I had a very interesting and informative phone conversation the other day. I am constantly amazed by the people that are trying to get the issue of Impaired Driving taken seriously. I sent off an email to a Professor of Law and almost as soon as I sent it with my phone number, my phone rang. I was telling him about our crash and he was dumbfounded that there were no charges for Impaired Causing Death and Impaired Causing Bodily Harm. So I told him the reasons given to us by the Crown Attorneys. I can’t print what he said – at least not in mixed company.
I told him about an organization that I am now working with called Families For Justice and how we are working on mandatory minimum sentences and consistency of charges being laid (only 22% of charges are laid for Impaired Driving Causing Death in cases where they should be laid). The wording of the laws need to be tightened up so that they are not open to “lawyer interpretation” (sorry to all of the good lawyers out there…I know some and you’re not included in that).
We also spoke about MADD and he said that when MADD first came into Canada, they were all about punishment but MADD found that a little like trying to “wag the dog” so they focused more on prevention, awareness, Random Breath Testing, and deterrents to Impaired Driving.
So, in keeping with the dog analogy I suggested to a friend that MADD can keep on working on the front end of the dog and Families For Justice can focus more on the back end of the dog – after all victims and their families have gotten used to negotiating around assholes.
The truth of the matter is that both need to be worked on because the more that I thought about the dog analogy, the more it made sense. Because really it doesn’t matter if the dog’s front legs are broken or if the dog’s back legs are broken…either way the dog is crippled.
Unfortunately in Canada, all four legs are broken.