July 12th, 2009 at 03:02am
Under Drunk Driving Law
When the first cars and most important the mass production of cars were invented, no one could even imagine how big this industry will be. It took about hundred years and the cars rapidly multiplied in numbers, becoming an important element of our everyday life. Unfortunately they became not only a useful thing, but also made their own death toll and turned even the smallest road a pretty dangerous place. The worst part of the accidents is definitely driving under the influence of better to say drunk driving, as you will see in this article even the smallest changes in laws on drunk driving can lead to heated debates.The first rules regulating the driving under the influence were set with the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, also known as Bill C-150. The bill made it a “per se” offence to drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. Also the Bill stated that a refusal of a police officer’s demand to provide a breath sample is an offence too. Still the drivers managed to handle small over the norm alcohol level with “two-beer” defense. The idea of this defense is following, people accused of driving with more than the norm set by the law (.08 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood) would often argue they had consumed just two beers. Also a popular statement is that the last beer was consumed not long before the breath test, so there is more alcohol in their breath than in their blood.An often used driver “two-beer” defense has been virtually abolished by a new federal legislation. The new changes, that are part of the federal government’s Tackling Violent Crime Act, kept the right to question the breathalyzer results, but only if the person provides the court with technical evidence proving the equipment was malfunctioning or wasn’t operated properly.Some lawyers stated that the new legislation is unconstitutional and they will appear before the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto to present their arguments. They try to resolve thing quickly, before the government can get on with the business of prosecuting impaired drivers. The main argument is that with this change divers will be unable to protect themselves if the equipment is really damaged or malfunctioning. Usually drivers don’t know much about breathalyzers and they won’t be able to present valid evidence to the court. Also the information of the breath machines, including maintenance records, specs and the manufacturers’ manual are kept secret and not available to casual driver who is stopped on the street. This turns a useful tool into a one-way guilty ticket, in case of malfunctioning.On the other side this change is positive for the police officers. Usually they are in a difficult situation. Some of the officers stated that they rely more on temporary license suspensions and not on the charges against drivers slightly over the limit, because the “two-beer” defense can easily beat these charges.
For more information regarding <a href="http://
www.lawyerahead.ca/case/criminal-5/impaired-driving-duidwi-58/” rel=”nofollow”> dui lawyer, <a href="http://
www.lawyerahead.ca/case/accident-and-injuries-1/motor-vehicle-accidents-33/” rel=”nofollow”> Car accident lawyers, Criminal lawyers and Attorney please visit:
www.lawyerahead.ca
July 11th, 2009 at 02:58pm
Under Criminal Law
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 was introduced as Bill C-150 by then Minister of Justice Pierre Trudeau in the second session of the 27th Canadian Parliament on December 21, 1967. It passed third reading in the House of Commons after heated debates by a vote of 149 (119 Liberals, 18 New Democrats, 12 Progressive Conservatives) to 55 (43 Progressive Conservatives, 11 Créditistes, 1 Liberal) on May 14, 1969. It introduced major changes to the Criminal Code of Canada and it was literally a cornerstone of modern Canadian law. The bill decriminalized homosexuality, allowed abortion and contraception, and regulated lotteries, gun possession, drinking and driving offences, harassing phone calls, misleading advertising and cruelty to animals. This year it will be the 40th anniversary of the bill’s passage.Homosexuality was one of the biggest problems of the Bill-150. This change was influenced in the late 1960s by the British Parliament’s adoption of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalized homosexual acts in England and Wales. Naturally Canada wanted to follow this democratic decision. The biggest opposition was from the religious people, the Catholic Créditistes of Quebec held up debate for three weeks supported by the far-right Edmund Burke Society and the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada. Still at the end homosexuality was legalized with age of consent at 21; although it was later lowered to 18.Contraception and therapeutic abortion under certain conditions were legalized by the bill. This was a step away form the influence of the Catholic Church’s moral positions on these issues, basically one more separation of the Church and State. Bill C-150 made it legal for women to get an abortion if a committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother. These changes were very important and became a stepping stone for many other freedoms and options that have altered women’s place in Canadian society. In 1988 the R. v. Morgentaler ruling, left Canada without any laws regulating abortion.A number of minor but important changes were made to gambling, gun control and driving under the influence. Before the bill small scale gambling on behalf of charities was permitted, but only Bill C-150 gave the provincial and federal governments the opportunity to use lotteries to fund worthwhile activities, the best example were the 1976 Montreal Olympics. For the first time the bill made it illegal to provide firearms to persons of “unsound mind” or criminals under prohibition orders. The term “firearm” was also expanded; non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearm categories were also introduced. Bill C-150 made it a “per se” offence to drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of 80 mg/100 ml of blood. The refusal of a police officer’s demand to provide a breath sample was made an offence too. These are the basic rules against drunk driving now.The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1968-69 basically changed almost all the complicated and important spheres (except for maybe immigration) and solved many ethical problems, creating laws suitable for modern society.
For more information regarding <a href="http://
www.lawyerahead.ca/case/criminal-5/” rel=”nofollow”> Criminal lawyers, <a href="http://
www.lawyerahead.ca/case/accident-and-injuries-1/motor-vehicle-accidents-33/” rel=”nofollow”> Car accident lawyers, dui lawyers and Legal information please visit:
www.lawyerahead.ca