An Unconventional Sentence

On July 30, 1994, 18-year-old Kevin Hollinsky killed two of his best friends when
he lost control of his car. The car hit two concrete lampposts and bounced off a
tree. Kevin had been drinking.

At trial, Kevin pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death.

For reasons of general deterrence, the crown asked for a jail term of between
eight and 14 months to serve as a lesson for other young drivers. In the words of
a community police officer who worked on the case: "we knew that we had been
telling audiences a very clear message - 'You drink and drive and kill someone.
You are going to jail'." The appeal courts have said that a prison term is an
appropriate sentence in almost every traffic death where there is serious
negligence.

But Kevin did not go to jail, both because of an extraordinary intervention from
the parents of the two dead boys and because of a courageous and innovative
court judge who took a risk with an alternative community sentence.

In a sentence that shocked the community, the trial judge placed Kevin on three
years’ probation and ordered him to perform 750 hours of community service.
Part of the community service included making 14 one-hour presentations to
high school students.

In the spring of 1995, Kevin spoke at every high school in the Windsor area. On
each occasion, the car he had driven was towed to the school, with the keys still
in the ignition. Kevin always began with these words:

“Last year I was in a single-car accident, in which two of my best friends were
killed, which I am responsible for. I’m responsible for devastating two
families...whose sons are dead because of me. No one else forced me to get
behind that wheel. No one else forced me to drink. It was all my decision. It was
the stupidest decision of my life.”

In the summer of 1995, in the Windsor area, not a single student was involved in
a fatal or serious automobile accident. Initially, the police officer who
accompanied Kevin to each school had been critical of the sentence. Later,
however, he had this to say:

"I've got to say now that he makes the case for alternative sentencing.... Nobody
will ever convince me now that sending him to jail was the best thing to do. You
could send him to jail for five years and you wouldn't have punished him like you
punished him by doing what happened here.

This man was forced to live with the consequences of his irresponsibility, day
after day after day. Every day he went out to speak he relived it. He touched
many, many young people in this city in a way we could not. It's hard to reach
teenagers. He did. Kevin showed them they are not invulnerable."

The non-custodial sentence was appealed by the Crown, partly because it so

challenged the current mindset of the justice system. In November 1995, three
appeal court judges deliberated a half hour to confirm the original sentence.
"Judge Nosanchuk's decision not to send Mr. Hollinsky to prison was an
absolutely brave thing and a wonderful judgment," said Edward Greenspan, the
lawyer who represented Hollinsky on the appeal. "They stood up in the
courtroom and applauded. The parents of the dead boys stood up and applauded
and everybody began hugging each other, including Kevin."

Mrs. Camlis, one of the victims' mom, agrees. She has been to several of
Hollinksy's school presentations. "It was not an easy thing for Kevin to do. He
relived it every time he talked about it. I think his two friends can be very proud
of what he has done for them with his life since the accident. He's said to me
many times, 'I did it for them. It's the only way I can say to them that I am sorry'."

1. Which sentencing goals do you think the trial judge was considering when he
passed sentence?

2. Explain how each goal was achieved.

3. What aggravating and mitigating factors, if any, would have influenced the judge
in the sentencing of Kevin Hollinsky?

4. Choose another type of sentence for Kevin Hollinsky and discuss how justice
might have been served.

5. Evaluate the judge’s decision. Do you agree/disagree that the judge protected
society by issuing this type of sentence? Explain in detail.