Jump to content

Top court in Canada just proved it's total incompetence and the need to abolish it.


Recommended Posts

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes (msn.com)

This reprehensible ruling just sent a message to society that if you get drunk enough you can commit serious crime and get away with it.  This needs an immediate response from government.  Since there is no higher court in the land to appeal to, action must be taken by government to protect innocent Canadians from the consequences of this ruling.  I have believed for a long time that rulings from the SCC are sometimes very immoral but this tops them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes (msn.com)

This reprehensible ruling just sent a message to society that if you get drunk enough you can commit serious crime and get away with it.  This needs an immediate response from government.  Since there is no higher court in the land to appeal to, action must be taken by government to protect innocent Canadians from the consequences of this ruling.  I have believed for a long time that rulings from the SCC are sometimes very immoral but this tops them all.

So, being drunk is an excuse now? 

So, just report every drunk, driving or not, because they could be a potential danger.

I guess that helps all the indigenous in jail for spousal abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I expect the Red Dawn/Storms-a-comin' crowd to freak out about over-reach but this is simply legal evolution at work. There'll have to be new legislation at the very least.

Sounds like this will eventually put some responsibility on people who supply and sell alcohol to limit sales to curb over-consumption in the way servers are compelled to cut off patrons when they get overly intoxicated.

There's grounds I believe for room to make the case for product safety consideration with alcohol. In my region alcohol sales to bootleggers at liquor stores is a real issue that is contributing to over intoxication and violence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or judges need to think of their future work too. Try to prove that he wasn't in the "automata" state when that's all he remembers he was, how many more questions and deliberations. We just can't break out of this chain where each outrageous piece of an outrageous system competes with all others for the prize of creating some new brilliant outrage. Because they can.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes (msn.com)

This reprehensible ruling just sent a message to society that if you get drunk enough you can commit serious crime and get away with it.  

If one's drunkenness prevents them from knowing that it's wrong to beat someone up, and that's a solid legal defence, then can't that excuse also be used for drinking and driving?

"A guy spilled his beer on me so I demolished him, but it was just the alcohol that's to blame." 

"I really needed to get more beer, and I was so wasted that I didn't think about how dangerous it was for me to drive through my neighbour's back yard. Sorry bro. I mean, your honour."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre, outlandish decision. Sometimes living here it feels like our whole sanity is being tested.

1. He thought it's cool to beat somebody to half-death.

2. He thought it's cool .. and drunk himself to the gills first to use the automata defense. At least, have a go at it, can't lose.

Which one is better, just guess. What's wrong with us?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Faramir said:

we have bigger fish to fry.

If we cannot get to common sense on a next to most obvious issue, how can we hope, can we? Every drunk assault or driving spree will now call this defense by default why wouldn't they can't lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The fact that the Supreme Court would unanimously make such a ruling is beyond any rational person's understanding.  The ruling leaves the door open to anyone charged with a crime to claim they were very drunk or severely intoxicated by drugs or a combination of both makes a mockery of justice.  It leaves the door open to very smooth-speaking lawyers and wavering judges who actually believe the nonsense.  It will likely increase the number of not-criminally-responsible findings (NCR) meaning more victims and their relatives will not find justice in our legal system.  It creates a large loophole in the system which leaves the government and Parliament in the position of trying to craft a new law to at least partially close the loophole.  But since the Supreme Court made this ruling, the pandora's box is opened and judges now will more likely be required to make more rulings of NCR based on intoxication and criminals will get off more often. 

This is a direct result of our 1982 Charter of Rights and a supreme court system that is packed with judges who almost always now interpret the Charter in a bizarre way that gives extreme rights to the accused or individual at the expense of the victims and society.   

We saw the Supreme Court take a similar position on the Omar Kadhr case.   "The Globe and Mail reports that, "Omar Khadr is not coming home yet – but the Supreme Court of Canada has moved his repatriation considerably closer." CANADA VIOLATED KHADR'S CHARTER RIGHTS "In an 9-0 ruling this morning...."

Supreme Court rules Canada violated Omar Khadr's charter rights | The Council of Canadians

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's system of government has been based from the early days on patent, total and blatant irresponsibility of authorities, of any kind in any matter. This is doom. There's no good exit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, myata said:

Canada's system of government has been based from the early days on patent, total and blatant irresponsibility of authorities, of any kind in any matter. This is doom. There's no good exit.

