[OT] Supreme Court (of Canada) rules that intoxication is a defense for violent crimes

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Rhino

unread,
May 13, 2022, 9:35:16 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Yes, you read that subject line correctly:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-calgary-case-assault-mushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012

Something tells me that this is NOT going to help reduce crime....

It reminds me of the era when a lawyer came up with the idea of
"temporary insanity" and the courts said it was valid. For the next
several years, this became a frequently invoked defense, so much so that
it became a cause of cynicism among the general public. I believe that
even the courts realized that it was being severely overused and that
defense (largely?) disappeared.

For the next several years, I expect to see "But Your Honour, I was
pissed to the gills / high as a kite / wasted so I couldn't control the
formation of the intent to do violence. Please find me not guilty by
reason of intoxication!" Sanity may eventually prevail but given how
topsy turvy the world has gotten, maybe that's overly optimistic.

--
Rhino

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 13, 2022, 9:58:06 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
There's precedent! The last two episodes of Law & Order!

>Something tells me that this is NOT going to help reduce crime....

When I was a yout', there was an episode of Quincy in which an apparent
drunk driver killed a woman. Turned out he drove into her deliberately,
THEN got drunk before the amulance came. Quincy proved he'd gotten drunk
after.

I love stare decisis based on tv episodes.

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
May 13, 2022, 11:19:57 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
I don't know about Canada but in the US there has to actually be a
medical diagnosis to support an insanity plea and even when it does, it
comes in to effect _after_ sentencing. So instead of a set prison term
the defendant is committed to a medical facility and every X number of
years the court revisits the case until the judge AND the medical doctor
agree they have been successfully treated. And it is extremely rarely
invoked.

As for the "too drunk" defense, that's simple. Everyone who gets
arrested has to have a blood draw to run a BAC. If their BAC isn't high
enough, PPHHHHFFFFTTTT, sorry bubba.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

anim8rfsk

unread,
May 13, 2022, 11:50:35 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you read that subject line correctly:
>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-calgary-case-assault-mushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012
>
> There's precedent! The last two episodes of Law & Order!
>
>> Something tells me that this is NOT going to help reduce crime....
>
> When I was a yout', there was an episode of Quincy in which an apparent
> drunk driver killed a woman. Turned out he drove into her deliberately,
> THEN got drunk before the amulance came. Quincy proved he'd gotten drunk
> after.
>
> I love stare decisis based on tv episodes.

Halle Berry has done that. Supposedly multiple times in multiple states.
She gets in a car wreck and finds the nearest bar before the cops arrive.
You’d think they’d at least get her for leaving the scene.


>
>> It reminds me of the era when a lawyer came up with the idea of
>> "temporary insanity" and the courts said it was valid. For the next
>> several years, this became a frequently invoked defense, so much so that
>> it became a cause of cynicism among the general public. I believe that
>> even the courts realized that it was being severely overused and that
>> defense (largely?) disappeared.
>
>> For the next several years, I expect to see "But Your Honour, I was
>> pissed to the gills / high as a kite / wasted so I couldn't control the
>> formation of the intent to do violence. Please find me not guilty by
>> reason of intoxication!" Sanity may eventually prevail but given how
>> topsy turvy the world has gotten, maybe that's overly optimistic.
>



--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

BTR1701

unread,
May 14, 2022, 12:13:58 AM (2 days ago) May 14
to
On May 13, 2022 at 6:35:06 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offlin...@example.com>
wrote:
So if intoxication is an excuse for the crime of murder or rape, is it an
excuse for the crime of drunk driving?

And if not, how could it not be?


trotsky

unread,
May 14, 2022, 5:07:59 AM (2 days ago) May 14
to
It's Canada, why should we give a shit? You've obviously been groomed
by mental masturbation and are literally driving off a cliff right now.

Rhino

unread,
May 14, 2022, 5:52:00 AM (2 days ago) May 14
to
That only solves part of the problem. It isn't very helpful in cases
where someone knows that they are a nasty drunk and normally wouldn't
hurt someone else but REALLY wants to hurt Person X. All he'd have to do
then is get totally shit-faced and then let his violent tendencies
express themselves. When the police show up, he would tell them how
drunk he is, insist on a blood alcohol test (or the equivalent for other
intoxicants) and then have his lawyer apply for his get out of jail free
card. Not quite easy-peasy but not that hard either.

