Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   Too drunk to know you were killing a fellow, eh? You're good to go   (nationalpost.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Crime, Supreme Court, Violence, Law, criminal court, extreme intoxication, Supreme court, Justice Nicholas Kasirer  
•       •       •

2819 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2022 at 2:53 PM (9 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-13 1:43:12 PM  
I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?
 
2022-05-13 1:55:34 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?


Generally, doesn't a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" land you in a mental ward until you're determined to be sane? I don't think "Too drunk to know murder is bad" should be met with "Well, you slept it off, so I guess you're free now".
 
2022-05-13 2:51:12 PM  
Look see, Canada is as farked up as we are!
 
2022-05-13 2:57:22 PM  
Well, well. Looks like today is my lucky day.
 
2022-05-13 2:58:36 PM  
In some countries, if you commit a crime while intoxicated the punishment is automatically doubled. That law makes more sense to me.
 
2022-05-13 2:59:21 PM  
Is a "fellow eh?" a new slang term for Canuck? Like with a "friend of Dorothy" spin on it?
 
2022-05-13 3:00:28 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?


vinylreviews.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-13 3:03:50 PM  
Well, you can try to use "insanity due to intoxication" as a defense, but that doesn't mean the judge and jury are going to buy it, in fact they're more likely to view that defense as an admission of guilt and abject lack of remorse and convict away
 
2022-05-13 3:06:32 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?


Maybe.  But.

too drunk to consent

Most people read that as knocked out.

If they didn't, then, they have to concede the other person was drunktoo.

Because if they didn't that would be disingenuous.  And no is ever one disingenuous.


But, your question is interesting.
We live in a reality where one can be unable to consent, but, GET a dwi. And  get treated differently for a murder?
I guess we want punishment for some and excuses for others . Which does seem disingenuous.
 
2022-05-13 3:07:51 PM  
A court make up of Canadian Kavanaughs?
 
2022-05-13 3:07:56 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?


You can control yourself from being so wasted you get in this position. If you're super crazy, I mean super because crazy enough isn't a defense, you can't help it.
 
2022-05-13 3:08:03 PM  
Jesus, Canada. You're supposed to do better than us, not follow our lead.
 
2022-05-13 3:08:54 PM  
Also, probably not the first observation that you only get the drunk excuse if you're the criminal.

Not the victim.
 
2022-05-13 3:08:59 PM  
So DUI manslaughter shouldn't even be a crime.
 
2022-05-13 3:09:00 PM  
If you're too drunk to be rational will they let you go on DUI charges?
 
2022-05-13 3:09:52 PM  
Too drunk to consent?  Too drunk to intent.
 
2022-05-13 3:11:35 PM  
It's like, how much more innocent could he be? And the answer is none. None more innocent.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-13 3:18:24 PM  

waxbeans: Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?

Maybe.  But.

too drunk to consent

Most people read that as knocked out.

If they didn't, then, they have to concede the other person was drunktoo.

Because if they didn't that would be disingenuous.  And no is ever one disingenuous.


But, your question is interesting.
We live in a reality where one can be unable to consent, but, GET a dwi. And  get treated differently for a murder?
I guess we want punishment for some and excuses for others . Which does seem disingenuous.


Yeah, and I'll open the can of beans wider. If two people are both drunk, neither is able to give consent, period, so any drunken sex is a crime.

And Driving Under the Influence or While Intoxicated are misnamed. It should be named similar to speeding, Above Alcohol Limit. It's implied, but naming it this way would change the way people think about drinking and driving. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it makes sense to me. I'm not "intoxicated/drunk" only buzzed and impaired at the legal limit.
 
2022-05-13 3:20:57 PM  
Kill your girlfriend because she said no to sex, then realize what you did and break out a bottle of Jack.  What could possibly go wrong?
 
2022-05-13 3:21:06 PM  

lilbjorn: A court make up of Canadian Kavanaughs?


No we generally select our judges because, well, they're qualified and not political pawns.
 
2022-05-13 3:26:08 PM  
That's f*cking stupid.  Extreme intoxication (alcohol or any other drug) should never be allowed as a mitigating factor in a criminal case.  In fact, I'd say the opposite is true - If you're drunk/high when you do something stupid and kill someone, you should face stiffer penalties.  Kill someone because you did something stupid while sober on the road, okay 5-10 years in prison.  Kill someone while you were driving drunk, minimum of 20 years to life for the first offense.
 
2022-05-13 3:27:44 PM  
I've always thought that the loosening of inhibitions from alcohol yields a window into ones true self.
So if you have homicidal tendencies we wouldn't make good drinking buddies.
 
2022-05-13 3:32:49 PM  
I agree, there is a point where you are no longer you. Still jail time and such, but like the guy who ate the people while on bath salts, he did not know what he was doing.
 
2022-05-13 3:37:04 PM  

RedfordRenegade: I've always thought that the loosening of inhibitions from alcohol yields a window into ones true self


Alcohol magnifies your personality. Happy people are happy drunks, mean people are mean drunks.
 
