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.