--
Rhino

Rhino

unread,
May 14, 2022, 5:52:39 AM (2 days ago) May 14
to
Excellent point!

--
Rhino

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
May 14, 2022, 12:23:20 PM (2 days ago) May 14
to
Which would be premeditation which would have its own problems. Also
people that drunk or otherwise intoxicated have real trouble even
remembering they have a plan let alone what it is. Actually carrying it
out is another order of magnitude harder. Not to mention that they
simply can't keep their mouths shut when caught.

And there would be the other charges related to simply being that drunk
in the first place.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 14, 2022, 1:50:20 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
There's a famous murder trial in Canada that that was probably based
on. In the Latimer case a father who had a severely mentally
handicapped daughter he couldn't handle anymore put her in his car and
closed the garage door and let his engine run until she had died of
carbon monoxide poisoning. He was convicted of murder and given
25-life and it was suggested at the time that had he done everything
he did THEN drunk whiskey till he passed out he could have avoided
conviction.

I've always found that sort of defence highly problematic as it's not
as if anyone FORCED the accused to chug down enormous amounts of booze
- getting plastered to the point of passing out is a voluntary act and
in law you shouldn't be allowed to benefit from your own voluntary
acts as a defence to criminal charges whether these acts take place
before the crime or after the crime.

So with all due respect to the high court justices I think they got it
wrong on this one.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 14, 2022, 1:57:37 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
On Fri, 13 May 2022 20:19:54 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>I don't know about Canada but in the US there has to actually be a
>medical diagnosis to support an insanity plea and even when it does, it
>comes in to effect _after_ sentencing. So instead of a set prison term
>the defendant is committed to a medical facility and every X number of
>years the court revisits the case until the judge AND the medical doctor
>agree they have been successfully treated. And it is extremely rarely
>invoked.

There is that in Canada too BUT I find it problematic since that
substitutes a panal of doctors for a panel of judges as to when the
accused is released from medical detention / treatment.

The case that brought this to public attention was the guy in Manitoba
who was riding an intercity bus and garroted then beheaded the guy in
front of him then found 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity' -
which is fine BUT the doctors agreed five years later to release him
without supervision since he was taking his meds faithfully.

From a legal perspective there is a public interest in the state
ensuring he DOES continue to take his meds faithfully since such a
person has already more than demonstrated what he is capable of when
he doesn't - and in such a case with such a previous outcome I'd say
the public hss an overwhelming right to insist on measures to ensure
he either be locked up or wear a tracking device that will trigger if
he does NOT go to a prespecified place to receive his meds on a
defined schedule.

Because for DAMN sure sentencing - even in mental health matters -
protection of the public is an interest that in my view trumps the
liberty of the individual when there is very good reason to believe
there MIGHT be an issue. At that point it's NOT "innocent till proven
guilty" any more and if he's not willing to accept such a regimen he
has no business in being at liberty.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 14, 2022, 2:15:32 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:13:49 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>> For the next several years, I expect to see "But Your Honour, I was
>> pissed to the gills / high as a kite / wasted so I couldn't control the
>> formation of the intent to do violence. Please find me not guilty by
>> reason of intoxication!" Sanity may eventually prevail but given how
>> topsy turvy the world has gotten, maybe that's overly optimistic.
>
>So if intoxication is an excuse for the crime of murder or rape, is it an
>excuse for the crime of drunk driving?
>
>And if not, how could it not be?

Not sure what the jurisprudence is in the United States but in Canada
a grossly intoxicated woman is deemed not capable of giving consent to
sex. Which if both of them are plastered is hard on her partner but
....
(I do not know if this also applies to those in a marital relationship
- but then I've never gotten nasty with milady when we've been heavily
intoxicated or in fact more than mildly tipsy)

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 14, 2022, 2:16:20 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
Agreed - and that has happened several times at least in BC

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
May 14, 2022, 3:15:24 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
In the jurisdiction I'm in there first has to be a medical finding that
they are no longer insane THEN the matter goes before a judge with
regular reports from the medical doctor to the court every few years.
Releasing the defendant/patient is not a decision made solely by either one.

