FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W291885717> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W291885717 endingPage "705" @default.
• W291885717 startingPage "687" @default.
• W291885717 abstract "Mr. Daviault, a 72-year-old alcoholic, was charged with dragging a 65-year-old woman from her wheelchair and sexually assaulting her. This occurred after Mr. Daviault had consumed eight beers and 35 ounces of brandy. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.) allowed evidence of intoxication to be presented as a to this general intent offense. The S.C.C. held that evidence of intoxication was available in situations where the accused could establish that the act was not voluntary or the requisite intent was not formed as a result of a state of intoxication akin to insanity or automatism. This created an exception to the general rule that evidence of was allowed to be presented as a only to specific intent offenses. As a result of the decision in Daviault,1 evidence of intoxication could be presented as a to offenses of both specific and general intent. Daviault and decisions that followed Daviault2 illustrate the problem Parliament faced: that an accused may lack the blameworthy mental state necessary to convict him of assault but certainly not be morally blameless. Outcries from society demanded immediate legislative changes. Parliament responded quickly by introducing Bill C-72,3 an amendment to the Criminal Code intended to undo the change in the law that resulted from the S.C.C. decision in Daviault. Parliament proposed to return the law to its previous state by making it clear that the of was not available to any general intent offenses regardless of the level of intoxication. This paper puts the proposed amendment into context and evaluates Bill C-72 under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.4 The first section of this paper deals with the case law background of how criminal law has dealt with the intoxicated offender. The second section takes a detailed look at Parliament's suggested solution, Bill C-72. Sections three through five give an analysis of the Charter rights that may be infringed by the bill and evaluates the bill's chance of surviving a Charter challenge under s. 1. I: The case law before and after Daviault A) The law before5 the decision in Daviault It is common to talk of the defense of drunkenness; however, is not a defense. The more accurate terminology would be that there was a lack of mens rea. In this paper the term defence of drunkenness is used, but it is important to remember that evidence of intoxication has the effect of calling into question whether an essential element of the offense has been proved. If the Crown is unable to convince the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of all the essential elements of the offense, then the accused must be acquitted. The law draws a distinction between crimes that require specific intent and crimes that require only general intent. A general intent offense requires such a minimal mental element that the voluntary act itself could satisfy the necessary intent component. Drunkenness was believed to be incapable of negating this minimal intent. For a specific intent offense, the accused must be able to form the more specific intent that is set out in the Criminal Code. This specific intention cannot be inferred from the act. If a person's mind is severely clouded by alcohol or drugs to the point that he or she lacks the ability to form the specific intent to commit the crime, the accused must be acquitted. Before Daviault, evidence of intoxication was allowed before the trier of fact in relation to only specific intent offenses. General intent offenses required such a minimal mental element that the voluntary act itself could satisfy the necessary intent component. Extreme intoxication had been raised before in the S.C.C., but only in side comments.6 The issue of extreme intoxication as a in general intent offenses was unresolved. The S.C.C. was given the opportunity to provide an answer to this question in Daviault. …" @default.
• W291885717 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W291885717 creator A5068969183 @default.
• W291885717 date "1996-12-01" @default.
• W291885717 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W291885717 title "Self-induced intoxication: balancing principles of justice and responsibility" @default.
• W291885717 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099602300408" @default.
• W291885717 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W291885717 type Work @default.
• W291885717 sameAs 291885717 @default.
• W291885717 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W291885717 countsByYear W2918857172014 @default.
• W291885717 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W291885717 hasAuthorship W291885717A5068969183 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C2779625551 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C2781222033 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C2781440851 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W291885717 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C11413529 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C15744967 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C17744445 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C199539241 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C2777351106 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C2778272461 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C2779625551 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C2781222033 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C2781440851 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C41008148 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C48103436 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C73484699 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C83009810 @default.
• W291885717 hasConceptScore W291885717C94625758 @default.
• W291885717 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W291885717 hasLocation W2918857171 @default.
• W291885717 hasOpenAccess W291885717 @default.
• W291885717 hasPrimaryLocation W2918857171 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W147099971 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W1503921978 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W1516723310 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W1601855671 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W1683696839 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2048937476 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2056907259 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2128557918 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2288178540 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W248101234 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2528532085 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2580801299 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2605346428 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W2737949443 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W3023155956 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W3122702838 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W3125153455 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W318990421 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W328016026 @default.
• W291885717 hasRelatedWork W92674412 @default.
• W291885717 hasVolume "23" @default.
• W291885717 isParatext "false" @default.
• W291885717 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W291885717 magId "291885717" @default.
• W291885717 workType "article" @default.