|
bub spank posted:It's been a defence for the past 25 years and it didn't lead to anything of the sort. The recent case just confirms a longstanding precedent. No it hasn't. S.33.1 was imposed after Daviault and eliminated voluntary intoxication as a defence for general intent personal injury offences. This case is a superior court judge in Ontario finding that unconstitutional. Which it's not. Edit: reading the decision, apparently she's relying on prior oncj decisions declaring s.33.1 unconstitutional. Which is definitely not the state of the law in other provinces / territories. Why the ON AG would not have appealed that in those other, cases, or in this one, is unclear. terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Sep 3, 2018 |
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:No it hasn't. S.33.1 was imposed after Daviault and eliminated voluntary intoxication as a defence for general intent offences. This case is a superior court judge in Ontario finding that unconstitutional. Which it's not. I was going to edit my post on this point to provide some more nuance since I realized I didn't get across what I was trying to say, but since you've responded, I may as well just do it by way of reply. S. 33.1 has been found to be unconstitutional numerous times in the past, including by superior court judges in Ontario. It's also been found to be constitutional numerous times in the past, mostly by superior court judges in British Columbia. This new case doesn't change anything in Ontario, as s. 33.1's applicability there is dubious. The main point of interest in this case is whether it'll be appealed to a Court that can provide clarification on the state of the law. In short, s. 33.1 hasn't stopped lawyers from raising Daviault as a defence, and that defence has been successful on a number of occasions since the introduction of s. 33.1. However, the overall number of cases where Daviault could form a legitimate defence are so negligible as to be almost meaningless. e: Your edit captured what I was trying to get at. bub spank fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Sep 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
If you don't have a mind you can't have a guilty mind. If you deliberately shut your own mind off for a while, you should be held responsible for what you do while you're in the state you put yourself in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
What is a mind anyway? Science can’t provide the answer but lawyers seem to have it figured out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If we don't want people to get so drunk that they can't form intent with regards to their actions, we could just make that itself illegal. Just like there is a legal limit fo BAC if you want to drive, there could be a separate, higher limit for all times and places. Sure, get drunk, but if you can't control yourself, you are a danger to others. I actually think if we're going to accept that being drunk absolves you because you lack mens rea, then I think we should introduce an amendment to the non-criminally responsible section of the Code to cover drunkeness. If you're getting so drunk you can't control your body, then maybe you should be treated like an NCR and sent off to an institution until the doctors decide you're able to function in society. Let's make taking Antabuse part of the conditions of your release too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Reince Penis posted:I actually think if we're going to accept that being drunk absolves you because you lack mens rea, then I think we should introduce an amendment to the non-criminally responsible section of the Code to cover drunkeness. What if I get so drunk that my decision to keep drinking lacks mens rea? Nice try.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Yeah guys let's criminalize alcoholism that's the solution to our rape problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah guys let's criminalize alcoholism that's the solution to our rape problem. Eh nm terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Sep 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah guys let's criminalize alcoholism that's the solution to our rape problem. If you are getting so drunk you dont have the resolve not to assault or sexually assault people, then yes you shouldn't be allowed to drink
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
zapplez posted:If you are getting so drunk you dont have the resolve not to assault or sexually assault people, then yes you shouldn't be allowed to drink As someone who used to drink a whole hell of a lot, I can agree this is 100% correct. It's not some amazing feat of willpower to avoid committing serious crimes even when you're really, really drunk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The article says the perpetrator consumed a date rape drug before the crime?? It does not elaborate. If he consumed it on purpose himself, that's obviously very different than if he was given it secretly. If someone snuck it into his drink, I think that should be a valid defense and he is probably not guilty. If he just took a date rape drug for fun*, then he is absolutely responsible for the poo poo he does on that drug, whether it's rape or DUI... Which makes me wonder - do we have a charter right to use excessive intoxication as a defense against DUI charges? GHB is a party drug that is often used as a date rape drug because it is a very potent liquid that can easily be added to someone's drink without them noticing. GHB has pretty similar effects to alcohol and when taken with alcohol can act synergistically (i.e. the two together mess you up more than either one on their own). Because it's so potent and has similar effects to alcohol, it's pretty easy to incapacitate someone without them noticing they've been drugged. In articles GHB is often referred to as a date rape drug but it's also used recreationally. I would guess that the defendant in this case took it recreationally and was not drugged as if he were drugged that would significantly change the tenor of the case and would be a good addition to the defense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah guys let's criminalize alcoholism that's the solution to our rape problem. I don't believe my idea criminalizes alcoholism any more than drunk driving criminalizes alcoholism. Anyways, it's just an idea that expands on how we treat other NCR people through the justice system. As far as I know no major party is suggesting anything of the sort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Oh man I miss the days when people were just arguing that there's no way to quantify impairment (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
zapplez posted:If you are getting so drunk you dont have the resolve not to assault or sexually assault people, then yes you shouldn't be allowed to drink My point is that all the people saying "well then let's ban being drunk altogether" are way overshooting the mark. Drunkenness to the point of not being able to have the intent to commit crime is a hell of a defence for any lawyer to prove, because I feel like the judicial grey area where you're so drunk you can't intend to commit crime but still sober enough to have the capacity to commit crime in the first place is not going to end up being very large even if this decision does survive appeal. On the other hand, responses like Jimbozig posted:If we don't want people to get so drunk that they can't form intent with regards to their actions, we could just make that itself illegal. Just like there is a legal limit fo BAC if you want to drive, there could be a separate, higher limit for all times and places. Sure, get drunk, but if you can't control yourself, you are a danger to others. and Reince Penis posted:I actually think if we're going to accept that being drunk absolves you because you lack mens rea, then I think we should introduce an amendment to the non-criminally responsible section of the Code to cover drunkeness. are going to do significantly more to criminalize addiction (which by the way is something this thread is usually really against when it comes to drugs) than they are to give us more ways to convict people for rape or assault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
I think you're missing the point. It's not about finding ways to convict people so much as it is determining a process for the legal system to deal with this problem. A finding of 'not criminally responsible' is not a conviction. It's a way of saying 'this person does not fit within the criminal justice paradigm, but still have to do something because releasing them back into society is not consistent with the goals of the criminal justice system (ie a safe and peaceful country).'
