Conquer Club

The Ontario Court of Appeals has ruled that persons accused of sexual assault can be acquitted if they were so drunk they didn't know what they were doing.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/06/04/ ... or-appeal/

saxitoxin wrote:The Ontario Court of Appeals has ruled that persons accused of sexual assault can be acquitted if they were so drunk they didn't know what they were doing.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/06/04/ ... or-appeal/

This is sad.

The “temporary insanity defense” is now available to anyone who wants to claim they had a beer.

If you can’t be held accountable for sexual assault when drunk... how can you be held accountable for driving while drunk?
It seems to me like they just basically legalized drunk-driving via court fiat.

It’s the proliferation of the “it’s not my fault” attitude of much of society as exemplified by our own What Me Worry.

“It’s my upbringing, I was disadvantaged from birth.”
“No one ever told me Rape was wrong!”
“The TV advertising MADE me drink too much.”
“I played Grand Theft Auto as a kid and it glamorized violence.”
etc.

I see us headed to a world where no one is ever held accountable or anything.

“My actions are predetermined by the will of God, so how is it my fault?”
or
“My actions are just responses to stimuli determined by chemicals and electrical impulses in my body. I have no ability to control these!”

Literally, your actions are just responses to stimuli determined by chemicals and electrical impulses in your body.

The effects of this decision are being overstated, however. It doesn't say that intoxication, in and of itself, is a defense. All it says is that extreme intoxication can be considered as a type of insanity. In order to use this as a defense, one would have to satisfy the entirety of an insanity defense.

To establish a claim of mental disorder the party raising the issue must show on a balance of probabilities first that the person who committed the act was suffering from a "disease of the mind", and second, that at the time of the offence they were either 1) unable to appreciate the "nature and quality" of the act, or 2) did not know it was "wrong".

It's a pretty high bar. Definitely not, "I just had a couple beers."

The two men at the centre of these cases both had mental illness independently of the drugs they took before committing their crimes. The first had a traumatic brain injury that frequently caused lapses of judgement and strange behaviour; taking a large dose of mushrooms was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The second was clinically depressed and was being treated with wellbutrin. He took the whole bottle of wellbutrin in a suicide attempt, and instead of dying he had a violent argument with his mother and (non-fatally) stabbed her. I don't think either of these guys would be considering an insanity defense if it was just the drugs.

First use of temporary insanity in USA

Dan Sickles Civil War Leader

Born to a wealthy family in New York City, Sickles was involved in a number of scandals, most notably the public slaying of his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key II, a U.S. Attorney and son of Francis Scott Key, whom Sickles gunned down in broad daylight in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House. He was acquitted after using temporary insanity as a legal defense for the first time in United States history. This became a defense associated with 'crimes of passion' (crime passionnel in French).

Dukasaur wrote:Literally, your actions are just responses to stimuli determined by chemicals and electrical impulses in your body.

The effects of this decision are being overstated, however. It doesn't say that intoxication, in and of itself, is a defense. All it says is that extreme intoxication can be considered as a type of insanity. In order to use this as a defense, one would have to satisfy the entirety of an insanity defense.

To establish a claim of mental disorder the party raising the issue must show on a balance of probabilities first that the person who committed the act was suffering from a "disease of the mind", and second, that at the time of the offence they were either 1) unable to appreciate the "nature and quality" of the act, or 2) did not know it was "wrong".

It's a pretty high bar. Definitely not, "I just had a couple beers."

The two men at the centre of these cases both had mental illness independently of the drugs they took before committing their crimes. The first had a traumatic brain injury that frequently caused lapses of judgement and strange behaviour; taking a large dose of mushrooms was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The second was clinically depressed and was being treated with wellbutrin. He took the whole bottle of wellbutrin in a suicide attempt, and instead of dying he had a violent argument with his mother and (non-fatally) stabbed her. I don't think either of these guys would be considering an insanity defense if it was just the drugs.

A person is a danger to society or he is not.

I don’t care if he’s a danger because he’s mentally ill, insane, drunk, drugged, or just an asshole.

If he’s a danger he should be removed from society till he’s mo longer a danger.

That is all.