And who are those "authorities"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the court has simply ruled that Section 331 of the Criminal Code is too broad

the law was passed by the Liberals in the 90's

the court is saying that they wrote the law in a way that does not pass muster

 the defence of extreme intoxication cannot be ruled out entirely, that's unconstitutional

so the fault lies with the politicians,  and their proclivity to write overly broad draconian laws

Section 331 states that you cannot invoke this defence

the court is saying that the government cannot decide what defence you may invoke

it is up to the jury to decide if your defence is valid or not, on a case by case basis

the government may not write laws which override your right to this due process & fair trial

you would still have to prove this extremely difficult case to a jury

the court is only ruling that the government cannot deny you the right to try to prove your case

in some rare cases a jury may accept your proof,

the government cannot interfere with that process, that is what a trial is for

the government cannot decide the case for the jury by ruling out a defence by legislation

is all the court is saying

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Faramir said:

I dunno seems like we have bigger fish to fry.  Like our rights to firearms and free speech.

no, this is a fundamentally important legal concept

the government may not preemptively rule out defences by passing laws against the defence itself

that is the government acting as the jury

if the government can do that, they can rule out any defence preemptively

there is a firearms rights component to this ruling,

for example the government could pass a law stating that self defence was not a valid defence

there would be no end to the defences which the government could negate at a whim

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada has only had the Charter since 1982

the wheels of justice grind slowly

in order to rule something unconstitutional, a specific case has to be brought before the SCOCAN 

the government had passed a law ruling out a defence, that the jury in this case accepted

now that case has made it all the way to the constitutional level

the issue is separation of powers

the government cannot act as jury

the jury is independent of the government, the jury decides what is a valid defence or not

this is an ongoing process, this is how constitutional law works

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a system that long past being able to distinguish common sense from sheer nonsense we will be screwed either way and all ways; either the government, or the courts or both but there's only one payer for all the happy departments, sections etc that can screw up. We will be screwed.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter who writes the law even Socrates himself it is not physically possible to distinguish reliably and confidently non-automata drunk beating from automata beating from deliberately drunk non automata looking like automata and so on. So this will be another endless bottomless quagmire working happily for everybody involved. Except common sense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RedDog said:

Yet again, this never ending farce is really 4 or 5 distinct countries pretending to be 1.

 the only Confederation of the British Empire

cobbled together in 1867 on an emergency basis in the face of an expected American invasion

the Confederacy that won the war against them Yankees,  and lived to tell the tale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RedDog said:

The Maple Leaf is the Liberal Party logo flag of 1965.

Canada’s flag is the Red Ensign.

The Maple Leaf Forever is the anthem of the Red Ensign

written by Alexander Muir in 1867 to celebrate Confederation

the Liberal Party of Canada flag didn't come until 28 January 1965

the Liberal Party of Canada song was only adopted as of 1 July 1980

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a simple objective fact: it's not possible to distinguish, objectively intoxicated assault in automata mode; from intoxicated assault where accused knows what they are doing; unless they admit it. Just impossible period. You'd need a mind reading at the time of the act, no less. Jury won't help one bit because it's not objectively possible; guessing game, who you believe game or lawyer performance game but no closer to objective determination of truth; even more so, beyond reasonable doubt.

And once again, a clear obvious problem we have no clue how to deal with. We can double pay to MPs and judges and still no closer. So why not just forget about it and pretend it doesn't exist. That someone knows what they are doing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RedDog said:

You’re tap dancing around meaningless blather. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and numerous other fabricated “countries” no longer exist.

I didn't say the provinces couldn't cede from Confederation

it's entirely constitutional

if Quebec can leave, any and all provinces can

I don't think Alberta has anywhere near the votes required at this juncture tho

otherwise, I'm just talking Canadian history and spinning some Canadian music

while enjoying some cold beers in the sunshine on the patio

summer is finally here

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court just created a new, huge loophole for criminals to get off.  As Myata says, who is to say when an intoxicated person is criminally responsible or not criminally responsible for his assault, murder, rape, etc.?   It is purely subjective or a matter of opinion.  Whatever lawyer can make the most convincing argument wins.  The crime itself is not relevant in this new loophole.  The only question for guilt or innocence is whether the accused was acting as an "automon" or not.  This is a new loophole created by the SCC which believes a so-called Charter Right overrides all common sense and criminality.  Since it is impossible to prove what someone was thinking before, during the crime when he was intoxicated, the ruling essentially provides an easy out for those lawyers that can make the claim convincing enough that he was acting as an automon.  A bizarre ruling because where is the justice for the crime?  I don't really see how intoxication can be considered as an excuse for crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...