Man commits Random Murder, Not responsible cause he was Drunk.

[dj_patm]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/calgary-man-sentenced-to-eight-years-in-prison-for-brutal-killing-of-innocent-man


Littlechild was charged with second-degree murder, but a jury ruled his gross intoxication prevented him from forming the intent to commit murder

Wow. Guy slashed a persons throat and stabbed him several times but it's not murder cause he was drunk?

So you can be held responsible if you're drunk and decide to drive or rape someone or assault someone or steal or vandalize, but if you murder someone you're not responsible for having the intent to kill?

[Kobe]

Yah things like this really piss me off about the system...
So stupid...

[TomcoPDR]

:thumbsdow

Fucked up

[Thaco]

I agree it is complete bullshit,

but to play the devils advocate. he'll still get manslaughter at minimum, which is a joke, but its not like he's walking away from it...

[Mitsu3000gt]

This was the expected outcome, murder charges are rarely taken seriously in Canada. Standard procedure is to drop the charges 1-2 levels of severity and go from there.

Kill a family of 5? No problem 3.5 yrs should do it.

Behead someone? NBD, allowed back into society unsupervised.

I'm cherry picking examples but you get the point.

[Thaco]

Just read another article he's actually getting 6 years, time served since the attack in 2013, plus another 21 months going forward and 2 years of probation after.

Still a joke... They're being sympathetic toward him because he's native and his parents had to go through the residential schools n shit... not sure what his parents ahve to do with him randomly killing an innocent man..

[FraserB]

This was the expected outcome, murder charges are rarely taken seriously in Canada. Standard procedure is to drop the charges 1-2 levels of severity and go from there.

Kill a family of 5? No problem 3.5 yrs should do it.

Behead someone? NBD, allowed back into society unsupervised.

I'm cherry picking examples but you get the point.

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

[dj_patm]

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

How can you rape someone when you're drunk then?

[Thaco]

How can you rape someone when you're drunk then?

somehow poking with your dick and poking with a knife is different.

[vengie]

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

I would like to hear the definition of "Intent" from this standpoint.


Because by my definition of intent, if a person's decision lead them to an action (I.e drunk guy decides to start slashing and stabbing a guy, causing death), that to me is intent. Its black or white, you either decide to do something and you follow through or you don't.

If a drunk guy is pulled over while driving he clearly is intending to drive that vehicle as he made the decision to drive.

State of mind/ inebriation should have nothing to do with intent in my eyes. A decision was made, and an action was followed through.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Murder requires intent, if you were not capable of forming intent, then it's not murder. This is pretty much the main reason why drunk drivers don't get charged with murder if they kill someone

So the best thing to do after committing a heinous crime then would be to immediately get drunk or high and claim you were intoxicated at the time? Everyone would do that if it was the case.

I think if you willingly get into a car drunk, you know the risks (i.e. high chance of killing someone) and if you don't waive any 'intent' requirements that is ridiculous. At that point you are giving people an 'out' or free pass through the very means that got them into the situation in the first place.

[FraserB]

So the best thing to do after committing a heinous crime then would be to immediately get drunk or high and claim you were intoxicated at the time? Everyone would do that if it was the case.

I think if you willingly get into a car drunk, you know the risks (i.e. high chance of killing someone) and if you don't waive any 'intent' requirements that is ridiculous. At that point you are giving people an 'out' or free pass through the very means that got them into the situation in the first place.

You can't argue that anyone who drives after consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel intending to kill someone.

No one is getting a free pass, lacking the ability to form intent only precludes a murder charge, not any charges at all. Homicide without intent to cause death is literally the definition of manslaughter, which is what he was found guilt of.

[vengie]

You can't argue that anyone who drives after consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel intending to kill someone.

No one is getting a free pass, lacking the ability to form intent only precludes a murder charge, not any charges at all. Homicide without intent to cause death is literally the definition of manslaughter, which is what he was found guilt of.


No but they INTENDED to drive the vehicle.
Everything that happens as a result of them driving the vehicle is an outcome of the intended decision.

