Another consideration in this debate is 'how safe can we possibly make ourselves'? Reaction time is reduced with each drink. It's reduced by lack of sleep. It's reduced by inattention. Can we solve every risk with criminal-law like sanction? At some stage, does our attempt to eliminate every possible risk from our lives become so restrictive that we say 'enough'? What are the limits of the practical enforcement of the law and issues that are simply impractical and unpalatable to bring within the scope of the law? Apparently this law comes close for some people...
--------------------
With more than 2,500 people in the province already ticketed and towed, and projected provincial revenues of $10-20 million in fines, you’d think the Province would be celebrating their new drinking and driving policy. Their new law allows police at roadside to seize cars and issue thousands in fines without judicial oversight. It has been a massive success.
Maybe too successful.
Yesterday, Solicitor General Rich Coleman begged police forces to use more “discretion” in applying the law. “You give someone a new tool,” he commented, “and they think they have to use it.” With thousands of scofflaws identified in just the first few weeks of implementation and front page headlines about a drunk driver who killed a beautiful four year old girl in the same week, you’d think the issue would be a political gold mine for the governing party. It hasn’t been.
The restaurant industry is annoyed that customers have no idea what the new .05 blood alcohol standard means, and as a result aren’t enjoying a glass of wine with dinner. The civil libertarians are annoyed that the new law applies criminal penalties without independent oversight of potential police abuses or mistakes. Even the police are annoyed, with the head of the police association saying that police don’t want to be judge, jury and executioner; that the law is wasting police time with volumes of paperwork; and that the law isn’t catching those that are causing the death and destruction.
The law, concedes the Solicitor General, may need some tweaking.
Unfortunately, the solution the Solicitor General presents to solve the problem of the law working exactly as planned is asking police to use “discretion” in applying the law. In other words, exactly the opposite of what is fair, just and right under our legal system.
By not articulating what the rules are that let one .05 driver drive away, and another face thousands of dollars in fines, fees and a tow, the government is opening the door to selective enforcement. Each officer will have his or her own “discretionary” test: this driver is only two blocks from home; or would likely lose her job if her car is impounded; or is only at .05 instead of .06; or is polite and apologetic; or wasn’t speeding; or found her insurance and registration documents quickly; or didn’t have any problematic messages from other police officers recorded in the police database.
Watch out those who are rude or abrupt; those are insufficiently deferential to the authority of a traffic constable; and those who are pulled over disproportionately in the first place by police, namely black people, aboriginal people, people who drive flashy cars and young people. You’re about to find out what it means when discretion is exercised. As if you didn’t already know.
If the law isn’t working, it needs to be changed. Asking police to change the law on the fly, with each officer applying a different “discretionary” standard, is not the answer.
Visit pivotlegal.org for more information about Vancouver's low-income housing crisis.
"
No comments:
Post a Comment