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.
Personally, I don’t see this person as a threat to our society, so I see no reason to deport him.
It is important to note that not all crimes are punished based on the potential threat to society, however, it is worth acknowledging that the sentence of 5 years before freedom is disproportionate to the 16 lives taken due to dangerous driving.
The families want him deported, just so they can move on with their lives. That should be a good enough reason for the rest of us to accept.
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.
I don’t know about you, but even when I have my dog in the car, I drive with even more attention and defensively than when I’m alone. I can’t even fathom the thought of being intentionally reckless while being solely responsible for the lives of a bus full of people.
The families want him deported, just so they can move on with their lives.
Because it’s better if he were sent back to india instead of being sent to Hay River? Chicoutimi ? Surrey?
What’s the difference? He’s an airplane ride away and he’s potentially a tax-paying member of society.
Is it justice? It smells like vengeance.
I can’t speak for the families, so that’s a question to ask them. All we can do is support what they need.
It may be better for the driver to leave the country anyway, as I’m sure his past won’t escape him.
People are nuts here, I’ve never argued that he shouldn’t be allowed to stay. He is the best voice against all who allowed this to happen. He’s like Epstein (minus the sympathetic part, Epstein was just pathetic), powerful people want him gone because he’s sympathetic and knows where the bodies are buried. Immigration system exploiters HATE this one public anti-champion
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).
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.
