Opinion

Editorial — Second look welcomed

The provincial government is taking the right approach to concerns about the new drinking and driving penalties, by not changing the penalties, but looking at more public education and finding a way to make the penalties easier to appeal.

The goal of reducing drinking and driving is laudable. The new penalties, which came into effect in October, are definitely helping B.C. to reach that goal.

RCMP Supt. Norm Gaumont says the number of drinking-driving fatalities since October has fallen by 40 per cent, as compared to the five-year historical average. He attributes that drop to the new penalties which give police the ability to seize vehicles immediately and cost drivers as much as $3,750 to get them back.

However, the concerns that many people have about the arbitrary nature of the decision to seize a vehicle with no effective way of appealing that decision are legitimate. In our system, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law — not found guilty as a the result of one police officer’s decision.

Police should have the ability to stop a person from driving. But those who disagree with their decision as to whether a stiff penalty applies should have the ability to appeal that decision, and not long after the penalty has already been paid.

The seizure of a vehicle when the driver blows .05 must also be looked at carefully. The Criminal Code states that impaired driving takes place when the blood alcohol level is .08, not .05. While police have used that level for years to issue warnings, a warning is far different from a seizure and a stiff penalty. The old system of 24-hour suspensions balanced the ability of police to get drivers off the road with some fairness in the penalty applied.

Drinking and driving must be fought, and there is no reason there should not be stiffer penalties that really mean something. However, citizens must be treated fairly by the justice system and not harshly penalized, with no reasonable means of appeal, as the result of one police officer’s arbitrary decision.

Stiff penalties must be balanced with fairness.

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

You might like ...

Visit to Fort Langley cemetery is a Langley history lesson
 
Lower loonie to crimp cross-border shopping
 
Election 2014: David Tod seeks Langley Township seat on Board of Education
UPDATE: Speed and alcohol likely factors in dramatic 16 Avenue crash
 
Election 2014: 55 seeking office in Langley City and Township
 
Election 2014: Kevin Mitchell seeks seat on Langley Township council
EDITORIAL: Fear and stigma in the West hinders Ebola fight
 
LIVE STREAM: TEDx conference in Vancouver; Past highlights on Travel, Learning, and Gossip
 
Man found killed in Whalley Sunday

Community Events, October 2014

Add an Event

Read the latest eEdition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 16 edition online now. Browse the archives.