[FraserB]

No but they INTENDED to drive the vehicle.
Everything that happens as a result of them driving the vehicle is an outcome of the intended decision.

Yes, they intended to drive the vehicle, but that alone wouldn't constitute intent to commit murder. If you follow that line of thinking, every homicide is first degree murder and that's the only charge we should have.

[vengie]

I disagree.

First degree murder is a planned murder, and they proved that planning.

Whereas drunk drivers (for the most part) aren't planning to drive later in the evening or didn't think they would get drunk. Whatever the case its a spur of the moment decision. Like a charge of second degree murder.

[HiTempguy1]

How can you rape someone when you're drunk then?

Honest question, has this ever been argued?

If you were drunk enough/blackout drunk, it actually may be a reasonable defense :dunno:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Kill a family of 5? No problem 3.5 yrs should do it.

Is that the cement truck driver or whatever he was? Tschetter or something?

Wonder if he killed himself yet.

[colinxx235]

Is that the cement truck driver or whatever he was? Tschetter or something?

Wonder if he killed himself yet.


I haven't read an article about him in probably 4 years since they released him early. To date that has to be one of the worse cases I can recall in Calgary.

The only one that ever hit a bit closer was the Mike Maniago incident (went to school/hockey buddies circle) which was total bullshit to. But drunk driving death cases in Canada do not carry a very harsh penalty and the times that people get away with the DUI because of loopholes they find is frustrating

[J-hop]

You can't argue that anyone who drives after consuming alcohol gets behind the wheel intending to kill someone.

No one is getting a free pass, lacking the ability to form intent only precludes a murder charge, not any charges at all. Homicide without intent to cause death is literally the definition of manslaughter, which is what he was found guilt of.

What I don't get is to stab someone like that you aren't drunk enough that you don't know what you're doing. You wouldn't be able to kill anyone with any weapon short of a gun if you're intoxicated enough to lose all ability to form intent.

Personally I don't get it.

[JRSC00LUDE]

I haven't read an article about him in probably 4 years since they released him early. To date that has to be one of the worse cases I can recall in Calgary.

The only one that ever hit a bit closer was the Mike Maniago incident (went to school/hockey buddies circle) which was total bullshit to. But drunk driving death cases in Canada do not carry a very harsh penalty and the times that people get away with the DUI because of loopholes they find is frustrating

This cunt killed a family here not too long ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/catherine-mckay-sentencing-saskatoon-court-2016-1.3697785

ONE MONTH into her sentence she got transferred to a "Healing Lodge", doesn't even have to spend any time in a real prison. She's essentially got her own apartment at camp till she's released:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3269509/van-de-vorst-family-upset-drunk-driver-who-killed-their-relatives-moved-to-healing-lodge/

The point is, with the massive precedent for nearly no accountability for even the most severe outcomes of drinking and driving, this story doesn't surprise me.

[JRSC00LUDE]

What I don't get is to stab someone like that you aren't drunk enough that you don't know what you're doing. You wouldn't be able to kill anyone with any weapon short of a gun if you're intoxicated enough to lose all ability to form intent.

Personally I don't get it.

I disagree. When you're incapacitated to the point of blackout, you can still be making decisions and functioning. It's just that judgement/impulse control/emotional response to stimuli/etc. are out the window, your mind no longer functions within its regular parameters. That doesn't mean you're physically incapable of performing things, you just do things you may not have otherwise considered. As you become more and more accustomed to heavy alcohol intake (ie. career alcoholics), this becomes more true. Not much different than the odd story of a guy who blacks out and wakes up sleeping in the cab of crane or, on the top of a building or something. No idea how they got there/what they were thinking, but they sure as hell decided to go there and their body took them.

