Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 05-19-2022, 01:39 PM   #1
the_only_turek_fan
Lifetime Suspension
 
the_only_turek_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default SC of Canada ruling on intoxication and assault

Sorry if this has been posted.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8842628/s...ion-explained/

In a decision issued May 13, the court declared unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting the use of the defence known as non-insane automatism, which refers to a state of self-induced extreme intoxication, by those accused of violent crimes such as sexual assault and homicide.



Un-####ing-believable.
the_only_turek_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 01:44 PM   #2
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

I saw this the other day and I can't wrap my head around it.

Why aren't you responsible for being in that 'self induced' extreme intoxicated state of mind?

"Officer, just because I was speeding doesn't mean I should be responsible for killing someone!"
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:02 PM   #3
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Because you need to establish intent in order to be convicted and someone who is in a state of automatism can't intend anything at all.

This isn't talking about being drunk and having your judgment impaired and doing something criminal. It's well beyond that level. If you tried to get yourself drunk enough to get into a state where you might be able to avail yourself of that defence the most likely outcome is you would simply wind up face down in your own vomit, and you might die of alcohol poisoning. This isn't a common thing.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 05-19-2022, 02:09 PM   #4
Macman
Self Imposed Retirement
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

There’s also a mechanism there for people trying to use this to their advantage and commit crimes. I was listening to a chat about it the other day from an expert, I think he was a prof somewhere.
Macman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:27 PM   #5
TorqueDog
Franchise Player
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary - Centre West
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Why aren't you responsible for being in that 'self induced' extreme intoxicated state of mind?

"Officer, just because I was speeding doesn't mean I should be responsible for killing someone!"
What does the second sentence even have to do with the first sentence?
__________________
-James
GO
FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:31 PM   #6
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

This ruling essentially likens the state of automatism to temporary insanity, which is somewhat understandable - convicting someone of murder, assault, manslaughter or rape requires some form of intent to commit these criminal acts. Those who got themselves drunk or stoned into delirium don't understand what they are doing; hence, the defense based on the lack of conscious intent. However; I do have a huge problem with no automatic minimum level of guilt/punishment set by the SC when this defense is used successfully. It simply must not result in full acquittal.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Old 05-19-2022, 02:31 PM   #7
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

This is a very complex issue and people expressing immediate outrage are looking at it superficially.


This was the law they deemed as violating the charter:
Quote:
For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.
They said it was too broad.
PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:36 PM   #8
Macman
Self Imposed Retirement
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The case in question was about someone high on mushrooms. I think from Calgary here too and committed an assault I believe.

There’s a couple cases mentioned in the op link and this is one of them.

Last edited by Macman; 05-19-2022 at 02:41 PM.
Macman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:38 PM   #9
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

how could it be proven that a person was at the point of intoxication where this would come into play?

so i get loaded and murder someone and say pass out and we are not discoved for 24 hrs. Can they do a blood alcohol test and project it backwards in time?
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:42 PM   #10
TheIronMaiden
Franchise Player
 
TheIronMaiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATCO Field, Section 201
Exp:
Default

I remember when I was in high school and this guy on his 18th birthday got drunk for the first time, and I mean stupid uncontrollably drunk to the point of vomiting's. one of the girls was helping him and he pulled her shirt down exposing her. In the morning he "didn't remember". I was conflicted about this because it was 100% sexual harassment/ assault ( not sure of the legal definitions). Still, he was blackout drunk for the first time and totally not in control of himself and I don't think in any other instance this would happen.

Would this be an instance where this law would apply?
TheIronMaiden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 02:44 PM   #11
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog View Post
What does the second sentence even have to do with the first sentence?
Because if you speed and kill someone it is likely that you'll get charged for manslaughter. You can't claim that because you were speeding you weren't able to avoid running John Doe over.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 03:07 PM   #12
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Because you need to establish intent in order to be convicted and someone who is in a state of automatism can't intend anything at all.

This isn't talking about being drunk and having your judgment impaired and doing something criminal. It's well beyond that level. If you tried to get yourself drunk enough to get into a state where you might be able to avail yourself of that defence the most likely outcome is you would simply wind up face down in your own vomit, and you might die of alcohol poisoning. This isn't a common thing.
Does blackout drunk qualify? Because there was a stage in my youth when I got blackout drunk once a month or so. In my experience, anyway, there’s a fair amount of slack between insensate drunk and hospitalization.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 03:13 PM   #13
TorqueDog
Franchise Player
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary - Centre West
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Because if you speed and kill someone it is likely that you'll get charged for manslaughter. You can't claim that because you were speeding you weren't able to avoid running John Doe over.
Speeding to such an extent so as to cause a state of automatism? Because otherwise that still makes no sense.
__________________
-James
GO
FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 03:23 PM   #14
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog View Post
Speeding to such an extent so as to cause a state of automatism? Because otherwise that still makes no sense.
Getting blackout drunk and killing someone doesn't mean there was intent.

