Political Randomness

[Blackhawk]

And now the NY Times has a blurb on the front, "Israeli Police Attack Palestinian Journalist’s Funeral, Citing Provocation"

Below the fold scroll.

[malchior]

And now the NY Times has a blurb on the front, "Israeli Police Attack Palestinian Journalist’s Funeral, Citing Provocation"

Below the fold scroll.

Yeah I'm not surprised about that but I am especially not shocked that they have to include the as yet unproven police justification in the headline. That isn't all that different though from normal practice. That is just how the NYT operates here. They are the mouthpiece of authority.

[Blackhawk]

Once you see it...it's hard to not see it.

It was actually the CNN evolving headlines that first woke me up to how unreliable the news was years ago. The way my mind works, it just seemed like the default that the news would be true, judges would be unbiased, and politicians would work for the benefit of the people. The literal-mindedness of my autism has always mad me gullible. I woke up way too late on way too many things. I didn't even start voting until my mid-30s.

FWIW, OO was a big part of that 'awakening', usually by me running my mouth and getting shot down (RM9 and GreenGoo were particularly effective here...)

[gilraen]

It was actually the CNN evolving headlines that first woke me up to how unreliable the news was years ago.

I think Lenny Bruce had that covered back in...1957?

[LordMortis]

Wait! Malchior robbed a bank for $250,000 and only returned $90,000? Where's the justice?

[Max Peck]

Supreme Court restores Calgary man's acquittal for attacking woman while high on magic mushrooms

A Calgary man who, while naked, broke into the home of a university professor and attacked her with a broom handle, has seen his acquittal reinstated after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the defence of self-induced extreme intoxication is available in cases of violence.

Former Mount Royal University student Matthew Brown was charged with break-and-enter and aggravated assault after a 2018 incident that left Janet Hamnett with broken bones in her hands.

Brown's is one of three cases the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled on on Friday that deal with whether the defence of extreme intoxication to the point of automatism — a term describing unconscious, involuntary behaviour — is available to those who chose to take intoxicants and then end up committing acts of violence.

The case wound its way through all levels of court as judges grappled with the complicated and controversial Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the use of the defence in certain circumstances.

On Friday, in striking down the section as unconstitutional, the SCC unanimously ruled that voluntarily taking intoxicating substances can not replace the criminal intent required for a conviction.

"The legitimate goals of protecting the victims of these crimes and holding the extremely self-intoxicated accountable, compelling as they are, do not justify these infringements of the Charter that so fundamentally upset the tenets of the criminal law," reads the decision.

The court also issued a unanimous decision in Sullivan and Chan, two Ontario cases argued together with similar circumstances. The SCC upheld David Sullivan's acquittal and ordered a new trial for Thomas Chan.

So being shitfaced is a get out of jail free card?

[Freyland]

How does one even prove they were sufficiently shit-faced, or disprove they were not?

[malchior]

[Unagi]

How does one even prove they were sufficiently shit-faced, or disprove they were not?

Also, do DUIs turn into just tragic no-fault traffic accidents?

[Max Peck]

How does one even prove they were sufficiently shit-faced, or disprove they were not?

Also, do DUIs turn into just tragic no-fault traffic accidents?

Presumably if you get a DUI conviction (that stands) it just means you weren't drunk enough.

[gilraen]

No criminal intent doesn't mean no fault.

[Unagi]

No criminal intent doesn't mean no fault.

true.
It’s still an absurd ‘get out of jail’ card, imo.

I guess this means we should all go to Windsor and walk out on our bar tabs and rob banks. To be clear, it wouldn’t be our intent, it just may be something we end up doing.

Actually, knowing ahead of time that it’s not criminal behavior if I’m drunk, would compound my defense that I did not intend to partake in criminal behavior, obviously, because I was drinking.

/tongue-in-cheek

[malchior]

IANAL or know much about the Canadian system. I'm not crazy about this ruling. I don't think this makes much sense when it is the result of voluntary action. However, I don't know if this is truly a 'get out of jail free' card or will get out of control. I think what'll happen is there will be more skepticism about claims of this nature and we'll see more questioning and challenging of these claims. Also, making it an available defense doesn't mean it is an automatic defense.

[Blackhawk]

Sigh. I don't even know what to support. Today, the local city Facebook page made a post about an anti-suicide gathering in town yesterday. That's good, right?

