Laws are used and needed in society in order to protect society and also to restrict individuals from committing

crimes that can endanger people. But the enforcement and constant reminder of laws have not prevented numerous amounts of people from committing crimes against society. Laws that prohibit individuals from drinking and driving are constantly been broken despite the fact that people are been reminded of the harsh consequences that it can have. Eighteen year old Jeromie Proulx who had his drivers licenses for only seven weeks, consumed two bottles of beer, drove recklessly in his vehicle which he know was unsound and as a result caused bodily harm to himself and an alternate driver and killed a passenger in his vehicle. Through Proulxs neglectful actions, he caused bodily harm to one individual and killed another-his friend. Yes, the outcomes of the situation were distressing for members of the society and also for Proulx. Through the consequences of his actions, Proulx must have suffered tremendous amount of pain and suffering emotionally and must have been mentality traumatized through the course of the accident. It is an obvious fact that the guilt, and devastation that Proulx had suffered was a means of rehabilitation, but that does not permit the dismissal of his case. Actus reus existed in Proulxs case but Mens rea did not exists. Proulx committed the act of driving while intoxicated and through that killed and caused bodily harm to people, but that was not his intention. Regardless of this fact, the obvious stands clear-Jeromie Proulx broke several laws. According to Transport Canada, road crashes involving a driver who had been drinking took 902 lives in 2003. The statistics show that impaired driving is no longer the leading criminal cause of death in Canada, but it remains a leading cause. The law sets out a clear and simple understanding of the prohibition of drunk driving-dont drive and drive, but countless amounts of people chose to ignore that law and Jeromie Proulx was one of those people. Proulx chose to drink; get into his unsound vehicle and through

that action came extreme consequences. The fact that Proulx did not have the intent to commit such crimes should slightly be taken into consideration, but the fact remains clear- Jeromie Proulx broke several laws and for this reason, he should face the fair penalty for his crime-what ever that might be. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code stipulates, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The basic function of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime avoidance initiatives, to respect the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. Section 718 of the Criminal Code lists six sentencing objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society, where necessary; to assist in the rehabilitation of offender; to provide reparation of harm done to victims or to the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. It does not matter that Proulx was young and he had no prior record and no conviction since the accident. It does not matter that Proulx conviction will separate him from his girlfriend and his new baby; and it does matter that Proulx had already been rehabilitated through his emotional devastation or was subjected to metal trauma. Jeromie Proulx broke the law and must face a fair sentence in order to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter him and other people from committing the same offence; and to promote a sense of responsibility in him and the acknowledgement of harm done to his victims and to the community. A conditional sentence is absolutely inappropriate for this case. If this was a impaired while driving case where no lives were lost, then a conditional sentence would have been suitable, but in this case were a human being was killed, the consideration of a conditional sentence is absolutely absurd. Once again Proulx actions were unintentional, but he made the decision to drink recklessly and show disregard for the law, so his

punishment should be served cold with a side of justice and fairness. Jeromie Proulx committed an extremely serious offence. A person was killed. Jeromie Proulx should be used as an example to society, sending out the message that drinking and driving is very dangerous and will not in any circumstances be tolerated. Doing the opposite and sending Proulx into the community as a preacher or manly putting him under house arrest will do nothing but show that the law is weak and can be violated without any serious penalties. The law should be looked upon with great regard and great power. Civilians should have the fearful mentality that if they break the law their punishment shall truly be severe and not simply a slap on the wrist. In this case the needs, protection and awareness of the society were more important than the needs of a neglectful individual that made his own decisions. In conclusion, I find this case very depressing for Jeromie Proulx and his family, but we as individuals of a society are given laws to abide by and if we chose to contradict them our sentence shall suite our offence.