[dj_patm]

I disagree. When you're incapacitated to the point of blackout, you can still be making decisions and functioning. It's just that judgement/impulse control/emotional response to stimuli/etc. are out the window, your mind no longer functions within its regular parameters. That doesn't mean you're physically incapable of performing things, you just do things you may not have otherwise considered. As you become more and more accustomed to heavy alcohol intake (ie. career alcoholics), this becomes more true. Not much different than the odd story of a guy who blacks out and wakes up sleeping in the cab of crane or, on the top of a building or something. No idea how they got there/what they were thinking, but they sure as hell decided to go there and their body took them.

And is that supposed to be an excuse? Again how is basically every crime not excused if committed by someone that was black out drunk?

[JRSC00LUDE]

And is that supposed to be an excuse? Again how is basically every crime not excused if committed by someone that was black out drunk?

You'll have to refer me to where I said it was an excuse?

Unless I've misunderstood his post. J-hop said "What I don't get is to stab someone like that you aren't drunk enough that you don't know what you're doing.". I disagree with that thought. Blackout drunks do shit all the time and literally have no idea what they are doing, and they have zero recollection of it. They still decided to do it, but they're not consciously aware of making that decision or even of what they've done. They formed intent but, with a mind not functioning properly anymore.

The links I posted go to demonstrate that, more or less, most crimes committed by people completely incapacitated by alcohol do go largely unpunished. What's true of serious crimes will be more true of lesser ones.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Is that the cement truck driver or whatever he was? Tschetter or something?

Wonder if he killed himself yet.

Yeah that's the one I was referring to. What a POS.

These stories just make me angry. If someone did that to my family and got essentially zero punishment, I don't even know what I'd do. I wouldn't be able to handle it.

[dj_patm]

You'll have to refer me to where I said it was an excuse?

Unless I've misunderstood his post. J-hop said "What I don't get is to stab someone like that you aren't drunk enough that you don't know what you're doing.". I disagree with that thought. Blackout drunks do shit all the time and literally have no idea what they are doing, and they have zero recollection of it. They still decided to do it, but they're not consciously aware of making that decision or even of what they've done. They formed intent but, with a mind not functioning properly anymore.

The links I posted go to demonstrate that, more or less, most crimes committed by people completely incapacitated by alcohol do go largely unpunished. What's true of serious crimes will be more true of lesser ones.

Yeah, I didn't mean for that to come of as you were saying it's okay cause they were drunk. I mean just overall how can that be treated as an excuse when we specifically make laws about drinking and driving and rape when both parties are drunk....

[JRSC00LUDE]

Yeah, I didn't mean for that to come of as you were saying it's okay cause they were drunk. I mean just overall how can that be treated as an excuse when we specifically make laws about drinking and driving and rape when both parties are drunk....

Ahhh, I see. :)

[Swank]

If someone did that to my family and got essentially zero punishment, I don't even know what I'd do. I wouldn't be able to handle it. You could go get drunk and then kill them back apparently.

[vengie]

You could go get drunk and then kill them back apparently.

As long as you didn't intend to.

[Mitsu3000gt]

You could go get drunk and then kill them back apparently.

Indeed, that appears to be the best solution with little to no risk of any meaningful punishment. If anything, prosecutors could use that to suggest intent and if a person did that, they would probably get a harsher punishment. Crazy.

[kertejud2]

No but they INTENDED to drive the vehicle.
Everything that happens as a result of them driving the vehicle is an outcome of the intended decision.

Other ways drivers are let off the hook for murder:

-dangerous driving causing death
-criminal negligence causing death
-failure to stop for police causing death
-street racing causing death
-impaired driving causing death
-hit and run driving causing death

They also don't simply have 'hitting person with vehicle causing death' even though they showed intent by driving the vehicle to murder that person.

[revelations]

Random syncronicity:


A Fort McMurray man accused of murder for fatally stabbing his sister in the neck pleaded guilty Friday in Edmonton to the lesser offence of manslaughter.

Kevin McLernon, 29, had been charged with second-degree murder for the May 19, 2014, killing of Robyn Gladue, 36, at the Fort McMurray home they both lived at.

What are the chances that two people of the same name get killed, in the same province, less than a year apart.

Also, note that both the victims are FN.

