Mr review 6 ignorance of law 6
Download 0.58 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Alcohol and Drugs
- Drinking and MR
- Voluntary intoxication
- Intoxication and the General Principles of Liability: The Beard Test
- The Legacy of Beard
- Specific vs. General Intent
IntoxicationNote: Much more prominent than NCRMD or Automatism To what extent should voluntary, self-induced intoxication by alcohol/drug afford defence to prosecution’s case in negating proof of voluntary AR or MR of the offence? Seems to compel acquittal – but if person can become irresponsible through self-induced intoxication, policy reasons deny him defence Furthermore: empirical question; what is the effect of drug/alcohol, time of consumption, condition of consumer? Alcohol and DrugsAnalytically, no such thing as defence of intoxication Strong correlation btw abuse of alcohol/drugs and subsequent criminal behavior When can an offender claim that his conduct failed to meet the requirements for responsibility bc their intoxicated state prevented them from satisfying the MR of the offence, or even the AR? Policy concerns of letting drunk get off Drinking and MRTH: "if an intoxicant can negate the mental element required for an offence... the logic of the law seems to compel an acquittal". The logic described here is primarily the fact that: Alcohol and drugs affect people’s perceptions, causing relevant mistake of fact If you don’t know the relevant facts, You are guilty. You must have intended the consequences of that criminal act. Angry drunk = still guilty for MR Still have intention Being more susceptible to commit crime ie. Lack of inhibition. Still have intention Where drinking is the AR (Driving while impaired), no problem either TH: Most people who drink alcohol and commit crimes are punishable bc their drinking amounted to recklessness which should suffice to convict for most MR crimes. TRUE Recklessness: awareness of consequences and proceeding anyways (buzzanga) Voluntary intoxicationInvoluntary intoxication Is when one consumes alcohol/drug and is unaware. If offence is subsequently committed, policy/logic agrees accused should have available defence of lack of MR or AR. Takes drug as per doctors orders: drug not taken in pursuit of side effects. Characterized as involuntary not because taking of drugs was unconscious act, but consequences were not desired/foreseen Has a defence When involuntary intoxication negates the knowledge or intent required not liable. But for crimes that are strict liability offences that only require AR you can still be liable? Voluntary: Difficult to conclude that when voluntarily consumed, that resulting drunkenness is not voluntary (Even if new user) One who takes drugs for kick/a trip may have a limited defence Intoxication and the General Principles of Liability: The Beard TestHISTORY: Drinking itself was wrong Alcohol seen as aggravating factor shift to alcohol being irrelevant shift to difficulty in concluding that alcohol was irrelevant to culpability Conclusions of Beard 1. That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged… The law takes no note of the cause of the insanity. If actual insanity in fact supervenes, as the result of alcoholic excess, it furnishes as complete an answer to a criminal charge as insanity induced by any other cause. #1: is uncontroversial, merely recognizes that alcohol giving rise to insanity can result in finding of NCRMD. Not likely relevant to criminal cases as disease of the mind is characterized usually as not temporary 2. That evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent. #2: Most controversial. Treatment of more severe forms of intoxication COULD impact ones intention. The evidence of drunkenness should be taken into consideration in assessing the accused’s mental state where it “renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime” Interpreted as creating two specific categories: general intent crimes and specific intent crimes General Intent: intoxication irrelevant to liability Primary flaw: the fact that those charged with crimes of general intent cannot raise intoxication, even when such intoxication may have deprived them of the necessary MR to commit the offence. 3. That evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts. #3: Unproblematic. Alcohol loosens inhibitions/makes you angry and people participate in behavior they would not normally. Do not confuse intention w/ motivation. Mild intoxication does not negate one’s intention or recklessness. Person cannot avoid crim liability by claiming that being intoxicated prevent them from distinguishing btw right and wrong TH: s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code with impaired driving. Must infer MR element which is “impaired”. He says he is not impaired. The judge believed him when he said he didn’t know he was not impairedIrrelevant Mistake of Law. Once its established he was voluntarily drinking, does not matter if he didn’t know he was impaired. The Legacy of BeardLaw recognizes compromise with respect to how alcohol/drugs affect MR Drunkenness and insanity Drunkenness does not ordinarily provide lack of knowledge It CAN show that “accused incapable of forming specific intent essential to constitute crime” A classic illustration of what happens when strict law (need for MR) meets important policy (drunks should be held accountable) Specific vs. General Intent
Using the Beard test, which of the following people would have the strongest likelihood of being able to raise a potential "intoxication defence"? Jennifer smokes too much pot and becomes paranoid. Before going to a friends house she puts a hunting knife in her purse. She is stopped by the police and charged with s 88. Her defence is that she is carrying it to DEFEND herself from a raging threat that doesn’t exist. She can raise the defence, and has a chance for acquittal Directory: cans -> 2014 cans -> Law 205: criminal law full Year can (2005-2006) Jennifer Lau cans -> Chapter One: Constitutional Sources of the Criminal Law and the Criminal Code 2014 -> Charter + evidence 1 cans -> Law 120 criminal cans -> Law 120 – Criminal Law – can silvana Lovera Professor Emma Cunliffe Table of Contents cans -> Testimonial or documentary or real must be: Relevant cans -> Study Tip How to Improve Your English Pronunciation cans -> C’right: overview, 2 cans -> Table of contents section one an introduction to intellectual property Download 0.58 Mb. Share with your friends:
|