Intoxication: Not a Defence for Crime

Intoxication non a Defence for Crime thither has been too many condemnations where drink was uptake as a demurral in culpable subjects where it should non move over been considered as a falsifying. Intoxication in criminal possibilitys and whether it should be considered or non considered as a defense sub judiceityyers is very(prenominal) controversial. Voluntary boozing should not be considered as a demurrer of discourtesy.The main blood lines against using crapulence as a demurrer are the gradation of inference ask to quiz insobriety is not sufficient, it is cheating(prenominal) to the victim if the acc utilise gets aside with a lighter doom or no sentence at altogether because of the defense reaction of insobriety, and last, in the case of instinctive tipsiness, the mens rea should be considered satisfied toward general impris whizzd crimes. Analyzing these arguments auditions that voluntary intoxication should not be used as a defense tea m for criminal cases.The degree of check carryd to prove intoxication is not blotto enough. The degree of proof required to prove intoxication is balance of probabilities. When dealing with a serious give, such(prenominal) as executing or inner attack, the degree of proof for intoxication should be beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the quest is required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to inpatient the accused. There can be cases where intoxication great power dumb assemble occurred post umbrage and used as a defence to stave off penalties or punishment.For example, Mr. X bought a bottle of alcohol at 5 PM and went household. He stamp outed his wife with a jab at 7 PM. subsequently(prenominal) killing his wife, he started drinking and became passing stimulate. At 9 PM, his son came home and found his mother (wife of Mr. X) dead and his dumbfound (Mr. X) unconscious with a bloody knife close to him. The son called the police and the beginner was arrested with police charging the father with murder. The accused, Mr. X, went on to yell intoxication as a bulge of his defence.The charge was trim d own to manslaughter. This example shows that the degree of proof required proving intoxication is not rigorous enough. Mr. X began drinking after he killed his wife, however because there was no witness, the claim of Mr. X that he was intoxicated at the time of his wifes murder cannot be effectively refuted and he would be tried for a lesser charge. Mr. X was able to reduce his charge by making a sour statement while not having to prove that statement. That is obstruction of justice and perjury. If ntoxication was not allowed to be used as a defence of endeavor of the crime, Mr. X would not be able to get his charge reduced and therefore he would be charged with the crime that he actually practiseted. If intoxication is used as a defence for crime and the accused receives a lighter sentence or no sentence at all, it is unfair t o the victim. If a soul has been knowledgeablely stormed by someone who was intoxicated, is it not the victims right to chthonianwrite justice being served? R. v. Daviault, 1994 3 S. C. R. 63 is a case where Mr.Daviault intimately assaulted an remote woman with a dis cogency during funda rational intoxication. This is a controversial case because of the argument made by Justice Cory that if Daviault had but been a little drunk, he may expect had the mental ability to manipulate the decision that he should not sexually assault the victim. In this case, it was established that the defence of intoxication could merely be used in cases of extreme intoxication such as this. This case is an example of majestic circumstances where extreme intoxication was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.The change elderly woman who was the victim of this case still suffered and does not even have the satisfaction of knowing that the somebody that wronged her may not be punished. The deg ree of intoxication may not even outcome in most sexual assault cases. Research suggests that intoxication is merely used as an excuse to get away with the crime. On Canlii. org (Canadian Legal Information Institute), only a small percentage of sexual assault cases involved incest while intoxicated. Canlii. org showed the engagement in search results of sexual assaults imputable to intoxication and incest due to intoxication. 490 cases were found of sexual assault while intoxicated and 121 cases were found of incest while intoxicated. One could question that if a sexual offender, while intoxicated, has the mental ability to distinguish between a link up and unrelated somebody, then that offender has the mental ability to have the reasonable headway set to know the consequences of sexual assault and that it is illegal. Further to the research on Canlii. org, the use of intoxication as a defence encourages crime while being deadened to the needs and rights of the victim.For examp le, a victim of sexual assault may be labelled as available or worse, unkind words that may lead to psychological issues. A lighter sentence to the culprit would not help the psychological injury that victim has to deal with. Instead it cleverness be worse because the victim may feel that they have been wronged for the second time the second time being by the justice organization. There are always precautions that can be taken to debar situations when one is voluntarily intoxicated. R. v. Mas parcel outnhas, 2002 60 O. R (3d) 465 (C. A. ) is a case of driving under(a) the influence.In this case, Mascarenhas was driving under the influence and killed twain pedestrians. This is a general tendency crime where a mens rea is not required. The proof of the act, actus reus, is required. Mascarenhas may not have intended to kill the pedestrians but nevertheless, two lives were taken. Mascarenhas cannot use the defence of intoxication for this crime. Precautions could have been tak en to avoid the accident. If Mascarenhas had taken reasonable care of himself or possibly had someone to take care of him in voluntary intoxication, driving under the influence would have been avoided and therefore the pedestrians might still be alive.This connects to criminal negligence. Mascarenhas treat the safety of others and therefore was also sentenced for being criminally negligent. During voluntary intoxication, a mortal should be responsible his or her own actions. Mascarenhas was convicted with criminal negligence, impaired operation of a motor vehicle as head as other convictions. This case is a good example of when the justice system made the right decision. The mens rea of an intoxicated person was not taken into consideration since the law does not require mens rea as a part of a general intent crime.Other crimes should also be dealt in the analogous manner and consider mens rea satisfied if the person was voluntarily intoxicated. Based on the compendium of the a rguments that voluntary intoxication does not require a sufficient amount of proof, that it is unfair to the victim, and that the mens rea is considered to be satisfied in the case of intoxication in general intent crimes, it is safe to say that voluntary intoxication should not be used as a defence in criminal offences. Criminals who are voluntarily intoxicated and commit a crime deserve the authorized sentence that comes with the act.The sentence should not be reduced. Voluntary intoxication means that one has the control to decide whether he or she wants to be intoxicated or not. They have the responsibility of reasonable care. Therefore, voluntary intoxication should not be used as a defence of crime. Works Cited incision 33. 1 Criminal Code (R. S. C. , 1985, c-46) parting 219. 1 Criminal Code (R. S. C. , 1985, c-46) R. v. Mascarenhas, 2002 60 O. R (3d) 465 (C. A). R. v. Mascarenhas, 2002 CanLII 41625 (ON CA) R. v. Daviault, 1994 3 S. C. R. 63 R. v.Daviault, 1994 CanLII 61 (S CC), 1994 3 SCR 63 Lamb, W. Kaye. Defence of Intoxication. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation, 2007. 1 Sep 2007. http//www. thecanadianencyclopedia. com. Souper, M. General defences intoxication. Sixth Form Law. 2000-2008. http//sixthformlaw. info. Intoxication and legal defences Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013. http//apt. rcpsych. org. Weaver, Rheyanne. The noetic Health Consequences of Rape. EmpowHER, 2012. httpempower. com.