05-19-2022, 08:51 PM
|
#21
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
Every violent criminal I ever dealt with had little ability to self regulate and most of them had no ability to really make decisions in any normal sense, that's why they were criminals.
The idea there is some 'normal' state' that makes you 'responsible' is just asinine, we lock people up to protect ourselves, not because they deserve it, most of them dont when you look at the life they have gone through
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-19-2022, 09:00 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kelowna
|
Not surprising, It is predictably another example of the court; at all levels, abandoning public safety. Moreover, it clear that the law serves itself and itself alone and sees itself as being exempt from having any moral and ethical standards.
As well, the court is completely adversarial to the notion that it gets its authority from the public. It believes that people will blindly follow the law that doesn’t represent them or their standards, mores, tenants, ethics and moral code.
|
|
|
05-19-2022, 09:53 PM
|
#23
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary
|
So if I get too drunk to drive, can I be held responsible for drinking and driving?
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
|
|
|
05-19-2022, 10:24 PM
|
#24
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyman
So if I get too drunk to drive, can I be held responsible for drinking and driving?
|
Is this a trick question? If you’re saying that you were too drunk to drive, then wouldn’t that just mean you didn’t actually drive? So I guess the answer is: “no, you’re not responsible for something that didn’t happen”.
|
|
|
05-20-2022, 07:10 AM
|
#25
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
|
This doesn't surprise me in the least. I was having a discussion the other day on how we've moved completely into a post-accountability society. We've gotten to a point where taking responsibility for your actions is not seen in a positive light anymore and passing blame is the new normal.
Inflation? Well that's from the war and pandemic.
Expensive power and heat? Well the world is dying and we're doing what's just.
Orphan wells? Shouldn't the government be doing something about these? We barely broke even after our exec bonuses.
Can't get a job? Immigrants.
High gas prices? Trudeau.
Rape someone? Well I was drunk and not thinking. No #### you troglodyte pos.
It starts with our leaders, followed by our corporations and then lands at the feet of the people. Is it the news skewing things? Just an apathy among the masses?
The fact is that we let so much go on a regular basis that's it doesn't surprise me at all that the legal system is catching up.
-Multiple cases of corruption in our highest office. Solution? Take control of the ethics board. Re-elect, gloss over it and move on.
-Pay out millions in bonuses and then abandon orphan wells? Here's money to fix the wells!
-Sell crown land to your buddies at prices that would Mr. Burns blush? Hey, at least he doesn't wear orange.
We have excuses for everything. As long as it's our guy, or what we want we pretty much just ignore the consequences. I realize a lot of it is human nature, but I feel like we're regressing at a rapid rate.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to indes For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-20-2022, 07:19 AM
|
#26
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
Moreover, it clear that the law serves itself and itself alone
|
WTF does this even mean?
... Are people just totally unaware that we have a constitution, and many years of precedent to follow in applying that constitution in a consistent manner so that the government can't just run roughshod over peoples' Charter rights? It's not like judges just stick their finger in the air and go, "yeahhhhh... I'm gonna just go ahead and strike this law down". They have rules they have to follow.
__________________
"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
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-20-2022, 08:35 AM
|
#27
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
Not surprising, It is predictably another example of the court; at all levels, abandoning public safety. Moreover, it clear that the law serves itself and itself alone and sees itself as being exempt from having any moral and ethical standards.
As well, the court is completely adversarial to the notion that it gets its authority from the public. It believes that people will blindly follow the law that doesn’t represent them or their standards, mores, tenants, ethics and moral code.
|
So if you are prescribed medication like Ambien and go sleepwalking and you kill someone you want to be held fully accountable for 1st degree murder? That to me doesn’t seem right.
When dealing with the law you have look at the worst consequence of the law to an innocent person.
In the rulings the judges suggest the solution Criminal Negligent homicides in these cases.
|
|
|
05-20-2022, 10:57 AM
|
#28
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uzbekistan
|
I've worked on cases similar to this one.
The media and the public are not understanding the basis and future application of this decision.
In order for this defence to succeed, an accused needs to doctor to state that they were in a state of automatism. That is a high, high bar which will disqualify 99.99% of accused people.
Next there is the issue of foreseeability. I don't think this defence is going to be available for a meth addict who gets violent all the time on meth. The cases that the SCC and ONCA have applied it to are mushrooms and anti smoking medication, where the effects weren't really forseeable.
The SCC stated in their decision that parliament needs different legislation to address this issue while not violating an accused's charter rights. I believe parliament will respond quickly with new legislation.
All of the social media outrage and other uninformed, bad takes are frustrating for someone in the criminal law world. The floodgates have not opened.
