Repeat Drunk Driver Who Killed Not a Dangerous Offender

Posted on 10. Sep, 2009 by Devo in The Law

Recently the the case of a repeat drunk driver in Quebec was sent to a Judge to determine if he could be considered a dangerous offender. The dangerous offender designation under Canadian law means an indefinite prison term, and has only been used in the most heinous crimes such as murder or serial rape. Roger Walsh, 57 pleaded guilty in October 2008 in the hit-and-run death of Anee Khudaverdian, 47 and has a grand total of 19 drunk-driving convictions along with 114 convictions for assault, uttering threats, breaking and entering, and theft.

Dangerous Offender:

The Dangerous Offender provisions of the Criminal Code are intended to protect all Canadians from the most dangerous violent and sexual predators in the country. Individuals convicted of these offenses can be designated as a Dangerous Offender during sentencing if it is shown that there is a significantly high risk that they will commit future violent or sexual offenses.
If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

Today the judge ruled that Walsh would not be considered a dangerous offender, but should receive a life sentence for the ‘murder’ of Anee Khudaverdian. This is not the first time that repeat drunk driving offenders have come up to the supreme court to determine weather this sort of offender should be deemed a dangerous offender. Each previous attempt, one in Alberta and one in Ontario have failed.

At a glance and by the letter of the law, Mr. Walsh wouldn’t be considered a dangerous offender and given that the judge has to make his/her decision based on the letter of the law, it may not have been possible to classify him as a dangerous offender. On the other hand, 19 impaired driving convictions means he has driven numerous times without a drivers license and insurance and has a complete disregard for the law. To go further, Mr Walsh has demonstrated by this that he has no respect for other human life and could care less about what others think about what he has done. Clearly given this, you would not be able to change the ways of this driver as has been shown and resulted in the death of an innocent woman.

Mr. Walsh also has 114 other convictions for such things as assault, break and enter and theft as well as uttering threats. Here is a man who shows he does have a pension for breaking the law and that the law isn’t for him. Assault and uttering threats as well as break and enter easily have violence attached to them and based on this alone he is a man any police officer would say ‘he could be armed and considered dangerous’.

I said earlier in this post that I have to respect the judge’s decision because he is only delivering it based on the letter of the law and if this offender fits into it. Alberta tried it and failed, and Ontario tried it and failed so it was fairly obvious that Quebec would fail as well. Impaired driving is a serious offense and is considered so in Canada. Drive drunk and you pay severely, but when it comes to repeat offenders like Mr. Walsh, the law fails. The only way a repeat offender of this type who has killed someone would ever be designated a dangerous offender would be if the law was amended or rewritten so that these type of offenses could be included. If not, there will continue to be many many other repeat impaired driving offenders out there ready to run down an innocent person.

Isn’t it about time we respect the the lives of the people on the streets? If this law doesn’t get amended or rewritten altogether I will continue to feel it is open season on innocent drivers and pedestrians.