Everybody was wearing these shirts with a logo and a positive, anti-suicide message on the front. On the back was:

Sponsored by
"All Lives Matter"
Prime Wireless LLC
City of Sullivan
Mayor Clint Lamb

What a mixed message.

[Max Peck]

I'm hoping that the intent of this ruling, at least in part, is to send a message to the government that the pertinent law is badly written and it needs to be fixed via legislation.

In the mean time, it does feel like they're handing out a free pass.

How To Crime:

1. Obtain drugs that will potentially fuck you up sufficiently.
2. Do crime.
3. Immediately take the drugs.
4. Claim that you took the drugs before criming and the devil made you do it.
   ...
5. Profit!

[Blackhawk]

Just start carrying around an 'emergency guilt antidote' when doing crime. "Uh-oh, the cops! Quick, get a buzz!"

Hell, bring back the hollow tooth!

[Holman]

I'm hoping that the intent of this ruling, at least in part, is to send a message to the government that the pertinent law is badly written and it needs to be fixed via legislation.

In the mean time, it does feel like they're handing out a free pass.

How To Crime:

1. Obtain drugs that will potentially fuck you up sufficiently.
2. Do crime.
3. Immediately take the drugs.
4. Claim that you took the drugs before criming and the devil made you do it.
   ...
5. Profit!

I haven't looked into the case (at all), but are there special circumstances we're not noticing? For example, did the assaultee actually feel very threatened?

If someone on a bad trip somehow showed up in my house and made not-very-meaningful threatening gestures, I'd want to see them sent to rehab rather than jail.

I really doubt anyone is considering a policy of "Get Fucked Up, Get Off the Hook."

[LordMortis]

I'm hoping that the intent of this ruling, at least in part, is to send a message to the government that the pertinent law is badly written and it needs to be fixed via legislation.

In the mean time, it does feel like they're handing out a free pass.

How To Crime:

1. Obtain drugs that will potentially fuck you up sufficiently.
2. Do crime.
3. Immediately take the drugs.
4. Claim that you took the drugs before criming and the devil made you do it.
   ...
5. Profit!

I've kinda always been on the opposite side of things. Yet another reason why I should never be in charge. I've always had close to a libertarian view on drugs but I also am a crimes committed while in an altered state should have more of a more punitive response, not a lesser one. Open and frank drug and crime education at an early age are important. A child may not have a developed brain enough to make good decisions but most do understand punishment as a deterrent and the ones who don't are vulnerable no matter which way you go.

[Max Peck]

I'm hoping that the intent of this ruling, at least in part, is to send a message to the government that the pertinent law is badly written and it needs to be fixed via legislation.

In the mean time, it does feel like they're handing out a free pass.

How To Crime:

1. Obtain drugs that will potentially fuck you up sufficiently.
2. Do crime.
3. Immediately take the drugs.
4. Claim that you took the drugs before criming and the devil made you do it.
   ...
5. Profit!

I haven't looked into the case (at all), but are there special circumstances we're not noticing? For example, did the assaultee actually feel very threatened?

If someone on a bad trip somehow showed up in my house and made not-very-meaningful threatening gestures, I'd want to see them sent to rehab rather than jail.

I really doubt anyone is considering a policy of "Get Fucked Up, Get Off the Hook."

In the Sullivan and Chan cases, the two men consumed drugs and then, in states of psychosis, stabbed family members. Sullivan injured his mother, while Chan killed his father.

In his case, Brown estimated he took about 2.5 grams of magic mushrooms and drank about 12-14 ounces of vodka plus a "few beers" before attacking Hamnett in her home, where he "smashed" her hands repeatedly.

Twenty-eight years ago, Parliament made changes to the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of self-induced intoxication defence but resulting in "not a very well-worded section," which "has led to judges coming to different interpretations of it," wrote University of Calgary law professor Lisa Silver in a blog post about the cases.

Silver said in her post that the SCC needed to weigh in on the law in that area because judges continued to arrive at different conclusions.

I'd hope that my "get fucked up, get off the hook" hot take was clearly sarcasm, but if not: I was being sarcastic.

The intent of the law is explicitly to prevent this sort of defence in most instances. The court is sending a message to the government that the law is badly written and needs to be fixed. In the mean time, they have set a precendent for how the current law is to be interpreted.

