Should "self-induced extreme intoxication" be a valid defence for murder or sexual assault?

[@tracer0017]

This is even a question? And the fact they said yes is worrying. When will our court system protect Canadians

[@stoptrudeau42]

The court system is working against us. Corruption

[@Jordan-pf9ws]

No it's not complex at all. If "you choose" to put yourself in that state you are 100% for anything you do.

[@christopherrichardwadedett4100]

Is that a rational argument, a valid hypothetical statement, an opinion, or just a meaningless utterance?

[@OneManJam]

@@christopherrichardwadedett4100 omg!!! Let's hear you spew your drivel when you or one of your loved ones becomes a victim to these extremely intoxicated psychopaths.

[@lewlater8777]

Exactly

[@trich4646]

I'm gonna drink a ton next time trudeau comes to town and see what happens.

[@892303001]

for real, why is that even a question. YOU made the choice to get extremely intoxicated, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. This question just shows how far society has fallen

[@Jordan-pf9ws]

NO!

[@jamesl9371]

No absolutely not. Drunkenness or ignorance is absolutely not an excuse for any crime

[@kcuhc84]

The Twilight zone is calling to ask if they can use this as a story idea.

[@yoshiburloni]

It should NOT. self-induced extreme intoxication is 1- self-induced and 2- voluntary

[@a1i3n]

Why should this even be questioned. You are asking if the victims should be further vitimized while we provide all kinds of services to protect and save those who are mentally ill and addicted.

[@1stblackpm]

Should "People Experience Things Differently" Be A Valid Defence Like Turdeau Used?

[@patchbro]

Perfect defence for a DUI.

[@nastyvinylcunter1366]

Only in Trudeau's Canada

[@uh8myzen]

Despite it being a unanimous decision, its hard to blame Trudeau when the Supreme Court is majority conservative appointees. Five of the nine judges on the current court were appointed by Stephen Harper.

[@nastyvinylcunter1366]

@@uh8myzen yeah it's Harper's fault for their decision.

[@gummybearsonstrike147]

.... .... .... .... no..... ..... ....

[@LostInChinada]

🤦🏻‍♀️ Year 2022, we are tying to figure this out?! Dear lord!

[@user9b2]

Of course not! Did the person who chaired this bill did exactly that and is trying to create a loophole for himself … or maybe a family member?

[@Fuzzy-_-Logic]

I suspect it will be a defense for a medicated teacher who forgot her own child in the back of her car.

[@rosesrambler]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

[@Shade7x]

This is like the insanity defense 2.0 Do something really crazy, and say you did it because you were crazy. Foolproof.

[@frenkli9815]

First TTC blaming the victim now this? I am feeling bad for where Canada is going. Even victims of violence are not safe.

[@qibriti3220]

The only reason that defense was allowed was because the current law was too general and poorly written. This is the fault of the government for not making proper laws in the first place and the new law should be better. Lawmakers are squarely to blame. No one thinks this should be allowed as a defense but you have to explicitly write that into the law.

[@Ont785]

Yes, it’s the liberals fault. Fully agree

[@uh8myzen]

Yup. At least the Liberals just passed a bill to close this defense, but I worry about the speed at which it was written and passed, and apparently the Senate has concerns as well. The defense needs to be closed, but it doesn't mean squat if it ends up being another law that will be overturned because it was run through without proper consideration.

[@sandrahamill7196]

when abusers are in power of course you should let other abusers hurt folks,,

[@brendabrinkmanpasichnyk3500]

No

[@lewlater8777]

No.

[@christopherrichardwadedett4100]

The juridical concept requires rational elucidation outside the Canadian Darwinian and Marxian schools.

[@christopherrichardwadedett4100]

Canadian Darwinian and Marxian traditions are the political and economic handmaids of Maoism and Oriental despotism on the world stage.

[@Madmartigan6]

Tell us you have a liberal arts degree without telling us you have a liberal arts degree.

[@uh8myzen]

Yeah, there is no doubt that the well renowned Marxist Stephen Harper sought out five justices with Marxist sympathies to appoint to the Supreme Court.

[@john5444]

no.

[@Trish150655]

Anything that you do willingly that may affect others negatively is 100% on you. Why does it seem like responsible ppl keep getting the short end of the stick & criminals are getting more & more benefits? In Canada, can’t have guns, criminals can tho. Commit a nasty crime, you’re let right back out on the streets over & over.

[@pasqualinamichelaconsiglio9391]

Akin to automatism.

[@jamest6712]

Obviously not.

[@whiskeytango9769]

The issue as I see it is intent. Can a person form a conscious intent to commit an action? How does intoxication affect a person's ability to form that intent? Should it matter if that intoxication was self-induced or not? These are the questions to be answered.

[@DavidtheNorseman]

It's no different then my speeding extremely down the 401 then claiming it wasn't my fault when I cause multiple deaths. I chose to speed excessively. Any results of that are my responsibility. The intent is clear in the intoxication situation. It was to become in a state of intoxication whereby any following actions are my responsibility.

[@whiskeytango9769]

@@DavidtheNorseman Yes, that's why it's complex. There are many implications to actions taken while intoxicated and if that should allowed to reduce, legally, the person's ability to form an intent to actions taken subsequently.

[@Shade7x]

"Should it matter if that intoxication was self-induced or not?" I would say yes. If someone drugs you and you do something crazy, it seems unfair to punish you. On the flip side, if someone wanted to do something bad, what's to stop them from getting really intoxicated first so they have a legal defense for whatever they do under the influence?

[@Ont785]

If you put yourself into that situation, you know that prior to doing the drugs or the alcohol. Therefore, it is your responsibility. It’s like drinking while you’re driving, you know that eventually you were going to be over .08; that’s why it is your fault. You’re arguing that want to gets too high, then you’re no longer responsible? That doesn’t make any sense

[@takeiteasyeh]

....

[@SulfuricDonut]

It doesn't sound like a high standard at all. There's no mention of what scientific evidence is needed, and expert testimony is easy to come by for anything which is a subjective experience (look at the famous Amber Heard case with experts on both sides saying opposite things). Either there is a defined scientific test result that has to be taken the moment the crime occurred, or we are leaving it up to the accused to say whether or not they were intoxicated enough. If it's the first case, did the previous 3 acquittals have such laboratory evidence on hand? If they didn't then we're clearly relying on the second case. If it's the second case, then any good lawyer could tell their client exactly what they need to say to meet all the subjective requirements of the defense.

[@lewlater8777]

Just no. It’s always your fault no matter how intoxicated you are. Period.