It doesn't get much more stupid than this. Fifteen friggin impaireds and this guy is still on the street!!! What are these judges thinking?

has 15 previous criminal convictions at age 66. He'll just keep doing it (as he obviously hasnt' learned a lesson at his age) until he kills someone. Curious to see what the sentencing is this time. Thank god for that routine stop or the night could've ended very differently.

Go ahead.Tell me there is nothing wrong with our judges or court system.This is exactly what is wrong.After 15 criminal comvictions for impaired driving offences,this guy should be nowhere else but in JAIL!
Can we assume he just doesn't get it??
And neither do the judges?

WAR SHOULD BE AGAINST JUDGES NOT SCUMBAGS. JUDGES PROMOTE CRIME NOT JUSTICE.

Shouldn't they BOTH be in jail? Charge them, set the trial for half a year from now and keep them locked up until then - that would make the roads just a bit safer for now!

We need a "three convictions and you are out"
law like they have in California.

This would result in automatic actual jail time - judges wouldn't be allowed to apply endless lame excuses and slaps on the wrist.

When is society going to get really tired of these shenanigans?

drunk driving should be strike one and you're out not 3 or in this case 16

You are absolutely correct, of course! I was mentioning the three strikes and you are out in respect to actual jail time since the courts seem to be so utterly determined to keep people out of jail.

Haven't the judges a conscience that might be bothered when a just released (instead of jailed) offender kills or maims some innocent citizen(s)?

So much for stale wisdom acquired from studying books!

I've always felt that the biggest part of the old slap on the wrist legal system is that judges have too much leeway in how our laws can be applied.
That plays right into the argument for minimum sentencing.As in:
"Sorry bud, but the law says you go away for a year minimum for this offence.No exceptions".
Maybe it's me that doesn't get it,but why should a judge be able to send one person away for 2 years for an offence, and another judge gives probation for the same offence? Just doesn't make sense.
In this case,somebody should be taking a look at the circumstances and how this happened?
Nobody should be walking around free after 16 impaired offences.Someone is not doing their job!
There are some countries where this loser would be doing life!

There are some countries where he would be LOSING his life.

Don't blame the judges, they have a lot more guidelines to follow than you would expect. They probably have less "leeway" now than they did in the past.

The government is pushing them heavily for non-custodial sentencing (community-based sentencing such as conditional sentences, probation, and electronic monitoring (house arrest, also known as "being grounded")) for non-violent offences.

This is to accomplish two things:

1). Reduce costs (incarceration is considerably more costly than any community sentence)

2). Ideologically, offenders should do better in terms of non-institutionalization, and re-entry into the community, where they are under a community sentence rather than a custodial sentence. The idea being, that imprisonment should be reserved for only those who need to be secured for public safety reasons, in terms of the gravity and nature of the offence. The gravity and nature of their past record does not carry so much weight.

Realistically, DWI doesn't carry much jail time, even if there are repeat offences.
Typical sentences are anywhere from 30 - 90 days for simple DWI. Any injuries or deaths involved, however, change the nature of the offence and the sentencing.

What do we do ?

Make another law, I guess. This guy is a chronic, and needs to be stopped, because he is an example of exactly the type of drunk driver that usually ends up injuring or killing someone at some point in time.

I don't have an easy answer for this one.

This is the type of person we have been trying for years to get off the street. This is exactly the man we had in mind when we began getting tough with drunk driving. This is exactly what we trying to put a stop to.

Lo and behold, after years of trying, years of efforts, major changes, and the guy is still driving drunk. Nothing seems to stop him. It seems only his own death will eventually put an end to it.

DANGEROUS OFFENDER STATUS
- Wanton and reckless disregard for the law and human life.

I understand what you are saying "reasonableman" and for the most part I agree,but the long and the short of it is, the "system" as it stands now is not working.This guy is a classic example of that.
I don't doubt for a second that our illustrious government is pushing for non-custodial sentencing in many cases, but that it itself tells me that the government is messing with something that should be defined only by the way the law is written and applied.Not by how much it costs to incarcerate someone who deserves it.
We are told our judges have the right to administer the law as they see fit without interference.Well,if the government is in fact pressuring for this type of sentencing,then that is interference and it becomes politically controlled.Along with the judges.That is wrong.
I do think the penalties are severe enough for the most part if they are enforced, but therein lies the problem.Too many fingers in the pie!

liberals saving money by keeping people out of jail!