[Holman]

Ah. Well I *did* say I hadn't looked into the case!

[Max Peck]

I'm hoping that the intent of this ruling, at least in part, is to send a message to the government that the pertinent law is badly written and it needs to be fixed via legislation.

In the mean time, it does feel like they're handing out a free pass.

How To Crime:

1. Obtain drugs that will potentially fuck you up sufficiently.
2. Do crime.
3. Immediately take the drugs.
4. Claim that you took the drugs before criming and the devil made you do it.
   ...
5. Profit!

I've kinda always been on the opposite side of things. Yet another reason why I should never be in charge. I've always had close to a libertarian view on drugs but I also am a crimes committed while in an altered state should have more of a more punitive response, not a lesser one. Open and frank drug and crime education at an early age are important. A child may not have a developed brain enough to make good decisions but most do understand punishment as a deterrent and the ones who don't are vulnerable no matter which way you go.

Yeah, my personal view is that if an otherwise competent person chooses to use mind-altering substances of their own free will, then they should be held responsible for their actions while under the influence. I don't know that I'd want to see the drug use result in a more severe punishment, but I definitely don't believe that it should be grounds for acquittal.

[Unagi]

That's where I stand too. I don't even understand how there would be some other view.
I mean, I understand that someone isn't acting themselves while under 'the influence' ... Doesn't the legal concept of "gross vehicular manslaughter" vs. "murder" generally handle situations like this?


If, as you say, they are otherwise competent and they administered the drug on purpose... what follows is clearly theirs to own.

[Unagi]

I guess before I get ahead of myself... or rather, just after I get ahead of myself... This ruling is specific to cases of violence. (which, frankly, seems almost worse... I'd rather let drunk people just walk out on their tab).

"ruled the defence of self-induced extreme intoxication is available in cases of violence"

and I guess I am curious what they mean by my highligthed words:

"holding the extremely self-intoxicated accountable, compelling as they are, do not justify these infringements of the Charter that so fundamentally upset the tenets of the criminal law"

what Charter was being infringed, and by what? Something that upset the fundamental tenets of criminal law??? WTF are they talking about?

[gilraen]

Something that upset the fundamental tenets of criminal law???

Yes - Mens Rea (obviously this is US law, but Canadian law is probably similar)

[Unagi]

Where do crimes of negligence land ?

Edit: they’re in there.

I don’t think being able to charge someone with criminal negligence would go against that tenet.

/shrug. No clue what to make of it.

[Unagi]

Perhaps I don’t understand the cases and the acquittal.

I suppose I can understand not charging someone with murder, if one could prove it was ‘just the shrooms bludgeoning’.

[Max Peck]

Here is the Case in Brief for the ruling.

The Supreme Court restores an Alberta man’s acquittal for attacking a woman while in a state of automatism.

On the night of January 12, 2018, Matthew Winston Brown consumed alcohol and “magic mushrooms” at a party in Calgary, Alberta. The mushrooms contain psilocybin, an illegal drug that can cause hallucinations. Mr. Brown lost his grip on reality, left the party and broke into a nearby home, violently attacking a woman inside. The woman suffered permanent injuries as a result of the attack. When Mr. Brown broke into another house, the couple living there called the police. Mr. Brown said he had no memory of the incidents.

Mr. Brown was charged with aggravated assault, breaking and entering, and mischief to property. He had no previous criminal record and no history of mental illness.

At trial, Mr. Brown pleaded not guilty to the charges of “automatism”. Automatism is when someone claims to have been so intoxicated or impaired that they had lost complete control of themselves.

The Crown argued Mr. Brown could not rely on automatism because section 33.1 of the Criminal Code prevents a person from using automatism as a defence for crimes involving assault or interference with the bodily integrity of another person.

Mr. Brown responded that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and security of the person, whereas section 11(d) guarantees everyone the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The judge agreed with Mr. Brown and acquitted him. The Crown appealed to Alberta’s Court of Appeal, which disagreed and convicted Mr. Brown. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal.

The Supreme Court heard this case together with R. v. Sullivan, and the judgments are being rendered at the same time.

Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is therefore unconstitutional.