[ExtraSlow]

If the name is a common FN name, odds of murder are quite a bit higher.

[J-hop]

You'll have to refer me to where I said it was an excuse?

Unless I've misunderstood his post. J-hop said "What I don't get is to stab someone like that you aren't drunk enough that you don't know what you're doing.". I disagree with that thought. Blackout drunks do shit all the time and literally have no idea what they are doing, and they have zero recollection of it. They still decided to do it, but they're not consciously aware of making that decision or even of what they've done. They formed intent but, with a mind not functioning properly anymore.

The links I posted go to demonstrate that, more or less, most crimes committed by people completely incapacitated by alcohol do go largely unpunished. What's true of serious crimes will be more true of lesser ones.


What I meant was it's one thing to stumble blackout drunk into a car, and kill someone with your car. It's another to have enough motor control to get someone on the ground slash their throat and stab them 5 times. if you have enough control over your body to do that you are still functioning well enough to make decisions and form intent. If you're so blackout drunk you don't know what's going on your motor control is going to be so far gone as well there is no way you're stabbing someone to death like that

[JRSC00LUDE]

What I meant was it's one thing to stumble blackout drunk into a car, and kill someone with your car. It's another to have enough motor control to get someone on the ground slash their throat and stab them 5 times. if you have enough control over your body to do that you are still functioning well enough to make decisions and form intent. If you're so blackout drunk you don't know what's going on your motor control is going to be so far gone as well there is no way you're stabbing someone to death like that

I guess my opinion is because I have different experience.

At another point in my life, many years ago now, I put people in the hospital on two separate occasions. One quite seriously.

Each time during a full blackout and each time, having no understanding of the circumstances till being informed of them by others the next day. That is a horriblly unsettling experience.

Thankfully, for my own personal interests, each time I was completely exonerated by the independent statements of others around me as it was self defense in one situation and, defense of another person in the other. That doesn't change the fact that I inflicted significant physical harm upon people without being aware of it. That is something I'm not mentally capable of doing when in my "typical" frame of mind, I don't like hurting people and never have. There are dozens of persons in my life who understand that I am not a violent person by nature. I changed a few of my surroundings and it's never been an issue again. But these things happened.

The point of that story is, I understand how it can happen. Extreme levels of intoxication can do extreme things to your mental and physical states.

[ExtraSlow]

Agree. Not everyone turns into a stumbling noodle-man when drunk.

[J-hop]

Agree. Not everyone turns into a stumbling noodle-man when drunk.

I guess then you are required to define at what point intent can't be formed. Just because you act differently than you would normally doesn't have much to do with your capability to form intent.

At the end of the day manslaughter is NOT an appropriate charge for anyone who takes another's life while intoxicated. I agree our system is flawed.


Edit: and so I'm clear, what you are saying is someone with enough control over their body to slash someone's throat and continue stabbing them does not have enough control over their cognitive functions to understand stabbing someone will kill them?

[ExtraSlow]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Good summation.

[Feruk]

This sentence sends the wrong message to the large homeless drunk native community we have in the downtown and surrounding areas. Now we're gonna have some 24 year old unstable (rage prone alcoholic) drunk back on the streets in 2 years. Should've thrown the book at him and paraded him in front of the other bums as a warning.


I think if you willingly get into a car drunk, you know the risks (i.e. high chance of killing someone)
High chance of killing someone? Lol, please provide a stat for that statement.

[ExtraSlow]

I feel like we are getting off topic but has it ever been shown to be effective to increase incarceration to lower crime rates?

[J-hop]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Good summation.

That is an interesting debate. What you're saying is the mind can't make the connection between stabbing and inflicting damage.

If the mind can't make that connection then why was the man's reaction to stab the person? If the mind can't understand the cause and effect no connection would be made and no stabbing would have occurred especially in such a horrific manner.

Keep in mind as well the end decision was made by laymen not anyone with any business making determinations like that IMO. They only guessed at mental state based on who's expert swayed them the most


I think in Canada we are too quick to say people aren't responsible when they have drugs or alcohol in their system and ignore how complex and nuanced this concept is.