Last edited by Johnny199r; 05-20-2022 at 10:59 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Johnny199r For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-20-2022, 10:58 AM
|
#29
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uzbekistan
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So if you are prescribed medication like Ambien and go sleepwalking and you kill someone you want to be held fully accountable for 1st degree murder? That to me doesn’t seem right.
When dealing with the law you have look at the worst consequence of the law to an innocent person.
In the rulings the judges suggest the solution Criminal Negligent homicides in these cases.
|
This is it, exactly.
"But he knowingly took the medication and so he's responsible for his actions, just like when I drink!!"
It's slightly more nuanced than that.
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 06:46 AM
|
#30
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Every violent criminal I ever dealt with had little ability to self regulate and most of them had no ability to really make decisions in any normal sense, that's why they were criminals.
The idea there is some 'normal' state' that makes you 'responsible' is just asinine, we lock people up to protect ourselves, not because they deserve it, most of them dont when you look at the life they have gone through
|
Sorry but if your asking for sympathy for one of these mouth breathers if they hurt my family I’d tell you go pound sand. I’d much rather they euthanize and we all move along, then just shrug our shoulders and say “what do you do it’s no one’s fault.”
|
|
|
05-21-2022, 08:58 PM
|
#31
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So if you are prescribed medication like Ambien and go sleepwalking and you kill someone you want to be held fully accountable for 1st degree murder? That to me doesn’t seem right.
When dealing with the law you have look at the worst consequence of the law to an innocent person.
In the rulings the judges suggest the solution Criminal Negligent homicides in these cases.
|
I think if you take mind altering illegal drugs (mushrooms) you should be responsible for actions you take in that altered state.
This whole thing also seems like a pretty strong argument against legalizing mushrooms.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-22-2022, 05:43 AM
|
#33
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny199r
I've worked on cases similar to this one.
The media and the public are not understanding the basis and future application of this decision.
In order for this defence to succeed, an accused needs to doctor to state that they were in a state of automatism. That is a high, high bar which will disqualify 99.99% of accused people.
Next there is the issue of foreseeability. I don't think this defence is going to be available for a meth addict who gets violent all the time on meth. The cases that the SCC and ONCA have applied it to are mushrooms and anti smoking medication, where the effects weren't really forseeable.
The SCC stated in their decision that parliament needs different legislation to address this issue while not violating an accused's charter rights. I believe parliament will respond quickly with new legislation.
All of the social media outrage and other uninformed, bad takes are frustrating for someone in the criminal law world. The floodgates have not opened.
|
Rare and difficult defenses like this is tend to end up being mostly available for those who can afford a significantly above average legal team, or who are otherwise sympathetic in the eyes of the court.
Neither of which makes for good legal custom.
|
|
|
05-22-2022, 06:06 AM
|
#34
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Every violent criminal I ever dealt with had little ability to self regulate and most of them had no ability to really make decisions in any normal sense, that's why they were criminals.
The idea there is some 'normal' state' that makes you 'responsible' is just asinine, we lock people up to protect ourselves, not because they deserve it, most of them dont when you look at the life they have gone through
|
I think this is a good angle; how is the public best protected.
Now we just need to include the people who might or might not be convicted within the sphere of the public.
Which is more likely here;
- People who engage in risky behavior with drugs/medication/alcohol end up going free more than they used to, resulting in more damage to other people than before...
(This seems marginal enough that I don't think it will make the general public at large more likely to engage in risky behavior due to lessened fear of legal repercussions.)
or
- People who are not significantly more of a risk to their surroundings than average but did something stupid/bad basically this one time are a bit better protected from pointless prison sentences (or other legal punishments).
We should also add into the calculation that the #1 risk factor for a person to commit crimes is previous jailtime, so it's possible that in some situations NOT putting someone in jail can actually be more helpful in preventing future crime than putting them in jail.
(Of course it's debatable whether this is more correlation (criminals have often been in jail already), or causation (people who end up in jail tend to become more criminal than they were before).)
This to me is the real calculation; how is the public good best served. Individual cases are somewhat irrelevant.
|
|
|
05-22-2022, 10:32 AM
|
#35
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
I think if you take mind altering illegal drugs (mushrooms) you should be responsible for actions you take in that altered state.
This whole thing also seems like a pretty strong argument against legalizing mushrooms.
|
That’s what the judges are suggesting. It becomes criminal negligence. I don’t think that makes a good argument for prohibition given the general negative affects of alcohol on society.
What about not taking anti-psychotic medications? Do you lose your temp insanity defender rights?
|
|
|
05-22-2022, 09:21 PM
|
#36
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny199r
social media outrage and other uninformed, bad takes
|
The internet in a nutshell.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DionTheDman For This Useful Post:
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 AM.
|
|