Speeding and killing someone doesn't mean there is intent.

But now this law is saying if you get drunk enough, there is a line where you are no longer responsible. Of course, we are all just ignoring the fact that your direct actions lead to someone's death.

Not being in control doesn't mean you're not responsible for the actions that made you loose control.

I.E. you can't say speeding made you loose control of the vehicle and that is why you killed someone.

Just like you can't say drinking too much made you loose control and that is why you killed someone.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 03:30 PM   #15
TorqueDog
Franchise Player
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary - Centre West
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Getting blackout drunk and killing someone doesn't mean there was intent.

Speeding and killing someone doesn't mean there is intent.

But now this law is saying if you get drunk enough, there is a line where you are no longer responsible. Of course, we are all just ignoring the fact that your direct actions lead to someone's death.

Not being in control doesn't mean you're not responsible for the actions that made you loose control.

I.E. you can't say speeding made you loose control of the vehicle and that is why you killed someone.

Just like you can't say drinking too much made you loose control and that is why you killed someone.
This is like high school level law, man. Mens rea. If you are speeding to such an extent that you kill someone as a result, "intent" includes the forethought that you knew your actions could reasonably cause such harm.

The reasonably expected outcome of 'drinking too much' is usually going home, perhaps throwing up or ordering more McDonalds than a person should consume in one sitting, passing out, and waking up the next morning feeling like hell. The reasonably expected outcome is not "automatism followed by murder".
__________________
-James
GO
FLAMES GO.

Last edited by TorqueDog; 05-19-2022 at 03:35 PM.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 03:46 PM   #16
OptimalTates
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Exp:
Default

Quote:
...As I note below, there is good reason to believe Parliament understood that alcohol alone is unlikely to bring about the delusional state akin to automatism it sought to regulate in enacting s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46. As Lauwers J.A. wrote in R. v. Sullivan, 2020 ONCA 333, 151 O.R. (3d) 353, “it is not clear that extreme alcohol intoxication causes non-mental disorder automatism as a matter of basic science” (para. 288). In any event, these reasons say nothing about criminal liability for violent conduct produced by alcohol alone short of the psychotic state akin to automatism experienced by Mr. Brown and spoken to by the trial judge. I specifically leave intact the common law rule that drunkenness, absent clear scientific evidence of automatism, is not a defence to general intent crimes, including crimes of violence such as sexual assault....

...Section 33.1 breaches s. 7 of the Charter by allowing a conviction without proof of mens rea or proof of voluntariness...

...For this reason, while s. 33.1 applies to those who recklessly invite their loss of control, it also captures unexpected involuntariness, for example an unexpected reaction to a prescribed pain medication. It also imposes criminal liability where a person’s intoxication carries no objective foreseeability of harm. Furthermore, instead of asking whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it and whether the failure to do so amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care expected in the circumstances, s. 33.1 deems a marked departure to be present whenever a violent act occurs while the person is in a state of extreme voluntary intoxication akin to automatism. Since s. 33.1 allows the court to convict an accused without proof of the constitutionally required mens rea, it violates s. 7 of the Charter...

...Given the patent risk that s. 33.1 may result in the conviction of an accused person who had no reason to believe that their voluntary intoxication would lead to a violent consequence, s. 33.1 fails at the proportionality step and thus cannot be saved under s. 1...

...Section 33.1 is, however, not minimally impairing of an accused’s ss. 7 and 11(d) rights. There are less harmful means of achieving Parliament’s objectives in a real and substantial manner. Options have been advanced that would trench less on the rights of the accused, including a stand-alone offence of criminal intoxication. Alternatively, a path to liability for the underlying violent offence might be based on a criminal negligence standard that would allow the trier of fact to consider whether a loss of control and bodily harm were both reasonably foreseeable at the time of intoxication. This latter option could allow an accused to be convicted for the underlying violent act and not simply negligent or dangerous intoxication while achieving the minimum objective fault standard required by the Constitution...
The decision seems to be framed by the general public that without Section 33.1 "now people can get drunk and not be held responsible for their actions" when it really should be framed that with Section 33.1 "people could take a new prescribed medication that puts them in psychosis and be held responsible."

