Suspects can use extreme intoxication as defense, Canadian court says

  • 📰 washingtonpost
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 89 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 39%
  • Publisher: 72%

United States Headlines News

United States Latest News,United States Headlines

The highly anticipated decision concerned three separate cases in which men consumed drugs and then committed violent offenses.

TORONTO — Canada’s Supreme Court ruled

The highly anticipated decision concerned three separate cases in which men had consumed drugs and then committed violent offenses. In one, a man ingested magic mushrooms and then, proclaiming to be doing God’s will, broke into his father’s home, stabbed him to death and grievously wounded his father’s partner.

“It contravenes virtually all the criminal law principles that the law relies upon to protect the morally innocent,” Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote for the court. “It enables conviction where the accused acted involuntarily, where the accused did not possess the minimum level of fault required, and where the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offense.”long divided lower courts and the Canadian public.

The Alberta case involved Matthew Winston Brown, who had several mixed drinks, a few beers and some magic mushrooms at a party. He broke into two homes and assaulted the occupant of one. An Alberta trial court found the law unconstitutional andOne Ontario case was that of Thomas Chan, the man who consumed magic mushrooms before killing his father. In the other, David Sullivan tried to commit suicide by ingesting as many as 80 Wellbutrin tablets. He spoke of aliens, then stabbed his mother.

David Lametti, Canada’s justice minister, said in a statement that the government is reviewing the decision “to determine its effect on victims as well as the criminal law” and that the ruling would not apply “to the vast majority of cases involving a person who commits a criminal offense while intoxicated.”The Supreme Court said that “drunkenness, absent clear scientific evidence of automatism, is not a defense to general intent crimes, including crimes of violence such as sexual assault.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

Well that's fucked.

God does protect drunks and babies

Evo Morales would approve of that. Evonarcotraficante, EvoViolador, evoAsesino.

finally some good court news. too late for me though, probably.

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 95. in US

United States Latest News, United States Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.