This week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was not a disproportionate penalty for a Quebec man to be forced to give up his truck after repeat drunk driving convictions. According to the Canadian Press, the man, Alphide Manning, had argued that letting the government seize the vehicle would be too severe a punishment since the truck was Manning's only asset. But the high court's decision pointed to Manning's sorry criminal record, which included "five convictions on alcohol-related driving offences and three for breaches of probation orders or undertakings," and concluded that the forfeiture of the truck was not out of bounds.
It's an unfortunate result.
Perhaps I should explain that I don't have any particular sympathy for Manning. He has repeatedly put others in danger by mixing alcohol with driving, and has not followed the rules he was given by the court. Therefore slapping him with a severe penalty is warranted. I would not shed any tears for him over a healthy prison sentence, for example. But I do have a problem with the Crown taking his truck.
As a criminal, Manning has defaulted on his part of the citizenship bargain. The price for that is, and should be, a deprivation of the criminal's liberty -- being confined to jail or being required to fulfill certain conditions. But the price should not be being forced to enrich the government by turning over private property to it.
As dangerous as it is to treat drunk drivers too lightly, it's equally dangerous to entrench a legal precedent that offers an incentive for government prosecution in the form of a valuable prize that the government gets to keep if it wins. The last thing we want is a situation where (as the non-profit public interest law firm the Institute for Justice put it in the context of civil forfeiture) law enforcement ends up policing for profit.
The Quebec government says it wants to get tougher on repeat drunk drivers. I say, by all means.
It's possible, however, to get tougher while still staying within the bounds of what constitutes a straightforward and balanced set of penalties. Consider: incarceration and probation make the government no better off, and unlike forfeiture -- which hits the Ferrari owner far harder than the Chevy owner -- it's the same for all those convicted.
Truly, if the ultimate goal is using the criminal justice system to keep drunk drivers from getting back behind the wheel at all for a certain period of time, a custodial sentence is a lot more likely to be successful than grabbing the driver's car, anyway.
It's a fairer way to go about it too.
Follow Marni Soupcoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/soupcoff
Incarcerating individuals is not a great solution. Besides the fact that it's expensive, it also removes someone from society and puts them in a situation where they might be exposed to gangs, drug abuse and violence (Canadian prisons aren't always pretty). That puts the individual at higher risk of re-offending (in addition to the fact you removed them from their job, home and life).
There is also the problem that some consequences (ex. removing their license) don't truly prevent an individual from re-offending. There have been cases of individuals committing repeated drinking and driving offenses even after being fined and having their licenses revoked. So the solution to this problem was simple: remove their vehicle.
This is an individual we don't want on the roads and shouldn't be driving...so why should they have a car?
As to where the money goes...well as a commenter posted, the legal costs are likely much higher than the price tag of the vehicle. However, if there was a conflict of interest situation (or such a concern was so high), the vehicle could the auctioned off, and the money go to the defendant.
After your first offence, a $20,000.00 fine, insurance is a flat rate of $20,000.00 yrly for the first five years following your conviction. 100% of this money goes to the victims and families of the victim of drunk drivers.
Second offense is 5yrs in jail, no time off for good behaviour and a life time ban on your license.
Stopped driving without a license after a conviction for drinking driving results in a life time loss of license and 10yrs in jail, no time off. Ten years, period.
Problems solved, or at least mostly solved and a hell of a lot better than the current system.
When there is the death of innocent people, children no less, I don't want to hear the arguement, that they're sick, addicted, or whatever. They're killing people, innocent people.
Both of my sisters have been hit by drunk drivers, both suffered life altering injuries that resulted in permanant injuries including the loss of organs.
The guy that hit my oldest sister had already killed his passenger while drunk behind the wheel as a teen, for which he got a fine, probation and community service at the time. He did three months after hitting my sister. My sister never recovered and died from complications 10 yrs later, they were a rough ten yrs for her.
He is likely driving as I am typing this.
Jail frankly doesn't do well when it comes to specific deterrence, because most of the repeat offenders are alcoholics (2nd offence is mandatory 30 days jail) and jail doesn't really change that.
Under s. 490 of the code it is offence related property and if he has that record the crown would undoubtedly elect by way of indictment. I'm empathetic that the guy loses his truck, but with a history of breaches and recidivism I don't see how he hasn't fettered away his right to his property under s. 490. The fewer the impaired drivers out there, the better.
The idea that confiscation of property is worse than deprivation of liberty is nonsensical.
And the proposition that a rich person is more heavily penalized by having his ferrari seized than a poor person is by losing his old chev is also off base. These ideas come from a society that worships wealth and where private property is valued above health and happiness.
While I do agree that law enforcement agencies should not directly benefit from any penalties imposed, that should not preclude the seizure of assets in some situations.
No, actually it is an appropriate result.
There are many examples where things are taken away from people beyond simple incarceration & probation. Lawyers can be disbarred, Drs lose their license to practice, MNR violators can lose anything that contributed to the illegal catch/act - boat, gun, fishing rod, truck, etc.
It is very appropriate for people to lose the tools that aided their crime. This is not about enrichment of the state, it is about setting deterrents & penalties.
With drunk driving, vehicles should be impounded & sold at auction [or a fine equal to that value] that then gets turned over to the victim's family or crown for various damages.
This specific case is just another example of someone who did not learn from previous convictions & had far too many 2nd chances.
I've worked in bars, and in doing so, found out that it is ILLEGAL for a Barkeep to render you intoxicated. Yes, tha's right. In theory - never heard of it being persued - a person charged of public inoxication, could take the establishment to court for rendering them intoxicated. It's meant to be within the barkeepers judgement to cut you off when they deem you've had enough.
Similar laws should be placed in effect with liquor establishments. I've made this case before, I'll throw it out here and see how it bites.
An ID system, that only allows you to purchase X amount of alcohol in a liquor store within a certain range of time. If it's against the law to be drunk (you CAN be arrested for public intoxication), then we require more aggressive laws on how alcohol is handed. For those of you who will cry "What about events/parties/businesses that require larger amounts?" then you can get a special permit for purchase. Same as a festival permit and so on. Pay a fee, but be responsible for the outcome.
The system is flawed, severely flawed.