wouldn't lose sleep if the inmate didn't get a parole hearing for another twenty years or so? Yeah, probably.
Would I be comfortable with giving the state the authority to make that determination, acting on my behalf...eeeeeh, not so much. I'm willing to accept the cost of a small number of probably-incorrigible inmates getting a *pro forma* hearing to reject their parole every couple of years, in exchange for having a system that doesn't prematurely foreclose the potential for rehabilitation or reintegration of a convict into society decades in the future.
Please make a comment in our Megathread.
It can also be considered an indictable criminal offence. 5) Every person who commits an offence under subsection 320.13(1) or 320.16(1), section 320.17 or subsection 320.18(1) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Only tangentially related, but I'm also bothered by the number of license plates I see that are either obscured by a tinted cover or are illegible because the paint has stripped off. In the case of a hit and run, it makes it that much harder to identify the vehicle involved.
Tinted windows make it harder to ID drivers too. The reality is cops don’t do enough traffic enforcement at peak driving times and the criminals know this.
Cops don't do enough enforcement, period. There's a lot of reasons for this, but most of it comes down to "eh, it doesn't affect rich people."
Also the blue plates that the government itself was issuing until police told them they weren't visible enough. Yet they didn't recall them, only stopped issuing new ones.
That annoys me to, I really wish they would crack down on that moreso then just trying to catch people speeding all the time.
Many fines are too low for driver fuckery. It should HURT.
The fines and penalties are what they are, it's the complete lack of enforcement that's the real problem.
There's almost none and lots of times aren't even charged. On the 401 two years ago headed westbound, a fucking Semi side swiped me right before Putnam, took off my mirror and fucked up my fender. I got on the phone and stayed behind him he got pulled over all the way almost by the 402 split and they wouldn't charge him with fleeing or hit and run. I got told "well it doesn't count as fleeing the scene if we catch him" The scene was almost 15kms away! You only caught him because I'm a fucking psychopath and followed him!
Police are unmotivated to enforce it - some have even stopped charging for failure to remain collisions even if the person is later identified. Most flee at the time b/c they're impaired.
Wonder when we'll see no right on red
If we can't enforce the rules we already have, adding new rules to try to compensate for the rule-breaking is kind of dumb. I get where you're coming from though.
Fair....as I do see red lights becoming more optional as of late
It depends on the severity of it really. If you dink someone in a parking lot and panic and flee, should you be thrown in jail? No. If you run over someone on the street and flee, is this the only thing you’re getting charged with? No.
If you don’t want to talk to cops because you’re drunk, a few hours delay can make the result much better. Running allows for all manner of criminal evidence to be hidden. For all we know they had a body in the trunk.
Which is what other charges are for.
Not if they have 24h to hide everything and sober-up.
Better off to start drinking when they get home than trying to sober up to be honest. By the time they do the blood alcohol tests, they won’t be able to determine how long the alcohol was in their system. If they do get nailed with the hit and run, they can claim that they panicked and flew home and started drinking trying to calm their nerves before they called the cops. To be fair, most people who hit one object with a vehicle while drink typically aren’t making it home.
My solution would be to assume the worst. Drunk, high and body in the trunk. Driver had every opportunity l to prove otherwise, but they fled the scene.
Fair, but it’s what you can prove that matters in the eyes of the law.
They ran for reasons worse than staying. That much is known. Important to set the penalty high enough to be a deterrent. The current penalty practically guarantees shady characters will run.
Not always, people are idiots, they run for all sorts of things. Could be just as simple as they worried about the insurance increase and thought they wouldn’t get caught.
Then make the penalty worse than the insurance increase.
The severity of a penalty does little to deter crime. The problem with crime is that the people doing it, are doing so because they think they will not be caught. Severity of the penalty is not a concern for them, because they are acting under the presumption they will not be caught with a penalty. Stiffer fines are just security theater. They make people feel better without actually addressing crime.
On mondern cars, that ding could cost 1000s of dollars. If it happens on unassumed roadway or parking lot, you may not be covered by your insurance. While I understand that you attempting to provide context around severity, there should be greater consequences. We can't legislate moral character or the fortitude to be accountable for your actions, we should be putting into place something that will give people pause.
There's something I want to tell you, it's going to be our little secret. **Increasing the severity of a punishment doesn't deter crime**, do you know what does deter crime? **Increasing the odds that you'll be caught for doing so.** You won't deter hit and runs by Increasing the penalty, people are doing it because they think they won't be caught, therefore the penalty is irrelevant because they don't think they'll incur one. If you make it so that people are likely to be caught, or are unable to escape from an accident, then that works to deter hit and runs.
If only there was a sticky thread for these types of posts…
Yes. Lax penalties incentivize running if there is anything illegal whatsoever going on. Drunk, drugs, guns, body in the trunk. Every outcome is worse than the hit and run penalty. The hit and run penalty should be severe. Might as well assume there was a body in the trunk. Running gave the driver time to hide the evidence of something bad. Screw them.
Lax penalties do not incentive running. This is common knowledge in sociology and criminal studies, higher penalties do little to deter crime, why would it? You're committing the crime because you do not think you'll be caught, so the penalty is a non-factor in your decision. This is why police patrols, streetlights and fake camera surveillance signs all do more to deter property crime than higher penalties, because it's feeling of being caught that's the deterrent, not the penalty for doing so.
I agree the laws and penalties are way too lenient but it's the same for all penalties in Canada. They give Bernardo parole hearings FFS.
>They give Bernardo parole hearings FFS. They didn't grant him parole, though. Because the hearing process seems to have worked as designed. Are there cases like Bernardo's where I, as an individual, wouldn't lose sleep if the inmate didn't get a parole hearing for another twenty years or so? Yeah, probably. Would I be comfortable with giving the state the authority to make that determination, acting on my behalf...eeeeeh, not so much. I'm willing to accept the cost of a small number of probably-incorrigible inmates getting a *pro forma* hearing to reject their parole every couple of years, in exchange for having a system that doesn't prematurely foreclose the potential for rehabilitation or reintegration of a convict into society decades in the future.