The Drunk Defense

[Darts]

Unbelievable! Only in Canada, eh.
Canada's supreme court says extreme intoxication a valid defence in murders, sex assaults | Vancouver Sun

 

[tml]

Unbelievable! Only in Canada, eh.
Canada's supreme court says extreme intoxication a valid defence in murders, sex assaults | Vancouver Sun

People can offer a dozen legal or logical reasons for the verdict, but it just is wrong.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Canada's supreme court says extreme intoxication a valid defence in murders, sex assaults | Vancouver Sun

Yo Brendan O'Brien, 'defense' is not spelled with a C!

" In doing so, defendants can claim their actions were involuntary as a result of taking drugs or alcohol, and, as a result, they cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions."

A plea of Not Criminally Responsible will land the accused in a Mental Hospital forensic ward; it's not as if felons are going to walk free because they got drunk before committing crimes. In many cases, jail time is preferable to the psychiatric hospital forensic unit. The length of time spent in the hospital is potentially much longer than what would be assigned for a guilty plea in criminal court for the same offense.

There is a precedent for a ruling of this sort in Canada, but not in Law: It's very similar to the Catholic church theology regarding Mortal as opposed to Venial sin types.

 

[wigglee]

So.... if you want to commit a crime, get hammered first. That is your get out of jail free card! Stupid rulling.

 

[Day2Day]

Discussion on radio suggested that this "loophole" could be cleanly solved by creation of a Criminal Intoxication law.

Is that true?

I'd be interested to hear more about this in simple terms for someone like me who does not have much legal knowledge.

My initial gut reaction was very negative towards this ruling as it seemed like an affront to the harm caused by these people and how it seems to conflict with common ideas and principles.

The arguement I heard was there was not intent possible due to extreme intoxication. Similar to extreme mental problems or states.

 

[Archer2012]

Crazy World - so everyone caught for DWI - could say they were (under the same thinking to intoxicated to realize they were driving.
I think the whole point is being missed - one decides to get heavily intoxicated - at some point the decision was made to continue getting more blattered - so they need to be responsible for the results - plain and simple.

WTF is wrong with this world today!!!!!!

 

[mandrill]

Guys, every time this issue gets dealt with by the courts, the media have a clickbait bonanza misrepresenting what has been decided. This doesn't mean you knock back 8 beers and then get to shoot the guy down the street that flipped you off 3 weeks ago.

All these cases involved what is called the automatism defence. Someone who commits a crime without being mentally aware of what they are doing or intending what they are doing has always been considered not guilty of the crime. This goes back to medieval times. One branch of this is the insanity defence. Someone who is psychotic and hallucinating that they are being attacked by demons didn't mean to kill the terrified old lady at the bus stop.

Similarly, someone who has taken drugs and had an extreme psychological reaction and is performing acts while being totally unaware of what they are doing - i.e. is an automaton - is not guilty either. This is very rare and happens maybe once or twice a year. It's not being just drunk or high, but being completely mentally non functional - like sleepwalking.

 

[mandrill]

Discussion on radio suggested that this "loophole" could be cleanly solved by creation of a Criminal Intoxication law.
Is that true?
I'd be interested to hear more about this in simple terms for someone like me who does not have much legal knowledge.
My initial gut reaction was very negative towards this ruling as it seemed like an affront to the harm caused by these people and how it seems to conflict with common ideas and principles.
The arguement I heard was there was not intent possible due to extreme intoxication. Similar to extreme mental problems or states.

It's been solved by law and order politicians a couple of times. Harper simply amended the Criminal Code to totally block the automatism defence where the psychiatric condition was triggered by the consumption of intoxicants. The courts simply said that the amendment was unconstitutional as it removed a traditional defence. It could be done using the "Notwithstanding Clause", but the defence is not that outrageous. The media just misrepresents it and milks it for clicks.

In murder cases, it happens once or twice a year. It's often a family member who uses drugs, has a mental phase of automatism and kills other family and then recovers and is intensely remorseful. If the defence wasn't present, they would be sentenced to years in jail.

 

[Darts]

Is this the same or similar to the "sleep walking" defense/defence?

Note: I get a typo warning when I spell "defence" but not when I spell "defense". Weird, eh.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Is this the same or similar to the "sleep walking" defense/defence?

Note: I get a typo warning when I spell "defence" but not when I spell "defense". Weird, eh.

See post #3.

If "defence" is actually a word, it would mean to remove a barrier of some sort. Defense is the noun form of the verb defend.

 

[Darts]

Canada's Supreme Court rules being DRUNK is defense for sex attacks and killing: Judges acquit

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/canada-supreme-court-rules-getting-drunk-can-be-violent-crime-

defense

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/13/canada-supreme-court-intoxication-violent-crime-

defense

 

[onomatopoeia]

This is really non-news, click bait, as pointed out by Mandrill. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that someone who has been charged with a crime can essentially plead 'not guilty by reason of intoxication' at arraignment. It means NOTHING more than that. The SC merely ruled that it is unconstitutional in Canada to deny an accused the option of entering this plea. The chances of ANY accused winning acquittal through this plea are VERY small.

