Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 05-19-2022, 08:51 PM   #21
afc wimbledon
Franchise Player
 
afc wimbledon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
Exp:
Default

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
afc wimbledon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Old 05-19-2022, 09:00 PM   #22
Zulu29
Franchise Player
 
Zulu29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kelowna
Exp:
Default

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.
Zulu29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 09:53 PM   #23
monkeyman
First Line Centre
 
monkeyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

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.
monkeyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2022, 10:24 PM   #24
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyman View Post
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”.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2022, 07:10 AM   #25
indes
First Line Centre
 
indes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Exp:
Default

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayduke's dad View Post
That game was like my sex life. Hell of a start, then done before the other side is done playing, sad attempt to make things better but too late.
I believe.
indes is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to indes For This Useful Post:
Old 05-20-2022, 07:19 AM   #26
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29 View Post
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
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 05-20-2022, 08:35 AM   #27
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29 View Post
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.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2022, 10:57 AM   #28
Johnny199r
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uzbekistan
Exp:
Default

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.
Johnny199r is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Johnny199r For This Useful Post:
Old 05-20-2022, 10:58 AM   #29
Johnny199r
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uzbekistan
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
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.
Johnny199r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2022, 06:46 AM   #30
Yoho
Franchise Player
 
Yoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon View Post
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.”
Yoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2022, 08:58 PM   #31
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
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.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-22-2022, 01:09 AM   #32
Snuffleupagus
#1 Goaltender
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Seems to me we live in a country where people aren't criminals for stabbing 5 people to death or cutting off heads on a bus so it makes sense people shouldn't be responsible for their actions while being drunk or stoned.
Snuffleupagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2022, 05:43 AM   #33
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
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.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2022, 06:06 AM   #34
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon View Post
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.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2022, 10:32 AM   #35
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
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?
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2022, 09:21 PM   #36
DionTheDman
Powerplay Quarterback
 
DionTheDman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
social media outrage and other uninformed, bad takes
The internet in a nutshell.
DionTheDman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DionTheDman 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 11:15 PM.

Calgary Flames
2021-22




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021