Ontario: “A judge has reopened a major legal controversy by ruling that accused people can claim they were too drunk to be found culpable of committing crimes.” [Globe & Mail]
Ontario: “A judge has reopened a major legal controversy by ruling that accused people can claim they were too drunk to be found culpable of committing crimes.” [Globe & Mail]
16 Comments
I wonder if this could be used as a defense for DUI?
The law has an inconsistent view on . On the one hand, you are fully responsible for your actions if you are caught drunk driving. On the other hand, women who get drunk legally can’t consent to sex.
Alcoholics can also claim their condition as a disability. When does this stop?
@John: This is the opposite situation from what you’re talking about. In the Canadian case cited here, the accused assaulter said he was too drunk to know what he was doing. You’re thinking of cases where the victim claims that she may have given consent, but because she was drunk it didn’t count. I’m not sure if that’s ever been used successfully in Canada…
Me, I’m high on life all the time.
Bob
Ignorantum legis non excusat
I can see how that might affect capability without impacting capacity.
When you’re drunk, you know what you’re doing, and you know if its right or wrong, you just dont CARE…
Now that I think about it, sober criminals think the same way………
What benchmark are they using to determine when someone has reached that point of drunkeness that they are no longer culpable?
BAC?
Counting the empties?
Show you a picture of Phyllis Diller and if you say “hubba hubba” then you aren’t culpable?
All of us know someone who can drink staggering amounts of booze with no determinate effects.
Just a hunch, but this is going to get appealed. I didn’t read this decision (it doesn’t appear to have been posted yet), but I’d wager a large sum of money it’ll be overturned on appeal on the basis that it completely misapplies the scope of drunkenness as a defense.
Not only did the Supreme Court of Canada deal with the Charter arguments and mens rea elements of drunkenness, they did it as recently as 2007 to clarify for situations just like this:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2007/2007scc53/2007scc53.html
I note that this was the result of a judge’s original interpretation of the Charter of Rights – which, of course, makes no reference to drunkenness. This is why we in Australia have consistently resisted efforts by governments of the left to impose a bill or charter of rights on us. No matter how good it sounds at the start, eventually you get unelected judges making rulings which are contrary to the intentions of the writers, to the wishes of the public, and to morality.
Oh, so I’m the only asshole who started checking flights to Onterio, and using Google Maps to find bars near campus?
Way to make me feel like a jerk, guys…
If this idiotic decision stands, then simply introduce a new law of Drunkness. The kicker would be that the penalty would be set by the equavelent non-drunk penalty.
“I find you not guilty of assault by virtue of your defence of being drunk, and find you guilty of being drunk and sentence you to 10 years.”
Scott,
I live close enough to Ontario to drive.
Dominique Straus-Khan was quoted as saying, “can we use that in NY?”
AS always, the feminists want it both ways. For years they have argued that if a female is drunk (whatever that means; .08?) she cannot consent to sex and thus the poor guy can be prosecuted for rape even if he in good faith thought she was perfectly capable of consenting. Using their logic it is only fair to argue that a defendant in a rape case who was drunk at the time lacked the mens rea to commit rape. Hoisted on their own petard, eh?
” On the other hand, women who get drunk legally can’t consent to sex.”
So women who get drunk illegally can consent to sex? Sets my mind at ease about my college days.
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.