Canada hates women, again.

the larger question, what does it mean if we can find people criminally responsible if they do not have the mental capacity to form intent? What other effects would that have?
"Insanity" aside, you'd have a load of traumatised, mentally ill and addicted people in prison. Which we do. Plus children.
But the fact those people are traumatised, mentally ill or addicted is irrelevant to the victim, isn't it?
And the cynic in me thinks it's easier to argue mental incapacity based on previous abuse or psychological issues or being under the influence than it is to argue that the defendant didn't actually do it.
If we funded our prison system properly it would be less of a moral dilemma - the reason why you killed someone would be irrelevant as once inside, you would be treated and educated and rehabilitated and released ten or fifteen years later and were able to get a job without prejudice. (Pipe dream obviously).

This type of law has always been pretty controversial here. But it's also true that it doesn't apply to most cases where someone gets drunk and rapes someone, most drunk people are not that drunk.

But as I understand it, it's not just a matter of thinking about the most immediate situation, it's also about the larger question, what does it mean if we can find people criminally responsible if they do not have the mental capacity to form intent? What other effects would that have?

Or a man raping another man?

Does this also apply to rape of a minor?

Well, that"s the whole point isn't it.
A man intends to rape someone. Gets drunk. Rapes them. Gets away with it

No - if he set off with that intent the defence would not apply. I'm not saying the Canadian position is correct- far from it- but if it were know he set off with that intent the defence would not apply.

I think the Scottish position of criminal recklessness is the way to go. I know this sounds prudish, but I don’t understand people getting blind drunk, I don’t understand the point. Especially knowing the next day would involve a massive hangover.

As I’ve never been drunk do people really act that out of character? If in the sober hours you would find sexual assault abhorrent, would you really do it when drunk?

This article is clearer on the position in England and Wales. In none of the UK jurisdictions would being blind drunk be a defence for sexual assault or rape.

In E&W it might reduce murder to manslaughter but not in Scotland.

www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/being-drunk-as-a-criminal-defence/

And in answer to an earlier question about drunk driving - that was the context it came up in on my philosophy course. Under Canadian law, the crime was getting that drunk in the knowledge that once you were that drunk, you might do something stupid up to and including killing someone, not the crime of killing the person

So does this rapist get prosecuted for getting so drunk he raped someone?

Have to say that in my youth I had more than one night out where one shot led to thinking more shots were a good plan, and things escalated, and I'm certainly not proud of how I may have behaved on those nights. But I am quite certain that I never got so drunk I was in danger of raping anyone. And that I would die of alcohol poisoning before ever reaching that level of intoxication. Funny that.

If I'm reading the English position correctly sexual assault is a crime where basic intent applies so drunkenness would not be a defence.

The Scottish position is less concerned about this distinction between basic and specific intent and seems to be more focused on "did you do it or didn't you?"

For example, inBrennan v HM Adv.[1977], the accused stabbed his father to death after consuming between 20 and 25 pints of beer together with LSD. He was convicted of murder and his appeal was dismissed: voluntary intoxication was considered to be a continuing element of criminal recklessness which Scottish law needed to retain in the interests of its citizens. As far as I'm awre aware Brennan stands, but criminal law isn't my area.

It's not the same as insanity.

Except someone who commits a crime, but is considered too insane to be responsible for their own actions, is incarcerated in a secure hospital, not released with a slap on the wrist.

Is it the equivalent of not guilty by virtue of insanity, or whatever the proper wording is?

This is the position in England and Wales.

Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to a crime of basic intent.

However, where the defendant has voluntarily put himself in the position of being intoxicated to the extent that he is incapable of forming the mental element of the offence, this will amount to a defence in respect of a crime of specific intent

ttps://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intoxication

Does this mean I can drunk murder someone?
Coz there are quite a few men on my list that I feel the world would be a more beautiful place without. Im partial to a drink too...

No because you have expressed intent. You had the intent before you started drinking.

Does this mean I can drunk murder someone?
Coz there are quite a few men on my list that I feel the world would be a more beautiful place without. Im partial to a drink too...

Also, and I know this is wildly off topic, but the lyrics to the anthem include “our home and native land”. Currently we tend to use the term Indigenous and First Nations, but in the 80’s my boyfriend was First Nations and he always sang it “our home and Native’s land”, so I've adopted that. I was born in Canada, 2nd generation English/Scots/Irish Canadian, but I’m not native/Indigenous to the land, so that version feels better to me.