BTR1701

unread,
May 14, 2022, 3:19:31 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
We have an Equal Protection Clause in our Constitution which prohibits them
making it a crime only for intoxicated women. All our statutes have to be
gender neutral in terms of intoxication and consent, although the cops and
prosecutors often pretend that it only applies to women. I always thought it
would be a great defense to some chick who's whining to the cops about how you
raped her because she was drunk and couldn't give consent to turn around press
those same charges against her. If I'm gonna sit in a cell for this bullshit,
sweetheart, so are you. Betcha she'd drop the complaint lickety-split.


Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 14, 2022, 4:02:06 PM (yesterday) May 14
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>We have an Equal Protection Clause in our Constitution which prohibits them
>making it a crime only for intoxicated women. All our statutes have to be
>gender neutral in terms of intoxication and consent, although the cops and
>prosecutors often pretend that it only applies to women. I always thought it
>would be a great defense to some chick who's whining to the cops about how you
>raped her because she was drunk and couldn't give consent to turn around press
>those same charges against her. If I'm gonna sit in a cell for this bullshit,
>sweetheart, so are you. Betcha she'd drop the complaint lickety-split.

That's not science anyway. Just because you're drunk doesn't mean you
cannot consent. Just because you drank enough to go into a blackout
doesn't mean you didn't consent during the blackout. It just means you
cannot remember the next morning. It's entirely possible that both the
man and woman had sex while both had drunk enough to have blacked out.

Hell, they've made entire movies about this phenomenon.

Blacked out doesn't mean unconscious. Clearly someone unconscious or
sleeping cannot consent.

I'm obliged to make the obvious joke about how Irish babies are conceived
but not-Irish Mike will object.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 15, 2022, 5:01:02 PM (20 hours ago) May 15
to
On Sat, 14 May 2022 12:15:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
To me that makes a lot more sense than in Canada where release of a
psychiatric patient is completely out of the hands of the court and in
the hands of the doctor.

One case we had had involved a guy who had murdered his two children
and attempted to murder his wife - and got a psychiatric order. 10
years later he tells his psychiatrist he wants to visit a certain town
for coffee and treats - and his doctor LETS him!

The point being that after this tragedy his ex has relocated from
where the crimes happened (and the murders and attempted murder WERE
crimes despite his sentence of "not criminally responsible") to a
different town 100+ miles away. Guess which town? Guess where he
wanted to be free to go? And under our system the ex wasn't entitled
to information about his release or location - fortunately saner heads
prevailed and the release order got quashed.

To me wanting to go to her new home town both shows planning and
malice and the very idea he could be in a position to be at large and
surprise her is criminally stupid - and I'm grateful to the judge who
overruled the doctor since it's clear any restraining order would be
immediately breached likely with tragic results. Asking to go their to
me shows both sanity and criminal intent and very much says a desire
to re-initiate contact.

At the very least these facts show reasonable doubt and in the case of
someone who had lost her children and had been on the receiving end of
attempted murder there's no way I'd give him the benefit of doubt.

How that doctor who allowed such a thing (which again was quashed when
it came to public attention) should be deemed to be offering effective
patient care is completely beyond me.

This is the original news story that doesn't cover the reversal of the
order: (By the way Merritt, BC is nearly 300 km from where the ex
lives now in one of the outer Vancouver suburbs)

cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/allan-schoenborn-granted-unescorted-leave-from-coquitlam-psychiatric-hospital-1.6382094#:~:text=In%20April%202008%2C%20Schoenborn%20smothered,from%20sexual%20and%20physical%20abuse.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 15, 2022, 5:07:22 PM (20 hours ago) May 15
to
Well let's face it about the ONLY way a woman can be convicted of rape
is as part of a conspiracy to rape another woman - and when there's a
conspiracy to commit an act any conspirator can be convicted of the
act.

I heard (sorry no cite) of another case where a woman was convicted of
rape for sodomizing her boyfriend's #2 with a broom handle. Not sure
why the charge was rape rather than aggravated assault or something of
that sort other than the fact that the assault was both against the
victim's anus and vagina.

There have been other cases where female teachers have seduced 13 and
14 year old teenage male students but the charges weren't rape.