I'm with you parrothead. What are they thinking allowing this idiot back on the streets. Why is it that our system goes so easy on druggies and drunks??

So, we complain about the system and how it doesn't work. How do we fix it? There are multiple agencies/organizations who lobby for stiffer penelties for drunk driving but still there is little effect and offenders are free to continue offending. What's the point of typing the fact that you disagree with the system if there's no method to individually or collectively address it. A vote? A protest? An e-mail to your MP? Not very useful is it? It's like gas prices, we are not able to change it so we live with it.
What ever happened to that drunk guy that killed a kid on the Hart Hwy last year. No conviction in that one either is there? How do we hold the system (Cops, Crown, & Judges) accountable? I guess I just have to be happy that our system is than the system in Somalia, Rwanda, Afganistan or N. Korea.

"is better than"

Hard to argue with your logic steeliepete.To be honest,I don't know how to fix it. But I do know that the frustration is getting to be just a bit too much!
The only potential solution I can see is somehow we need to get the point across to these political phoneys that we results.If we don't get that,they won't be getting our votes.
It is out of control and it has to stop.The politician are so wrapped up in political crap that they no longer see the forest for the trees.
It is time the voting public started to fight back.

why is it that some folks think that what we see easily is all there is to see? Prince George is an ugly mill town. Now there is something easily seen, until you live there and learn what a wonderful community it really is. The same failure to really examine causes us to see the drunk or the druggy as nothing more than a weak useless person. How many of those drunks and druggies would have been better served in an updated more human version of Riverview? Clearly, some one who has done the DWI thing 14 times has some other problem. Any sane person would not continue getting caught!!!! Lets take more action to treat mental illness and llets reduce the problems we have at the other end!

He has repeatedly gotten away with it. So how can anyone claim he has not learned anything? He is made to suffer in ways that mean NOTHING to him, therefore he does not suffer. He drinks, he drives, he knows that if he is caught it will be a bit uncomfortable for him for awhile.

When someone breaks the law with a weapon, a gun, he is forbidden to own or operate a firearm for, say 10 years? He is forbidden, if he gets caught, it is serious, he goes to jail.

If a drunk driver is caught, he should lose his vehicle, regardless of who owns it, take away the weapon. Maybe that is an infringement on his right, but remember when they said driving was a priviledge, not a right!

exactly whynotyou take away his loaded weapon...whether he hits someone or not is up to the alcohol....why give the alcohol that much control and power. The judge holds that power.

I agree with impounding, seizing and auctioning off vehicles for chronic re-offenders. That adds a much bigger financial consequence to the picture, and to some extent, makes it much harder to get behind the wheel anytime soon.

Let's see this happen, and examine the results.

Oh heidi, it's not up to the alcohol. It's entirely up to luck, or lack of it for the victim. I hear you though.

I think that for the most part a judge does what he thinks he can in the best interests of all involved at the time. Each incident is treated on it's own merits, but - let's face it, even a judge can have a bad day, changing the punishment would be a really huge step in the right direction.

I think this applies to the "N" drivers too. If they get caught breaking ANY traffic laws, they should be made to walk home while their "ride" is towed to compound for a few days and sonny jim can go home and face ma and pa with the news that their brand new Ram Charger is unavailable for awhile. I truly believe if you get em where it hurts the most, it'll make em think more clearly.

Heidi you sound like a good mom, if you send your kid to his room for punishment and his room is full of toys and fun stuff, is it really punishment? Our system needs a nice work over. Maybe putting more moms in charge or asking them for their opinions more often??

Yeah, I hit them where it hurts (not literally). Take away favorite toys. :) and thanks. So far i'm pretty lucky and can reason with them because they know i'll do it and i'm not all talk. :)(Yes, I watch Dr. Phil and love that man and his way of thinking) Yes, take their vehicles away. Too bad all vehicles didnt come with a breathalizer gadget to start the engine along with the key.

When you demand good stuff from your kids and will settle for nothing less, they know you love them.