I’ve always felt that Ontario and Quebec seem more into being Canadian somehow, but that may be just me. We are as far west from the federal government as you can get, only around 150 years of non-Indigenous settlement out here.

I know when I sing the anthem it is with an attachment to the land, locally but also knowing that we inhabit this mostly wild country. Mind you, I’m in a medium sized city, but I know the land is out there.

I was burgled twice in England, and while burglaries happen here they are very rare. No idea why, lots of poverty, it just is not expressed in that kind of crime in my little corner of Canada. For whatever reason bike (bicycle) theft is rampant, and pretty brazen, bikes stolen from gardens and underground car parks (I don’t count it as burglary if someone doesn’t break in to steal, but I may be wrong).

I agree about women's safety, Rita but I have to say that not knowing anyone whose been burgled or mugged sounds remarkable to me!

I was mainly in Ontario and Quebec and it was 30-odd years ago. The flags and national anthem singing really interested me. There was a sense of national pride that I'd never come across in the UK.

Flo, I always told foreign students who stayed with us, “it might seem safe here, but women are not safe anywhere”. I don’t know anyone who’s been mugged or burgled or owned a gun, but I wouldn’t say women are safer here than anywhere else.

I never see flags on people’s houses, so maybe that’s regional. Ditto mining and logging that a previous poster commented on. It’s a bloody massive countries, unimaginably massive tracts of land that no-one has destroyed.

The law is an ass. I hope this judgement hangs around for a very, very brief period of time before it’s struck down permanently.

Like all countries we’ve got a lot of work yet to do on women’s safety and economic security.

This is shocking! Can we all just run around committing crime now when we're drunk?!

And, biologically speaking, if the man was so drunk that he didn't know what he was doing, he wouldn't have been able to actually perform anyway. So being too drunk is absolute bollocks as a defence for rape.

What planet are these judges on?!

Thanks Rita that's interesting, particularly about following rules. I've only been in Canada once, many years ago, but I remember how everyone waited at the crossings for the pedestrian light, even when the road was empty - very sensible but a new experience! Also by the number of houses flying the national flag. I went to an ice hockey match and everyone sang the national anthem. (Mind you it was also the most violent game I'd ever seen )

At the time I was impressed - I was travelling alone and it felt safe plus I liked the way patriotism didn't seem to have the nationalistic connotations it has here. But I guess the downside might be that, if the general vibe is law abiding and patriotic, then you're (general you) less likely to question what your government does.

There is no solidarity with women.

Women matter less than the default humans.

It's all just variations on a theme.

"The Appeal Court decision setting aside the law came in a pair of separate cases in which two men, both high on drugs, either killed or injured close relatives."
"Their defence, however, ran afoul of the ban on arguing extreme intoxication."
"In overturning their convictions on Wednesday, Justices David Paciocco, David Watt and Peter Lauwers said a person must act voluntarily to commit a crime. While lawmakers might have sought to help victims attain justice, they said the law violated an accused's rights by holding them accountable for violence they really had no control over."

So, there we are. If you want to kill or sexually assault someone and get away with it, then simply get as plastered as possible on alcohol or drugs and the Canadian (il)legal system will protect you.
Because that is a fundamental freedom according to Cara Zwibel.
Canada has lost the plot.

cfe.ryerson.ca/people/cara-zwibel

And in answer to an earlier question about drunk driving - that was the context it came up in on my philosophy course. Under Canadian law, the crime was getting that drunk in the knowledge that once you were that drunk, you might do something stupid up to and including killing someone, not the crime of killing the person (you had a free pass on that one because your judgement was presumed to be impaired by alcohol to the point where you were no longer responsible for your actions).

This has been the case in Canadian law for a long time - I remember stumbling across it in a philosophy course back in the late 80s and thinking "what the fuck?" It's just that (as a PP notes) it's rarely applied.

But there's all sorts of shit goes on behind the scenes of Canada's "most liberal country evah" image, not just the trans stuff. The treatment of Indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women, is horrific. For all its reputation for natural beauty, friends who live there tell me that as soon as you step outside of a protected national park type environment, the systematic damage to the environment in pursuit of oil shale/minerals/just plain old logging is horrific.