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Reince Penis posted:I think you're missing the point. It's not about finding ways to convict people so much as it is determining a process for the legal system to deal with this problem. Yeah I know. My point is that your dragnet solution to the existence of a very small population of "people who get blackout drunk, rape someone, and are then found not guilty at trial because they were so drunk" is going to catch a very large population of alcoholics who have committed no crimes other than being an addict. Whether you throw them in prison or compulsory rehab, either way you're essentially criminalizing a health problem. And of course as I'm writing this, I realize that what you were saying in your post was specifically addressing the issue of being found NCR by reason of drunkenness, not drunkenness itself like Jimbozig's post, so just ignore me and pretend this was all a response to Jimbozig's idea of criminalizing drunkenness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Yeah the problem iirc is that if you get acquitted by daviault drunkenness it's exactly that - an acquittal based on non insane automatism. You just walk free and theoretically could do it again the next day It'd probably be better if an offender was declared NCR and landed in front of the review board if they could establish being drunk to that point while committing an offence, rather than being an outright acquittal. That having been said I don't think 33.1 is unjust or leads to unjust results and don't think it should be unconstitutional. I wonder how the Ontario crown appeals a declaratory judgment that 33.1 is of no force and effect by way of previous judgments that they did not (and now cannot) appeal. Maybe just appeal anyways and ask the appeals court to entertain the appeal anyways
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
This thread is going to be chaos in October since I cant imagine many courts are actually prepared for legal weed being added to the mix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Dinosaurtrain posted:Oh man I miss the days when people were just arguing that there's no way to quantify impairment I miss the days when you were still too scared to get caught evading your permaban so you weren't posting like a huge rear end in a top hat 24/7 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Booourns posted:I miss the days when you were still too scared to get caught evading your permaban so you weren't posting like a huge rear end in a top hat 24/7 Wow that's a swell custom title you have there. How did you come to obtain such a curious thing, I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
PT6A: We must call out racism wherever we see it. By the way this is literally my only plan for making the world a better place. Also PT6A: wow, I love this poster whose defining trait is constantly dropping racist, trans-phobic and misogynistic slurs to ironically 'trigger' people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
And for the record that's a complaint about PT6A. If CI wants to let us watch his brain melt in real time over the Vancouver property market I'm all for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Even though I cannot vote in Quebec Elections I was at a Quebec Solidaire event in Gatineau. There are separatists among them but the topics tonight were progressive policies. Ended with a nice old lady doing surprisingly good poetry slam about eating the rich or something 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/80sdougford/status/1035612966547345408?s=21
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
ban all drugs
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:ban all dougs
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Weed impairment is going to be a shitshow because a) The test is bullshit: it will red flag you for ng levels even if you haven't smoked in as long as a few weeks, which means if you need medical cannabis for any reason you basically can't drive again. It also requires a sample so it's probably not constitutional either but I'm less familiar with that issue. b) The police administering it (mostly RCMP, Surete, OPP etc) are dumb loving assholes that don't understand cannabis law, don't care to learn, and routinely violate their own guidelines. So they're going to gently caress up due process and
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Alternatively, you’re endangering us all from a bigger threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Evis posted:Alternatively, you’re endangering us all from a bigger threat. It's awful that starting October 17th people will, for the first time, drive while high in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
I don’t see how that relates to what I said
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:It's awful that starting October 17th people will, for the first time, drive while high in Canada. p hosed up that white guys might be arrested for driving high tbh, seems contrary to the whole reason we have these laws
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Evis posted:I don’t see how that relates to what I said the point is without context you could mean anything, even hilarious things like what Pintrest said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Bruh I am right there with you, the more complex and stupid the regulations the more consulting work I get 
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Bruh I am right there with you, the more complex and stupid the regulations the more consulting work I get Let me know when youre hired to work with the Ford government, Ill buy you the strongest booze I can find to help numb the pain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Let me know when youre hired to work with the Ford government, Ill buy you the strongest booze I can find to help numb the pain. Oh I work with Ontario businesses all the time, and yes it's just LOVELY. The uncertainty and sudden change of track out there means it's a total wild west crapshoot. Lots of big international conglomerates are taking a run at both the production and retail sides of things because Wynne and Tory did such a bang-up job destroying any of the types of local businesses that are currently launching smaller start-ups out West. Everyone shut down their Ontario operations thinking there would be no market for them to participate in, and now suddenly they need to develop a business plan in two weeks or risk losing all leasing opportunities to some international tobacco and cluster munition conglomerate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
As someone more knowledgeable about the law than literally anyone in this thread once said, "no one has the right to a particular verdict, but only to a fair trial on the evidence." If you keep pushing for the opposite to be true, don't be surprised when you get called out for being horribly uninformed.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 02:35
|
|