2022-05-13 3:42:20 PM  

DigitalDirt: I agree, there is a point where you are no longer you.


No there isn't. Not with alcohol. I can't speak for other drugs but I've had enough booze in me to kill someone my size a few times over and even when blacked out I've never been told that I've done anything but be the same asshole I always am only louder or more incoherent. Never violent.
 
2022-05-13 3:54:09 PM  

RedfordRenegade: I've always thought that the loosening of inhibitions from alcohol yields a window into ones true self.
So if you have homicidal tendencies we wouldn't make good drinking buddies.


Oh come on, everyone wants to murder a hobo while drunk every now and then, it's completely normal.
 
2022-05-13 4:00:22 PM  

Bootleg: Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?

Generally, doesn't a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" land you in a mental ward until you're determined to be sane? I don't think "Too drunk to know murder is bad" should be met with "Well, you slept it off, so I guess you're free now".


Perhaps a lifetime ban from recreational drugs should be considered? If becoming intoxicated allows you to lose control of your actions to the point of committing a criminal offence, then you may no longer enjoy those privileges.

Wouldn't be surprised if they do what they did with prostitution once it was determined that making it illegal was unconstitutional: just pass a similar, also unconstitutional law, and use that for the next 25 years as it makes its way through the courts instead
 
2022-05-13 4:12:53 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Kill your girlfriend because she said no to sex, then realize what you did and break out a bottle of Jack.  What could possibly go wrong?


See? Silver lining.
 
2022-05-13 4:13:15 PM  
"Your honor, I'd like to plead not guilty by reason of insanity....

..I was craaazzy drunk that night!"
 
2022-05-13 4:31:05 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?


Insanity, particularly in the legal sense, is something one cannot help being. If you drink to the point of doing something foolish and/or heinous, probably you should have chosen not to have those last few drinks, my sympathy for your case is extremely limited, and I speak as someone with scars physical and mental from some of the times I made the wrong choice regarding whether I should have another drink or three.
 
2022-05-13 5:07:23 PM  
Yes I am.
 
2022-05-13 5:08:16 PM  
Helluva slippery slope ya got there, eh?
 
2022-05-13 5:17:55 PM  
There was a case where someone was found not guilty of rape because of intoxication.  Air Farce (back when they were still mostly alive) had a field day with this.  John Morgan played the judge delivering this ruling, and Luba Goy walked up and decked him.  He demanded to know how she justified such outrageous behaviour, and she turned to the camera, shrugged and said "I was drunk."

Sounds like the Supreme Court needs a drunken punching.
 
2022-05-13 5:21:29 PM  
the only way intoxication should ever be a defense is if its the result of something that was done to you against your will.  like you were slipped a date rape drug or someone tried to chloroform you or something.

any state you voluntarily enter in to should never be an affirmative defense for literally anything.

that applies to all states - mental, physical, and geographical.
 
2022-05-13 5:23:44 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: lilbjorn: A court make up of Canadian Kavanaughs?

No we generally select our judges because, well, they're qualified and not political pawns.


We all know that they're handpicked by the Qanon Queen of Canada
 
2022-05-13 5:26:21 PM  

Bootleg: Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?

Generally, doesn't a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" land you in a mental ward until you're determined to be sane? I don't think "Too drunk to know murder is bad" should be met with "Well, you slept it off, so I guess you're free now".


True. But an insanity plea rarely 'works'. In this case their SC just said that the ban on trying to use the 'too drunk' defense is unconstitutional, the decision says nothing about whether using such a defense should (or would) work.

If it DOES work, then yea, that's a big farking problem.  I doubt it will work.
 
2022-05-13 5:30:44 PM  

theknuckler_33: Bootleg: Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?

Generally, doesn't a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" land you in a mental ward until you're determined to be sane? I don't think "Too drunk to know murder is bad" should be met with "Well, you slept it off, so I guess you're free now".

True. But an insanity plea rarely 'works'. In this case their SC just said that the ban on trying to use the 'too drunk' defense is unconstitutional, the decision says nothing about whether using such a defense should (or would) work.

If it DOES work, then yea, that's a big farking problem.  I doubt it will work.


JFC. I guess I should have RTFA first.

I think I'll go outside and listen to the birds for a while.
 
2022-05-13 5:32:56 PM  
I'm relatively clean now, just the two regulars that most of our society participates in these days.

But I used to do a lot of drugs, including acid. I did multiple hits of acid, several different times. (80s & 90s stuff, not the 60s') I drank alcohol and smoked pot during some of those same trips.

Never once was I someone other than myself. I might have been a lot of 'extra' things, but I was always me.

While I can see how this law can be used for folks who do go out of their mind and commit a crime. But there has to be a small window for those who managed to get themselves that way. I can see this being reserved for a few who were drugged but even then, that's easy enough to 'say' happened.

Hopefully judges and juries can sort through cases like this successfully.
 
2022-05-13 5:37:34 PM  

Hoblit: Never once was I someone other than myself. I might have been a lot of 'extra' things, but I was always me.