It's just shifting the burden back on the prosecutor to establish mens rea and pretty much from my basic understanding that alcohol alone will not result in the state where the defense that was prohibited can be used anyways. It requires drug usage. So Northendzone carry some devil's lettuce with you when you go on that murder spree
OptimalTates is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OptimalTates For This Useful Post:
Old 05-19-2022, 04:12 PM   #17
OptimalTates
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
However; I do have a huge problem with no automatic minimum level of guilt/punishment set by the SC when this defense is used successfully. It simply must not result in full acquittal.
That's not something the SC can do. All they can do is find that the section was or was not constitutional. They can't go and start making their own laws.

They can, however, suggest them:

Quote:
Alternatively, a path to liability for the underlying violent offence might be based on a criminal negligence standard that would allow the trier of fact to consider whether a loss of control and bodily harm were both reasonably foreseeable at the time of intoxication. This latter option could allow an accused to be convicted for the underlying violent act and not simply negligent or dangerous intoxication while achieving the minimum objective fault standard required by the Constitution.
Quote:
Some of these options would be manifestly fairer to the accused while achieving some, if not all, of Parliament’s objectives. I am mindful that it is not the role of the courts to set social policy, much less draft legislation for Parliament, as courts are not institutionally designed for these tasks. But it is relevant to the analysis that follows that, as noted by the majority in Daviault itself (p. 100) and by the majority of the Court of Appeal in Sullivan (para. 132), it would likely be open to Parliament to establish a stand‑alone offence of criminal intoxication. Others, including the voir dire judge in this very case (2019 ABQB 770, at para. 80 (CanLII)), have suggested liability for the underlying offence would be possible if the legal standard of criminal negligence required proof that both of the risks of a loss of control and of the harm that follows were reasonably foreseeable. In either of these ways, Parliament would be enacting a law rooted in a “moral instinct” that says a person who chooses to become extremely intoxicated may fairly be held responsible for creating a situation where they threaten the physical integrity of others (I borrow the phrase “moral instinct” from Professors M. Plaxton and C. Mathen, “What’s Right With Section 33.1” (2021), 25 Can. Crim. L.R. 255, at p. 257).
OptimalTates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 04:59 PM   #18
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Breaking into somebody's house, beating the shot of out them and getting off free. ####

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ourt-1.6123008

"Who is to be held responsible for this? The respondent essentially says 'no one,'" wrote Justice Frans Slatter.

"But is it not obvious that it is the respondent who is responsible because he is the one who voluntarily consumed the magic mushrooms, in the face of the objective risk of the effect they could have on him? His victim should not be the only one who suffers the consequences of his voluntary choices."




chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 05:01 PM   #19
MegaErtz
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Exp:
Default

I remember this story well. A hockey player who was coached by Patrick Roy in the QMJHL ended up becoming the captain of the MRU Cougars. I think he was 26 when he got drunk at a party, ate some mushrooms, then broke into a random house that happened to be occupied by a prof from MRU. He broke through a glass door and beat the woman half to deal with a broom handle.

I lived in Calgary for most of my life and never understood the American fascination with guns. I'm the last guy who would ever own a gun. I'll tell you what though, a guy like this breaking into my house and beating a senior with a broom handle and then being found not guilty because he was too drunk and high to be held responsible for his actions makes the justice system look like a joke. How could anyone argue against the case for having a firearm for protection when this kind of thing is allowed to go unpunished?
MegaErtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 05:14 PM   #20
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MegaErtz View Post
I remember this story well. A hockey player who was coached by Patrick Roy in the QMJHL ended up becoming the captain of the MRU Cougars. I think he was 26 when he got drunk at a party, ate some mushrooms, then broke into a random house that happened to be occupied by a prof from MRU. He broke through a glass door and beat the woman half to deal with a broom handle.

I lived in Calgary for most of my life and never understood the American fascination with guns. I'm the last guy who would ever own a gun. I'll tell you what though, a guy like this breaking into my house and beating a senior with a broom handle and then being found not guilty because he was too drunk and high to be held responsible for his actions makes the justice system look like a joke. How could anyone argue against the case for having a firearm for protection when this kind of thing is allowed to go unpunished?
Going to see this used to whole lot to excuse raping women and drunk drivers killing people.

From the article:


Kerri Froc, associate professor of law at the University of New Brunswick, offered a different perspective.

The problem is, Froc said, that it’s unclear what that will actually mean.

For example, she cited court case data from 1994 until the present to illustrate dozens of criminal defendants have still tried to use the defence — including 35 cases involving sexual assault.

In 80 of the 86 cases that she and research co-author Elizabeth Sheehy tracked, the defendants were male while the victims were overwhelmingly female.

It’s a defence that’s mainly brought forward by men to excuse violence against women,” Froc said.


And while the trilogy of cases the court ruled on involved the use of drugs, Froc said the door is not closed for defendants in cases of intoxication by alcohol could try to use it as well.

chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021