r/canadaguns • u/AutoModerator • May 23 '22

Weekly Politics Thread

Please post all your Politics or Ban-related ideas, initiatives, comments, suggestions, news articles, and recommendations in this thread. Unless new information is published in the media, recurring articles related to the gov'ts ***possible*** legislation are to be posted here. These threads will be weekly, until it's necessary for another per-week.

Previous politics threads can be found here. Previous threads can be found here.

We understand that politics is a touchy subject, and at times things can get heated. A reminder of the subreddit rules, when commenting, where subreddit users are expected to abide.

23 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

704 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

[deleted]

2

u/April_Ethereal May 29 '22

The SCC ruling with respect to extreme intoxication (to the point of automatism) was that you are allowed to claim that as a defense, not that it was a lawful excuse. Other laws had previously disallowed this when the consumption of the intoxicating substance was wilful.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

[deleted]

1

u/April_Ethereal May 29 '22

The narrow allowances of that defense and the extremely high burden of proof makes it very unlikely for it to be misused successfully as you're suggesting it will be.

1

u/yummybunnybear May 29 '22

Although very disconcerting, the extreme intoxication case was decided logically. To be convicted of a crime, you have to have the "criminal intent" to commit the crime that you are charged with. The SCC basically decided that if you are extremely intoxicated, you cannot form the criminal intent for the crime that you are charged with. But perhaps you can be charged for other crimes, such as letting yourself become so intoxicated in the first place. The SCC recommended that Parliament address this issue with better legislation.

The SCC deciding that a life sentence with no parole is unconstitutional, however, is totally out of line. It's not a logical conclusion based on the interpretation of the law but rather the judges imposing their value of what is "cruel and unusual" in the circumstances. The judges legislated from the bench and took away a powerful tool to deter future criminals.