Are you sure about that? I mean, are you really YOU when you can literally see the hair on your arms growing in real time?

/Acid?  Me?  Never.
 
2022-05-13 6:17:39 PM  
There's the gradually boiled frog effect, and the alcoholic tolerance effect and the blackout effect and and and
 
2022-05-13 6:39:16 PM  
This is/was a big deal in South Korea, where "I was too drunk to know any better uwu" is still a mitigating defense for a whole bunch of crimes.  They tightened things up a little bit after the public outrage over Cho Doo-soon ( = a habitual offender who raped an eight-year-old girl almost to death and had his sentence reduced because he was shiatfaced at the time)... but yeah, not a good look, there or in Canada or anywhere.

I can't think of any good reason to offer leniency for a violent crime on the grounds of [voluntary] intoxication.  "Legislators/jurists were drunk assholes and wanted an out for their ilk" is not a good reason.
 
2022-05-13 6:50:18 PM  

The Exit Stencilist: Well, you can try to use "insanity due to intoxication" as a defense, but that doesn't mean the judge and jury are going to buy it, in fact they're more likely to view that defense as an admission of guilt and abject lack of remorse and convict away


Pretty much,
Just cause they will allow it to be used as a defense doesn't mean it will work
 
2022-05-13 7:11:16 PM  

waxbeans: Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?

Maybe.  But.

too drunk to consent

Most people read that as knocked out.

If they didn't, then, they have to concede the other person was drunktoo.

Because if they didn't that would be disingenuous.  And no is ever one disingenuous.


But, your question is interesting.
We live in a reality where one can be unable to consent, but, GET a dwi. And  get treated differently for a murder?
I guess we want punishment for some and excuses for others . Which does seem disingenuous.


It's actually a pretty arguable legal concept. I can see this being a pretty good debate topic for high school seniors in debate club to go over the pro/con sides. That being said, I admit I'm a bit surprised the ban on it as a defense was overturned, even in Canada.
 
2022-05-13 7:12:37 PM  

Wine Sipping Elitist: waxbeans: Urmuf Hamer: I've always wondered about this. Insanity is a defense, but intoxication to insanity isn't? And one can be too drink to consent, but not to decide to drive?

Maybe.  But.

too drunk to consent

Most people read that as knocked out.

If they didn't, then, they have to concede the other person was drunktoo.

Because if they didn't that would be disingenuous.  And no is ever one disingenuous.


But, your question is interesting.
We live in a reality where one can be unable to consent, but, GET a dwi. And  get treated differently for a murder?
I guess we want punishment for some and excuses for others . Which does seem disingenuous.

Yeah, and I'll open the can of beans wider. If two people are both drunk, neither is able to give consent, period, so any drunken sex is a crime.

And Driving Under the Influence or While Intoxicated are misnamed. It should be named similar to speeding, Above Alcohol Limit. It's implied, but naming it this way would change the way people think about drinking and driving. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it makes sense to me. I'm not "intoxicated/drunk" only buzzed and impaired at the legal limit.


What if there's a Drunk Sex Consent Form? Basically you sign it while sober to give consent for when you're so drunk that others might be worried you can't consent.
 
2022-05-13 7:27:59 PM  

Mugato: So DUI manslaughter shouldn't even be a crime.


It does have to be asked
 
2022-05-13 7:28:23 PM  

Snort: Too drunk to consent?  Too drunk to intent.


Possibly
 
2022-05-13 7:29:28 PM  

TheLopper: It's like, how much more innocent could he be? And the answer is none. None more innocent.

[Fark user image image 432x243]


What with the ugly Right leaning faces in DC? This dude Trump, and others.  🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
 
2022-05-13 7:32:03 PM  

wage0048: That's f*cking stupid.  Extreme intoxication (alcohol or any other drug) should never be allowed as a mitigating factor in a criminal case.  In fact, I'd say the opposite is true - If you're drunk/high when you do something stupid and kill someone, you should face stiffer penalties.  Kill someone because you did something stupid while sober on the road, okay 5-10 years in prison.  Kill someone while you were driving drunk, minimum of 20 years to life for the first offense.


10000000% but. That logic means all sex while drunk is a crime for both parties.
Now hush the flaps closed
 
2022-05-13 7:33:54 PM  

DigitalDirt: I agree, there is a point where you are no longer you. Still jail time and such, but like the guy who ate the people while on bath salts, he did not know what he was doing.


They never proved that


https://reason.com/2012/12/24/why-people-thought-bath-salts-made-rudy/
 
2022-05-13 7:35:09 PM  

Mugato: DigitalDirt: I agree, there is a point where you are no longer you.

No there isn't. Not with alcohol. I can't speak for other drugs but I've had enough booze in me to kill someone my size a few times over and even when blacked out I've never been told that I've done anything but be the same asshole I always am only louder or more incoherent. Never violent.


Odd. I'm very violent.  And in 30+ of drinking, I only got violent once.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.