Here's an hypothetical scenario where it might be used:

A guy is drunk, and sleeping in a public park. A well-intending bystander attempts to put a pillow under the sleeping man's head. The drunken man becomes partially awake, thinks he is being robbed, grabs a knife from his pocket, and stabs the bystander, killing him.

I think most if not all people here would not consider this man to be guilty of voluntary manslaughter in this situation, although that could possibly be the charge filed against him by the Crown.

 

[mandrill]

Is this the same or similar to the "sleep walking" defense/defence?

Note: I get a typo warning when I spell "defence" but not when I spell "defense". Weird, eh.

It's exactly the same with the added factor that an involuntary psych reaction of automatism triggered by ingesting substances is now considered included in the automatism defence.

Automatism (law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The intoxication defence is far more limited and totally different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication_defense

 

[mandrill]

Canada's Supreme Court rules being DRUNK is defense for sex attacks and killing: Judges acquit

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/canada-supreme-court-rules-getting-drunk-can-be-violent-crime-

defense

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/13/canada-supreme-court-intoxication-violent-crime-

defense

Darts, those news reports are misleading and are clickbait. What was actually written in those decisions was totally different and was what I tried to explain in this thread.

 

[Jenesis]

It's been solved by law and order politicians a couple of times. Harper simply amended the Criminal Code to totally block the automatism defence where the psychiatric condition was triggered by the consumption of intoxicants. The courts simply said that the amendment was unconstitutional as it removed a traditional defence. It could be done using the "Notwithstanding Clause", but the defence is not that outrageous. The media just misrepresents it and milks it for clicks.

In murder cases, it happens once or twice a year. It's often a family member who uses drugs, has a mental phase of automatism and kills other family and then recovers and is intensely remorseful. If the defence wasn't present, they would be sentenced to years in jail.

It is a bullshit defence no matter how you look at it because the person is choosing to ingest the booze or drugs to get to that point.

A woman and her kids get murdered by hubby/dad and he gets off because that night of his normal abusive tirade went too far when dad took some extra pills that night. Meanwhile he has been abusing drugs, alcohol and his wife and kids for years.

I get the “thinking” behind it but I disagree with it completely. Mental health is different because you have no control there but people choose their level of intoxication and should therefore be held account to that choice.

 

[onomatopoeia]

^^^^^^^^^
(Jenesis and I have an agreement that we do not quote each other)

The scenario you describe in post #15 would not have a different legal verdict, before and after the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the OP's link. You have been successfully trolled by the click bait.

I agree completely with your opinions in post #15. I grew up in a family with a father who was alcoholic, at times violent, and someone who never took personal responsibility for his actions.

This is a very minor decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The online media is attempting to make it seem profound, by provoking emotional responses bases on hearsay and incomplete knowledge. Mandrill is a lawyer and has read the actual wording of this Judicial decision. He has indicated with the Like button that I am properly understanding the limited scope of this ruling, (post #12).

 

[onomatopoeia]

@mandrill: Psychiatric medications can result in behavior not anticipated by either the doctor or the patient. A mental health condition might be misdiagnosed, or the patient might react differently to the medication than would the majority of people diagnosed with the same condition.

If someone commits a crime while in a state of mind induced by voluntary ingestion of medicine prescribed to them by a licensed physician, is this a situation covered by this new Supreme Court ruling, by Automatism, by the Intoxication Law, or something else? I'm thinking that the doctor would have zero criminal liability, very limited civil liability, and any criminal charges against the accused would likely never get beyond the pretrial stage.

 

[mandrill]

@mandrill: Psychiatric medications can result in behavior not anticipated by either the doctor or the patient. A mental health condition might be misdiagnosed, or the patient might react differently to the medication than would the majority of people diagnosed with the same condition.
If someone commits a crime while in a state of mind induced by voluntary ingestion of medicine prescribed to them by a licensed physician, is this a situation covered by this new Supreme Court ruling, by Automatism, by the Intoxication Law, or something else? I'm thinking that the doctor would have zero criminal liability, very limited civil liability, and any criminal charges against the accused would likely never get beyond the pretrial stage.

It sounds like automatism.

Intoxication is usually recreational substances. Intoxication is a weird defence. It doesn't protect from "dumb, drunk shit" type offences like smashing property and fighting; but it assumes that you can't think enough to do complex stuff.

 

[Leimonis]

Note: I get a typo warning when I spell "defence" but not when I spell "defense". Weird, eh.

canadian/british vs american english on your keyboard
you probably get a typo warning when you spell "colour"

 

[onomatopoeia]

It sounds like automatism.

Intoxication is usually recreational substances. Intoxication is a weird defence. It doesn't protect from "dumb, drunk shit" type offences like smashing property and fighting; but it assumes that you can't think enough to do complex stuff.

Brazilian men who have been accused of performing acts of marital infidelity during early February have been known to plead "Mardi Gras".