Comments on: Canada: Drunkenness as defense in sex assault?

By: bfs

bfs — Sat, 21 May 2011 15:33:12 +0000

” On the other hand, women who get drunk legally can’t consent to sex.”
So women who get drunk illegally can consent to sex? Sets my mind at ease about my college days.
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.

By: steve mansfield

steve mansfield — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:39:37 +0000

AS always, the feminists want it both ways. For years they have argued that if a female is drunk (whatever that means; .08?) she cannot consent to sex and thus the poor guy can be prosecuted for rape even if he in good faith thought she was perfectly capable of consenting. Using their logic it is only fair to argue that a defendant in a rape case who was drunk at the time lacked the mens rea to commit rape. Hoisted on their own petard, eh?

By: Aaron Worthing

Aaron Worthing — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:19:58 +0000

Dominique Straus-Khan was quoted as saying, “can we use that in NY?”

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 18 May 2011 12:38:46 +0000

Scott,
I live close enough to Ontario to drive.

By: peter

peter — Wed, 18 May 2011 10:06:09 +0000

If this idiotic decision stands, then simply introduce a new law of Drunkness. The kicker would be that the penalty would be set by the equavelent non-drunk penalty.

“I find you not guilty of assault by virtue of your defence of being drunk, and find you guilty of being drunk and sentence you to 10 years.”

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Wed, 18 May 2011 09:02:50 +0000

Oh, so I’m the only asshole who started checking flights to Onterio, and using Google Maps to find bars near campus?

Way to make me feel like a jerk, guys…

By: Malcolm Smith

Malcolm Smith — Wed, 18 May 2011 04:51:28 +0000

I note that this was the result of a judge’s original interpretation of the Charter of Rights – which, of course, makes no reference to drunkenness. This is why we in Australia have consistently resisted efforts by governments of the left to impose a bill or charter of rights on us. No matter how good it sounds at the start, eventually you get unelected judges making rulings which are contrary to the intentions of the writers, to the wishes of the public, and to morality.

By: RecentLawGrad

RecentLawGrad — Wed, 18 May 2011 02:58:33 +0000

Just a hunch, but this is going to get appealed. I didn’t read this decision (it doesn’t appear to have been posted yet), but I’d wager a large sum of money it’ll be overturned on appeal on the basis that it completely misapplies the scope of drunkenness as a defense.

Not only did the Supreme Court of Canada deal with the Charter arguments and mens rea elements of drunkenness, they did it as recently as 2007 to clarify for situations just like this:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2007/2007scc53/2007scc53.html

By: Jay Markowitz

Jay Markowitz — Tue, 17 May 2011 21:37:59 +0000

What benchmark are they using to determine when someone has reached that point of drunkeness that they are no longer culpable?

BAC?

Counting the empties?

Show you a picture of Phyllis Diller and if you say “hubba hubba” then you aren’t culpable?

All of us know someone who can drink staggering amounts of booze with no determinate effects.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 17 May 2011 21:30:38 +0000

When you’re drunk, you know what you’re doing, and you know if its right or wrong, you just dont CARE…

Now that I think about it, sober criminals think the same way………