Should the US be sharing criminal records with other countries?

[Spoons]

In Alberta, for a first drunk-driving conviction, assuming no injury or property damage:

– For 0.08 to 0.15, a $1000 fine; for 0.16 or over, a $1200 fine. Plus a 15% victim fine surcharge.
– License suspended for one year, subject to the next point.
– After three months, eligibility for an ignition interlock–you pay for installation and rental.

Note that the above applies only to a first offense–things get worse for the second, third, etc.

And one more thing: such a conviction results in a criminal record, photos, fingerprints, and so on. As stated, it is a federal criminal offense (see Criminal Code of Canada, s. 253(a) and (b). Unlike the US, criminal law in Canada is federal, not provincial.

My cite is my experience representing drunk-driving accuseds in an Alberta court.

[Eva_Luna]

@DrCube

What does that have to do with the question at hand? People who are not currently fugitives from the law should be allowed to travel at will.

It’s a public safety issue. Same in the U.S. for most immigration law purposes, regardless of whether the person has completed any punishment imposed by the court.

[Lord_Feldon]

@DrCube

What does that have to do with the question at hand? People who are not currently fugitives from the law should be allowed to travel at will.

If someone has a confirmed track record of dangerous behavior, why should a country have to let them in at will? I think that in some circumstances, the benefits of not inspecting travelers from certain countries might outweigh the risks that some of the worse people will come in and continue behaving badly (I’d open the Canadian border, for instance), but if we’re already inspecting people why not turn some of them back if they have a record showing that they’re known to behave in a way we’ve chosen to make illegal?

[A222]

@Lord_Feldon

If someone has a confirmed track record of dangerous behavior, why should a country have to let them in at will? I think that in some circumstances, the benefits of not inspecting travelers from certain countries might outweigh the risks that some of the worse people will come in and continue behaving badly (I’d open the Canadian border, for instance), but if we’re already inspecting people why not turn some of them back if they have a record showing that they’re known to behave in a way we’ve chosen to make illegal?

I do not know what you mean by a “track record,” but remember that one DUI is enough to disqualify one from entering Canada. As I mentioned on a previous post, the ability of a criminal record to predict recidivism is generally limited, as any predictive effect tends to fade out within five years. Thus, I would argue that use of criminal records should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nonetheless, I agree it would be better if we did not background check people coming over the Canadian border. In fact, Canada’s strict enforcement of its criminal inadmissibility laws is hurting tourism. See Canada: Drunk driving ban under review, DUI conviction could no longer be barrier to entry into Canada, It.

[UltraVires]

@wolfpup

In Ontario, impaired driving carries these consequences. For a first offense over 0.08 BAC:

[ul]
[li]Mandatory alcohol education or treatment program[/li][li] 1 year minimum requirement to drive a car equipped with an ignition interlock device[/li][li] No minimum jail sentence[/li][li] $1,000 fine[/li][li] Licence suspended for 1 year[/li][/ul]

@Spoons

In Alberta, for a first drunk-driving conviction, assuming no injury or property damage:

– For 0.08 to 0.15, a $1000 fine; for 0.16 or over, a $1200 fine. Plus a 15% victim fine surcharge.
– License suspended for one year, subject to the next point.
– After three months, eligibility for an ignition interlock–you pay for installation and rental.

Note that the above applies only to a first offense–things get worse for the second, third, etc.

And one more thing: such a conviction results in a criminal record, photos, fingerprints, and so on. As stated, it is a federal criminal offense (see Criminal Code of Canada, s. 253(a) and (b). Unlike the US, criminal law in Canada is federal, not provincial.

My cite is my experience representing drunk-driving accuseds in an Alberta court.

This is very typical of DUI punishments in most U.S. states. Since Canada seems to believe that first offense DUI deserves similar punishment, I am unsure why it wants to bar entry to those with twenty to thirty year old DUIs.

[Eva_Luna]

@UltraVires

This is very typical of DUI punishments in most U.S. states. Since Canada seems to believe that first offense DUI deserves similar punishment, I am unsure why it wants to bar entry to those with twenty to thirty year old DUIs.

However, just like in the U.S., a criminal conviction, particularly a minor or long-ago one, isn’t an absolute, indefinite bar to entry. You can apply for a waiver of the conviction in order to be allowed to enter Canada.

[Spoons]

@UltraVires

This is very typical of DUI punishments in most U.S. states. Since Canada seems to believe that first offense DUI deserves similar punishment, I am unsure why it wants to bar entry to those with twenty to thirty year old DUIs.

As Eva Luna points out, rehabilitation according to Canada is possible. In the case of a twenty or thirty-year-old DUI, it would probably be rubber-stamped as “OK,” but it must be applied for before one gets to the Canadian border. CBSA officials at the border do have discretion, but if you have had a DUI in the US, it is best to check with your local Canadian consulate in the US, before trying to enter Canada.