[ercchry]

That is an interesting debate. What you're saying is the mind can't make the connection between stabbing and inflicting damage.

If the mind can't make that connection then why was the man's reaction to stab the person? If the mind can't understand the cause and effect no connection would be made and no stabbing would have occurred especially in such a horrific manner.

Keep in mind as well the end decision was made by laymen not anyone with any business making determinations like that IMO. They only guessed at mental state based on who's expert swayed them the most


When blackout... the mind is absent... hence the term "black out"

If you haven't been blackout... let me tell you, it's an unnerving situation, you wake up... hopefully in a familiar place, and it's hours later... the last thing you remember is having some drinks early the evening before then literally nothing. The only account of your night is third person from your friends and that's it, not a glimmer of memory, nothing your friends tell you ring a bell or anything. It's simply missing time from your life for good. Completely different than just being "really drunk" where you remember bits and pieces and it already felt like your body was just on autopilot... no, blackout sucks...

[J-hop]

When blackout... the mind is absent... hence the term "black out"

If you haven't been blackout... let me tell you, it's an unnerving situation, you wake up... hopefully in a familiar place, and it's hours later... the last thing you remember is having some drinks early the evening before then literally nothing. The only account of your night is third person from your friends and that's it, not a glimmer of memory, nothing your friends tell you ring a bell or anything. It's simply missing time from your life for good. Completely different than just being "really drunk" where you remember bits and pieces and it already felt like your body was just on autopilot... no, blackout sucks...

You're missing my point. The mind can still connect that stabbing someone = inflicting damage can it not?

Also, not being able to recall what happened the night before is very different from the mind not being able to make the connection that stabbing someone will inflict damage.

We have to determine the state of functioning at the time, not after or before (unless you are arguing premeditated which they weren't in this case).

Do you have the wherewithal to slash someone's throat and stab them repeatedly? Yes. Is your mind able to connect the knife with inflicting damage? Yes absolutely. You aren't randomly waving a knife around and accidentally stabbing people in your path.

Again I fully underatand that there are barriers that you have up when you're sober that will prevent you from committing violent acts that can come down when you are intoxicated. But that is a completely different discussion from the one regarding if your mind can connect stabbing with inflicting damage. People that claim this is a black and white sober vs blackout arguement are not appreciating the level of complexity involved

[ExtraSlow]

Agree it's complex, and it's not just a medical/physiological argument, it's all intertwined with the legal/ethical/social argument as well. That's a little too deep for me today. I feel my one and only point was well understood.

[J-hop]

Agree it's complex, and it's not just a medical/physiological argument, it's all intertwined with the legal/ethical/social argument as well. That's a little too deep for me today. I feel my one and only point was well understood.

Totally agree. I think few people appreciate the complexity though. Canada IMO has just jumped way too far left on this and has removed way too much personal accountability from the equation.

6 years incarceration +2 years probation or whatever the end sentence was is absolutely not holding someone accountable. Vince Li being back on the street with a new name is not holding someone accountable. That drunk cement truck driver basically getting a wrist slap for killing a family is not holding someone accountable.the list goes on.

I guess I'm slightly biased though as I listen to about 5 different crime podcasts and Canada has one of the worst wraps for light sentencing when personal responsibility for ones actions comes into play

[ercchry]

The problem with blackout... is you don't have any recollection of your mental state... but as one approaches blackout, the body does tend to go into autopilot mode... so claiming that there even is some sort of thought process involved while in a blackout state is the issue I have with your argument

As for this case... well... yeah, manslaughter seems to fit the bill to me, not premeditated if it was a blackout impulse... unless he planned to get shitfaced then go out on a stabbing spree

[dj_patm]

No. It should be second degree Murder.

He stabbed someone several times and slit their throat. That is not an accident as manslaughter implies.

Unbelievable that people are defending this logic. I don't care about the legal spin you can put on it, he killed someone, intentionally killed someone by stabbing them numerous times. That is why we are supposed to have judges.

