The Canadian Guitar Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,742 Posts
Intoxication had never been accepted as defence in Quebec either.
Did it trigger psychosis ?

As you may know, the Quebec city Halloween killer trial is now closed and the jury will be secured for deliberation next week : The guy admitted the facts but his expert says he was in psychotic state. The guy had homicidal thoughts known for years, traveled 250 km (Montreal to Quebec city) and can say what he did like he had a devil on his left shoulder and an angel on the other side. Psychosis ? Really ? Which makes it more weird to me is that his expert used to work for the accusation in numerous cases !
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,235 Posts
I won the grade 6 music trophy and i am fairly sure I peaked there, maybe more of a plateau.

I can't spell to save my sole.... ;)
I have told this story here before, but in the regional championship, on overhead projectors, I wrote "kaos", my teacher was on hand to do corrections after each round and mumbled that I watched too much Get Smart.
 

·
Premium Member
'97 Strat Plus, 70's Northern Strat Copy
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I have told this story here before, but in the regional championship, on overhead projectors, I wrote "kaos", my teacher was on hand to do corrections after each round and mumbled that I watched too much Get Smart.
That might possibly be the single greatest thing I have ever heard!!

Thank you for sharing it again so this time, I could enjoy it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,235 Posts
The correct answer to your teacher was "Ahhhhh...sorry about that, chief."
Haha yup. I'm way too much of a nerd at 12, smart alec words never entered my mind. I was beet red embarrassed, tho I'm sure I was the only one who cared. The teacher was Miss Booth, older I assume spinster, wore this stacked not-quite-beehive wig that hat a slightly green tint to it. I could never understand why. Anyways, she may have suffered slight brain damage from the eye roll as she was giving me the 'bad news' about my spelling on that one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
145 Posts
It looks like in Canada you can get as intoxicated as you like and commit a crime and your intoxication is a valid defense.
In this case where a man gets intoxicated, breaks in to a home and beats a woman, breaking all the bones in her hands. Calgary court restores hi acquittal, which I guess must have been over turned at some point.
A couple of cases before the courts here in Ontario is going to be using this precedent, one of whom killed his father in an intoxicated state.
Scary where our court system is going.
One of the challenges has to do with “specific intent” vs “general intent” offences. The Crown is sometimes gambling by trying to go for the specific intent offence when intoxication is at play.
 

·
Registered
2016 Gibson Les Paul Special LTD.... 2019 Gibson Les Paul Traditional Tobacco
Joined
·
859 Posts
Badly worded law but dopey judges that decide to interpret it like this.
My son who suffers schizophrenia has been up on several charges, some violent. His cases have been remanded now for 2 years. For quite a while now they had him appear via video from a computer where ever he chose. Sometimes he'd show, sometimes he wouldn't. No consequences for not showing. Now for a while they've been able to come to court. He had a court date last week and was a no show. Absolutely no consequences. They just keep remanding. No bench warrant. He's been in trouble several times with no charges and they just keep letting him out even though he has no where to live. Its cute you think its not the courts. (No, not really cute).
Sorry to hear that @guitarman2. Everything in this country just barely functions. Welcome to the negative side of human progress.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
432 Posts
It looks like in Canada you can get as intoxicated as you like and commit a crime and your intoxication is a valid defense.
In this case where a man gets intoxicated, breaks in to a home and beats a woman, breaking all the bones in her hands. Calgary court restores hi acquittal, which I guess must have been over turned at some point.
A couple of cases before the courts here in Ontario is going to be using this precedent, one of whom killed his father in an intoxicated state.
Scary where our court system is going.
Thats not new.
I remember studying “intoxication defence” as form of “temporary insanity” 25 years ago. Based on DWI in Saskatchewan if I remember correctly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,369 Posts
Folks here, and I imagine a considerable number not here, have misinterpreted/overinterpreted the ruling. Deliberate self-induced intoxication is still not considered to be a non compos mentis defense. As I understand it, in none of the 3 cases that the appeal was based on, was alcohol involved, or indeed any other substance the individual ingested/self-administered increasingly larger amounts of. The rationale of the appeal was that there can be some instances where an individual is rendered non compos mentis by a drug whose dosage was uncalibrated, whose effects were unpredicted or unknown, and completely interfered with the individual's judgment. The law, as it existed before the ruling was that a non compos mentis defense could only be used if there was unambiguous evidence of inability to assess right and wrong, or the consequences of one's actions, due to compromised mental state. Drug-induced states were not to be considered part of that defence. The argument presented by the appelant, and accepted by the court, was that this is to be differentiated within the law from someone who gets deliberately and progressively more wasted and then commits a felony of some kind with intent. In one of the 3 cases, the defendant had taken "magic mushroom" at a party (and I wouldn't waste my breath asking the guy if he knew how much he had taken), and was wandering around the streets naked, in the middle of winter, before entering a home and attacking the woman there. Was he in any state to know he was committing a crime? No. Could he have known in advance that his indulgence at the party would have turned him into that sort of idiot? No.

If someone goes to a party, gets progressively more drunk as the night goes on, snuggles up beside some sweet young thing sleeping off her own binge, and then undoes both their pants and starts to take advantage of that,he's still on the hook for sexual assault and cannot use "But I was drunk, your honor" as a defence. The distinction upheld by the court is between causes/degrees of intoxication that can make it functionally equivalent to non compos mentis, and those causes/degrees which do not. There is no free-for-all in the works. The original changes to the criminal code were intended to prevent any free-for-all, but as the successful appeal indicated (and persuaded) there can be circumstances, and drug states, where the individual/perp is quite literally out of their mind, and should be treated as not criminally responsible.

Having said that, I can't see this as case-closed, and expect there to be future cases wherethe defense tries o make the case that non compos mentis applies but the prosecution and court argue it doesn't in this instance for this and that reason. The law wasn't designed to differentiate between different sorts of drugs and drug states with surgical precision. It's something that will be worked out along the way.
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top