It just a matter of your Rolodex and bank roll, you can buy as much justice as you can afford. I'd wager if you have a few cop friends and or $20,000 ish to invest in justice, you'll be fine.
After practising law for more that 25 years, seeing justice meted out while working both inside the system and outside the system, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is correct to say that the quality of one's legal representation can make a substantial difference to the way a charge evolves and in the eventual judicial decision, depending on the facts and on the legal knowledge and advocacy skills of one's counsel with respect to the applicable law. But there is no magic bullet. One cannot buy oneself an outcome, at any price, no matter who you know.
One of my mentors succinctly put it this way. He replied to me one day when we were entering court after I had suggested that we were in a very strong position on the facts and law of the case in particular, "Don't ever think when you walk through these doors that it is going to be anything but a crap shoot. Be prepared, but be prepared to be challenged and surprised."
The proposition that justice is for sale
simply does not accord with my belief, with my knowledge or with my experience, period. Your suggestion that the Canadian legal system is inherently corrupt amounts to a slander on the reputation of most, if not all of the participants. Many of my law classmates are judges. One is currently a Minister of Justice. One is the Chief Justice of Manitoba. Each, whom I have watched for decades, without exception, has resolutely defended their professional integrity and professional performance, without exception. One of my former partners, on appointment as a Federal Court judge, gave up one of his most cherished passions, golf. He quit the local golf club because, as he explained to me, he simply could not take the risk of appearing on the bench before anyone, lawyer or client, whom he had been associated with in his former personal life, no matter how remote.
Even the Prime Minister failed to overcome the law when his proposed appointee to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by the Court on the basis of a simple motion filed by a lone private attorney. If there ever were an example of how little privilege matters in the law, that must surely be one.
Also this might not even be a real DUI or a crime.
Suggest that to someone who just lost all of their children to a drunk driver.
I believe you need a victim for a crime and I didn't see where any persons or property were damaged.
One of the key elements of statutory and criminal code prohibitions is deterrence
, particularly where the perpetrator's actions result in an inability to make rational decisions and/or to react in a safe and timely manner to events on the highway. Society is the victim. The risk of grievous bodily harm or loss of life is sufficient.
As for being drunk, I don't know, there are some folks who have like one drink and are a mess, others who can drink all day long and go about their day without even being able to tell that had a single drink.
Even if others don't perceive the impact, the machine knows, and performance is inversely related to the amount of alcohol in one's system, regardless of the perception of others.
The DUI thing has more to do with revenue generation then the illusion of safety.
Wrong again. The "Driving under influence law thing
" is all about preventing the slaughter that would otherwise occur without effective laws to counter it. Convictions for impaired driving do not even necessarily result in fines, and there is no revenue generation resulting from incarceration--in fact, the cost to society is substantial. There is no illusion about the safety of an impaired driver--science, facts and history resolved that debate long ago.