[J-hop]

The problem with blackout... is you don't have any recollection of your mental state... but as one approaches blackout, the body does tend to go into autopilot mode... so claiming that there even is some sort of thought process involved while in a blackout state is the issue I have with your argument

As for this case... well... yeah, manslaughter seems to fit the bill to me, not premeditated if it was a blackout impulse... unless he planned to get shitfaced then go out on a stabbing spree

The debate was between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter not first and manslaughter. 1st degree requires proof of premeditation, 2nd does not.

[ercchry]

Perhaps "premeditated" was the wrong word choice... blackout is a state of impulse, with no conscious thought... with no conscious thought there is no chance for intent... it would be like having control over being in a dream state

Unless his intent was to get shitfaced and cause shit, there is no way for the mind to control the actions in the moment... would be no different than a temporary insanity plea, which also has a long history of getting charges dropped to manslaughter.

[TomcoPDR]

Random syncronicity:



What are the chances that two people of the same name get killed, in the same province, less than a year apart.

Also, note that both the victims are FN.

sounds like the job of the T-1000

[J-hop]

Perhaps "premeditated" was the wrong word choice... blackout is a state of impulse, with no conscious thought... with no conscious thought there is no chance for intent... it would be like having control over being in a dream state

Unless his intent was to get shitfaced and cause shit, there is no way for the mind to control the actions in the moment... would be no different than a temporary insanity plea, which also has a long history of getting charges dropped to manslaughter.

Yea I get what you are saying but that requires a lot of thought as to where to draw the line between murder and manslaughter.
If we are to go forward with your assumption the answer still isn't simple. You still need to decide at what point we deem a person incapable of being responsible. If you kill someone after 1 drink was it murder or manslaughter? Obviously murder. Now how about 2,3,4,5,6,7, etc etc?

There is a lot of research that shows BAC in alcoholics is no longer a good proxy for intoxication so how do you then determine whether the person is responsible or not? What evidence do you use?

Should a layman have any contribution to the determinination of intent?

Also we are assuming that the guy was blackout drunk based on the wording "gross intoxication". What does that even mean? We don't know....

[ercchry]

Yeah blackout is something that's going to be different in everyone, based on previous levels of abuse, down to even what they ate that day. For me when it happened, it was the same as any night in first year uni... drank only half a 2-6, which at my size and tolerance should of been a decent buzz... but something happened and... boom, blackout

That's why I made a comparison to temporary insanity, something that happens in the mind, with no real symptoms after the fact... where professionals need to form opinions on the specific case

[RealJimmyJames]

Sounds like a version of the Aaron Hernandez defence. "I have a brain injury so I can't be held responsible ".

Hang em all.

[googe]

It seems like this debate derailed way back because this is a bad thread title that is in no way true, and opening the article for a second would make that obvious. So now just about everyone is missing the point and debating something that isn't even the case to begin with.

It's not that you can't be charged with crimes if you don't have intent (whether due to being drunk or otherwise). That's not what happened and nobody was found to be "not responsible" for their crimes at all. The situation is that in order for the crime to be called murder, there has to be intent, so instead this person is guilty of a crime that is not called murder, it's called manslaughter. Which he got 8 years for. Rape convictions probably don't require intent, so it doesn't matter if you're drunk. Many crimes don't require intent.

Now you might think in this case that he clearly did have intent regardless of his supposed state of intoxication and therefore murder was the more appropriate charge (for those who didn't read, this isn't an ambiguous case like JRSC00LUDE discussed, or self defense, he straight up went to a random guy and slashed his throat then stabbed him). His defense lawyer requested manslaughter as a plea deal. But the prosecution said no, fuck that, this was a murder, and we will accept nothing less. And this verdict was then decided by a jury. 10 random Calgarians made this decision. So the problem isn't the justice system or the courts. There's nothing that could have been done better. Sometimes the jury of your peers doesn't vote how you think they should, kind of like the OJ Simpson verdict, but that's what we got.