But in any case, cases where a woman is charged with rape (rather than
some other offence) are exceedingly rare.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 15, 2022, 5:10:04 PM (20 hours ago) May 15
to
On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:02:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>I'm obliged to make the obvious joke about how Irish babies are conceived
>but not-Irish Mike will object.

I'd prefer you not either since my mother's parents were both born in
Belfast.....besides "Irish twins" have nothing at all to do with
abnormal sex - 9 months is obviously less than a year so one can
easily figure how you could bear two full term children (not twins) in
a single year. (January and November for instance)

BTR1701

unread,
12:38 AM (12 hours ago) 12:38 AM
to
Baloney. These 'rape by intoxication' laws have as their basis the idea that
no matter what a person *says* or how their body physically reacts, they can't
form meaningful consent, so rape has occurred. A woman could tackle a guy onto
the bed and shout "Give it to me!!" while unbuckling his pants and mounting
him, but if she's too intoxicated to form meaningful consent, he's raping
her.

Under that legal theory, a woman can rape an intoxicated man just as well as a
man can rape an intoxicated woman. It's the consent that's the key. Without
it, rape has occurred regardless of what the man says or whether his body
responds to her actions.


Adam H. Kerman

unread,
9:40 AM (3 hours ago) 9:40 AM
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 2022 at 2:07:16 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Sat, 14 May 2022 14:19:21 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>On May 14, 2022 at 11:15:24 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcr...@home.ca>:
I said much of this already in my other followup. Drinking enough to
become intoxicated, and being so very intoxicated that one is in a
blackout, isn't unconsciousness and doesn't mean she's not a willing
participant in sex. Hell, she might be the sexual aggressor.

But how her body physically reacts isn't be a legal consideration. Clearly
a woman can orgasm or show characteristics of arousal due to physical
contact or the perpetrator can forcibly masturbate the victim till
orgasm. That doesn't change a criminal act into a consensual act.

>Under that legal theory, a woman can rape an intoxicated man just as well as a
>man can rape an intoxicated woman. It's the consent that's the key. Without
>it, rape has occurred regardless of what the man says or whether his body
>responds to her actions.

Absolutely. That's why I disagree with what you wrote in the previous
paragraph about physical reaction of the body during arousal.

Rhino

unread,
9:49 AM (3 hours ago) 9:49 AM
to
On 2022-05-14 1:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 20:19:54 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't know about Canada but in the US there has to actually be a
>> medical diagnosis to support an insanity plea and even when it does, it
>> comes in to effect _after_ sentencing. So instead of a set prison term
>> the defendant is committed to a medical facility and every X number of
>> years the court revisits the case until the judge AND the medical doctor
>> agree they have been successfully treated. And it is extremely rarely
>> invoked.
>
> There is that in Canada too BUT I find it problematic since that
> substitutes a panal of doctors for a panel of judges as to when the
> accused is released from medical detention / treatment.
>
> The case that brought this to public attention was the guy in Manitoba
> who was riding an intercity bus and garroted then beheaded the guy in
> front of him then found 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity' -
> which is fine BUT the doctors agreed five years later to release him
> without supervision since he was taking his meds faithfully.
>
I also heard that he started EATING his victim. Mind you, I don't recall
him being charged with cannibalism but then that's probably not in the
Canadian criminal code anyway....

> From a legal perspective there is a public interest in the state
> ensuring he DOES continue to take his meds faithfully since such a
> person has already more than demonstrated what he is capable of when
> he doesn't - and in such a case with such a previous outcome I'd say
> the public hss an overwhelming right to insist on measures to ensure
> he either be locked up or wear a tracking device that will trigger if
> he does NOT go to a prespecified place to receive his meds on a
> defined schedule.
>
Agreed! There are precedents for people that stopped taking their
anti-schizophrenia drugs and then causing grievous harm.

> Because for DAMN sure sentencing - even in mental health matters -
> protection of the public is an interest that in my view trumps the
> liberty of the individual when there is very good reason to believe
> there MIGHT be an issue. At that point it's NOT "innocent till proven
> guilty" any more and if he's not willing to accept such a regimen he
> has no business in being at liberty.


--
Rhino
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages