You can get away with murder in Canada if you're high/drunk enough

[tvstrip]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8832723/supreme-court-canada-extreme-intoxication/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...reme-court-intoxication-violent-crime-defense
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/13/canada-supreme-court-extreme-intoxication/
(Take your pick - it's getting coverage in every country)

THREE criminal cases were decided this week in Canada which acquitted offenders who where literally high out of their mind on magic mushrooms.

Until this week, Canadian criminal law had a section that said that if you voluntarily got yourself so wasted out of your mind ("extreme intoxication"), that you didn't know what you were doing, that is NOT a defense in a crime. Which you'd think is common sense. This law was in response to who a guy was successfully acquitted of raping a 65-year old woman in a wheelchair while he was drunk. Yeah, it was such a fucked up case that the law was literally passed overnight so no one else could use that defense.

But last Friday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that provision was invalid, i.e. extreme intoxication IS A DEFENSE for violent crimes, even assault or murder.

The cases involved a guy who broke into two houses and assaulted the people inside, to a guy who murdered his father, claiming "I am God". And now all three of these fucknuts are acquitted, along with the next group of idiots who are going to be using this defense.

Basically, you just have to prove that you were so wasted out of your mind that you are basically an "automaton", that you literally don't know what you're doing - even though you can walk, talk, break into a house & kill people. I can't express how fucked up this is. And the fact that it was a unanimous decision. Maybe the judges were also high on shrooms when they rendered the judgement.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Damn! In the United States, they hit you harder for that kind of shit. Which they should. You wanna get blasted, have at it. Get a ride, or stay over, but don't drive when your fucked up. I've never done mushrooms before, but I know they make you to stupid to drive...and probably run shop equipment. I'm surprised Canada would be that accepting of such a thing, in light of the fact that a person has total control, over whether or not they get that way. I guess if someone dosed you, and it was proven you didn't self medicate, but then the other guy would be on the hook, so justice could be served. You are right, that's just fucked up.

 

[Johan]

You're drawing conclusion based on THREE criminal cases ?

Anyways people committing crimes under heavy intoxication don't belong in jail. Putting them behind bars won't solve their issue. They belong in rehab. They need to be forced to go on rehab, then if rehab fails or if they don't do what they need to for rehab to succeed, then put them behind bars.

 

[tvstrip]

You're drawing conclusion based on THREE criminal cases ?

Anyways people committing crimes under heavy intoxication don't belong in jail. Putting them behind bars won't solve their issue. They belong in rehab. They need to be forced to go on rehab, then if rehab fails or if they don't do what they need to for rehab to succeed, then put them behind bars.

They're Three criminal cases that were judged by the Supreme Court of Canada. All at once. For murders, B&E and Assaults. It literally doesn't get bigger than that.

I know France's Civil Law system is a little different, but Canada & the US use the Common Law System, meaning jurisprudence sets the precedent on how the law is interpreted. Meaning, any fucknut who can prove they were wasted out of their mind can now use the same legal defense as these 3 to get acquitted. Because the law that prevented extreme intoxication has now been deemed unconstitutional.

Rehab isn't the cure. Look these guys - 2 of the three didn't have a history of drugs or mental health issues:
One consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms at a house party, broke into 2 houses and assaulted the occupants, permanently injuring one
One consumed magic mushrooms, broke into his father's home and killed him, then stabbed his father's partner.

The last guy took antidepressants, supposedly trying to commit suicide, then then stabbed his mother who he thought was an alien. This guy did have a history of mental illness and substance abuse.

Again, let's not forget the last guy who successfully used this defense, which resulted in the law being passed in the first place - they guy who got so drunk he raped a 65-year old woman in a wheelchair, and got away with it.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I doubt the intention of the Supreme Court was for people to get away with things...their intention was obviously not punish users who do bad things once...intent is what matters so it's the same as being not criminally responsible like the insane defence...bottom line is they want to punish repeat offenders not the one time offenders.

 

[tvstrip]

I doubt the intention of the Supreme Court was for people to get away with things...their intention was obviously not punish users who do bad things once...intent is what matters so it's the same as being not criminally responsible like the insane defence...bottom line is they want to punish repeat offenders not the one time offenders.

I hear you, but murder & serious assault causing permanent damage are things I don't see as "2nd chance offences". The key for me is that they fully intended to take the drugs knowing the effects it would have, and in fact willingly used those illegal drugs specifically for their effect. As the prosecution pointed out, the law was there to deter people from getting that intoxicated in the first place. There needs to be some accountability for your actions while you get voluntarily high/drunk.

And unlike an insanity defense, where you would be confined to an asylum, these guys get to go totally free. The worst that they're going to get are the minor offences like damage to property etc, which don't require mens rea. It's a fine at most.

Another way we look at it: We hold drunk drivers who kill people accountable. They had no intention of killing someone, but they voluntarily got intoxicated to the point where their actions resulted in someone's death. Why should this be different?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

It's the presidents it sets, for future cases. It makes it harder on the law, to put someone away, that really should be put away.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I hear you, but murder & serious assault causing permanent damage are things I don't see as "2nd chance offences". The key for me is that they fully intended to take the drugs knowing the effects it would have, and in fact willingly used those illegal drugs specifically for their effect. As the prosecution pointed out, the law was there to deter people from getting that intoxicated in the first place. There needs to be some accountability for your actions while you get voluntarily high/drunk.

And unlike an insanity defense, where you would be confined to an asylum, these guys get to go totally free. The worst that they're going to get are the minor offences like damage to property etc, which don't require mens rea. It's a fine at most.

Another way we look at it: We hold drunk drivers who kill people accountable. They had no intention of killing someone, but they voluntarily got intoxicated to the point where their actions resulted in someone's death. Why should this be different?

The point the Supreme Court made was that the consumption of drugs is not illegal and the effects those drugs cause is not illegal, therefore it is unjust to punish someone for the effects the drugs have on people - it would be different if it were illegal to consume drugs...but it isn't.

Also, the murderous effect is not foreseeable, making it more like an accident, albeit an horrific accident.

Assuming these people would never have committed these crimes if not for the drugs, and also that these people have consumed these drugs before without the effect of committing crimes, to punish them more would have no preventative or rehabilitative benefit.

Canada being a country that values rehabilitation over punishment, is choosing to not punish just got the sake of punishing...this all assuming that these people would never commit the crimes again...whether they do commit the same type of crime again will be another issue for another day according to the Supreme Court at least they will not try to predict the future not should they.