[J-hop]

The problem I have is not that the jury didn't vote the way I think they should have but rather they weren't capable of making that determination and too often they don't really understand the fundemental question being asked.

Take 1st vs 2nd degree murder for example (to demonstrate sheer ignorance of the average person). I gaurentee 99% of the people out there think premeditation means they planned it out long in advance and killed the person. In reality the legal definition is mostly time independent, meaning you have an arguement with someone, leave the room to go grab your gun and shoot them. That is legally considered premeditated. You don't have to plan it out a week in advance as the average person usually thinks.

Now go to an issue even more complex like the ability for someone to form intent. Does the average person have any business being involved in that determination? Absolutely not. But that is the way our justice system "works".

[ZenOps]

The only way I could see alcohol as a real defense is if they could prove involuntary muscle twitching was involved.

Still, self induced muscle twitching (voluntarily drinking) is still voluntary in that you have to start drinking to start with. So maximum penalties should still apply.

[phil98z24]

The problem I have is not that the jury didn't vote the way I think they should have but rather they weren't capable of making that determination and too often they don't really understand the fundemental question being asked.

Take 1st vs 2nd degree murder for example (to demonstrate sheer ignorance of the average person). I gaurentee 99% of the people out there think premeditation means they planned it out long in advance and killed the person. In reality the legal definition is mostly time independent, meaning you have an arguement with someone, leave the room to go grab your gun and shoot them. That is legally considered premeditated. You don't have to plan it out a week in advance as the average person usually thinks.

Now go to an issue even more complex like the ability for someone to form intent. Does the average person have any business being involved in that determination? Absolutely not. But that is the way our justice system "works".

That is why the judge gives the jury instructions on what their findings can be based on the evidence they’ve personally seen, and then they are sent to deliberate armed with that legal guidance. It’s not a totally uninformed decision made by laymen. :)

[J-hop]

That is why the judge gives the jury instructions on what their findings can be based on the evidence they’ve personally seen, and then they are sent to deliberate armed with that legal guidance. It’s not a totally uninformed decision made by laymen. :)

we'll have to agree to disagree on that. A couple days listening to experts on both sides argue their points and instructions from a judge doesn't turn a laymen into a well informed person capable of making a decision that even experts in the field of cognitive science have a tough time making.

[blitz]

If someone is deemed not responsible for a crime due to alcohol, I feel that person should have an alcohol monitoring braclet for the rest of their lives. If you're capable of stabbing someone to death while drunk, you should never be drunk again.

Same goes for coming off of your medications and committing a crime; If you don't take your meds, you should go to jail.

[phil98z24]

we'll have to agree to disagree on that. A couple days listening to experts on both sides argue their points and instructions from a judge doesn't turn a laymen into a well informed person capable of making a decision that even experts in the field of cognitive science have a tough time making.

I’m not sure it’s quite as simple as that. (I’d hope!) At trial there was undoubtedly plenty of evidence and information we don’t have available to us which was used to come to this conclusion. Sadly there is plenty of caselaw where intoxication is part of the defence in certain crimes, despite the criminal code saying otherwise, and that must be given deference when applicable.

Thankfully we have an appeals process though, and I hope this one is appealed. It’s appalling and just doesn’t make sense to me either.

[ExtraSlow]

If someone is deemed not responsible for a crime due to alcohol, I feel that person should have an alcohol monitoring braclet for the rest of their lives. If you're capable of stabbing someone to death while drunk, you should never be drunk again.

Same goes for coming off of your medications and committing a crime; If you don't take your meds, you should go to jail. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Shlade]

Justice system for ya

[Masked Bandit]

If someone is deemed not responsible for a crime due to alcohol, I feel that person should have an alcohol monitoring braclet for the rest of their lives. If you're capable of stabbing someone to death while drunk, you should never be drunk again.

Same goes for coming off of your medications and committing a crime; If you don't take your meds, you should go to jail.

Maybe not for life, but if you receive a reduced sentence due to being impaired then you need to be monitored for the length of time you would have received if convicted under normal circumstances (IE, 25 years).