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Nicholas Kasirer said section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society and is unconstitutional. He wrote that section 33.1 violates section 11(d) of the Charter because society could interpret someone’s intent to become intoxicated as an intention to commit a violent offence. Section 33.1 also violates section 7 because a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that the action was voluntary or that the person intended to commit the offence.

Convicting someone for how they conducted themselves while in a state of automatism violates principles of fundamental justice. Our criminal justice system is based on the notion of personal responsibility. In Canada, two elements of fundamental justice are required for a person to be found guilty of a crime. They are: a guilty action; and (2) a guilty mind. Neither element is present when a person is in a state of automatism.

Parliament could enact legislation to address violence caused by extreme intoxication.

The Court explained that Parliament could enact new legislation to hold an extremely intoxicated person accountable for a violent crime. The Court emphasized that, “protecting the victims of violent crime – particularly in light of the equality and dignity interests of women and children who are vulnerable to intoxicated sexual and domestic acts – is a pressing and substantial social purpose”.

The ruling seems to be saying that the pertinent section of the criminal code, as written, is unconstitutional in that it is in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Criminal Code, Section 33.1

When defence not available

33.1 (1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).

Marginal note:Criminal fault by reason of intoxication

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.

Marginal note:Application

(3) This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Unagi]

Honestly , I wish I could say that helped.


So there are some infractions where you can say: “sorry, I was absolutely shit face drunk for that…”, but a line has been drawn when the infraction itself harms another person.

Yet now they are saying that, no, that defense should also be available here, to a person who permanently injured a woman who’s house was broken into.

I’m sure I’m wrong on that read.

[Max Peck]

I'll keep my eyes open for a law 'splainer's take, but for now it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Isgrimnur]

Shades of not guilty by reason of insanity

A defense of "temporary insanity" is equally difficult to prove. If a defendant asserts temporary insanity as a defense, they are claiming that:

* They were legally insane at the time of the alleged crime
* They are lawfully sane now
Most states use one of the following four methods to determine temporary insanity:

The M'Naghten Rule (sometimes called the right-wrong test): reviews mental defects that lead someone to believe in the rightness of their crime
The Irresistible Impulse Test: reviews someone's awareness and willpower that led to the crime
The Model Penal Code Test (also called the substantial capacity test): reviews the person's lack of ability to follow the law or see that a crime is wrong
The Durham Rule (only used in New Hampshire): reviews the mental defect (such as paranoia) that caused the criminal conduct

Intoxication and Settled Insanity: A Finding of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

In the federal courts, as well as in some state courts, the presence of voluntary intoxication rules out any use of the insanity defense. The United States Congress enacted the Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984,6 which narrowed the definition of insanity that had developed in case law (and shifted the burden of proof to the defense at the “clear and convincing” level). The Senate Judiciary Committee, in discussion of the Act, stated that, “the voluntary use of alcohol or drugs, even if they render the defendant unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts, does not constitute insanity”
...
Voluntary intoxication may be considered a “partial” defense14 when the alleged offense requires a specific intent, or mens rea, which the defendant may argue that he could not have possessed due to the effects of intoxication.15 In most states, defendants are not held responsible for crimes committed under the influence of involuntary intoxication, because they are considered “unconscious” and unable to formulate the mens rea, or criminal intent, to commit the offense.

[Skinypupy]

I was previously unaware that John Ratzenberger was a MAGA chud. That’s certainly disappointing to learn.

[Blackhawk]

Please don't ruin every Pixar movie ever...

[malchior]

This is the type of cut through the bullshit messaging the Democrats desperately need to foster.

[Holman]

I do think that young man is going places.

[RM2]

I do like mayor Pete as he was called when running as the democratic nominee for pres. My only problem with him at that time was I did not see this country electing a gay president. But then again those were my only doubts about Obama back when he first ran. I thought this country was too racist to ever elect a guy who wasn't white. I was happy to be proven wrong.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, I like Buttigieg a lot. He has a solid gift for messaging on difficult topics.

Also, we now have an RM2? Did we lose 7 worth of RM?

[LordMortis]

Heh, you saw RM9. I saw RMC. Gonna have the whole RM set

[gbasden]

Heh, you saw RM9. I saw RMC. Gonna have the whole RM set

I didn't know that RMs were measured in hex!

[LordMortis]

[Carpet_pissr]

RMCE is where it’s at, losers. (Collector’s Edition).