Can I have a hallelujah?
Rant will contain profanity ... just sayin' ...
So, let's get that out of the way right up front...
So, yeah, I was a newspaper reporter for almost 15 years. A lot of those years were spent in small-town courtrooms, listening to habitual drunk drivers get aquitted based on the most ridiculous of technicalities. I'm not just talkin' about the dude who got nabbed by the Checkstop, I'm talking about the drivers who killed someone after driving down the wrong side of the divided highway for TWO FUCKING HOURS!!!!
My last few years in the newsroom were plagued by the emergence of the 'two-beer' defence - an accused could claim the breathalyzer MUST be wrong, because he really only had two beers, officer!! The lawyer would then trot in an 'expert' who would state with all seriousness, that if said defendant only had two beers - given height, weight and the body's metabolism of alcohol - then it really was impossible for them to be impaired. *le gasp!*
Again, we're not talking about people who were balanced on that 0.08 mg/100...we're talking about people who were reading 1.2 and 1.56 on the goddam meter!!
Now, the fatal flaw in this whole scenario is that, of course, it then falls on the crown to PROVE that the accused had more than the two beer. Right. Because the bartender/party host/random passers by are going to have been watching the dumb-ass lush so closely that by the time the trial rolls around - like two year later - they're TOTALLY going to remember that dude had a flask he was sipping from, or that he had a couple pints from the pitcher that the table shared ... or whatever. So, without proof to the contrary, the judge is obliged to take the defendant's word about what they consumed.
The only way law enforcement could EVER demonstrate what someone was actually drinking was the FUCKING BREATHALYZER!!
See how that works? Nice Catch-22 there, huh??
So, needless to say, I was THRILLED to read this morning that the Canadian Supreme Court has SQUASHED this so-called defence. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080418.DRINK18/TPStory/National
My absolute favourite quote of the day comes from the defence lawyer who makes money hand-over-fist by putting these losers back out on the roads with my family and yours.
"Increasingly, the Breathalyzer is judge and jury - if it says you are over the limit, then you have a big problem. Right now - and probably for a long time - Parliament and the majority of the Supreme Court are not going to make drinking-and-driving laws any easier."
Umm.....YAY??
Look, folks. I am, generally, a good Liberal Canadian. I prefer rehabilitation and prevention over punishment. But neither of those EVER come into play when society and the courts constantly enable an alcoholics ability to drink himself stupid and avoid any consequences. The 'two beer' defence only reinforces the habitual drinker's self-delusional idea that "It doesn't affect me that way."
I honestly prefer the way the U.S. deals with drunk driving in the courts. None of this dancing around "drunk driving causing death" charge. Call it what it is - vehicular homicide. (Someone's gonna revoke my maple leaf pin for that...)
Personally, I'd actually like to see the law go futher. I'm tired of dancing around this 0.08 line at all. Zero tolerance, people. If you can't live without that drink, you don't get to own a car. If you need your car, you don't get to have that glass of wine with dinner. (Because, again, our ever-luvin' courts have decided in their extreme wisdom that after you have that one drink, you simply can't be responsible for your own decision-making. You didn't WAKE UP drunk, bitch ... but, that's another rant for another day.)
So...there ya have it. I think this is the first time in more than two decades I've heard some common sense in the courtroom about drunk driving. I want to celebrate!
Margaritas anyone?
I left my car at home.