Extreme drunkenness defence scary stuff Bob Wakeham

If you believe any of the variations of that ancient adage that God protects fools and drunks, you’d also have to conclude that the big guy in the sky — he, or He, if you wish, is consistently described by the dogmatic followers of such matters as a male — may have found an unexpected and unintentional ally in the protection of boozers, at least those who do their two-fisted drinking in Canada.

God’s newfound partner is none other than the Supreme Court of Canada, which had heads turning in disbelief from here to Vancouver with its recent ruling that it is unconstitutional to prevent those accused of violent crimes from using the defence of “extreme intoxication.”

The legal lingo (if you can prevent your eyes from glazing over) centres around the use of “automatism” by lawyers representing clients charged with serious assault or even homicide. “Automatism” defined as “a state of unconsciousness that renders a person incapable of consciously controlling their behaviour while in that state.”

In other words, in more down-to-earth language: If you’re drunk enough, to a point of oblivion, you can legitimately use the argument that you had no idea you were committing a violent crime, that you weren’t really responsible for your actions.

CIRCUMVENTING ACCOUNTABILITY?

For me, and I would think, for most rationale-thinking Canadians, such an implicit forgiveness, the use of extreme drunkenness in the legal confessional as a way to circumvent accountability, is real scary stuff, loaded (so to speak) with enormous repercussions.

Get hammered, and you can get away with murder. Quite literally.

Polish off a 40-ouncer and a dozen beer and physically assault your partner? Hey, the courts are willing to hear that you, poor inebriated fella, had not a clue what you were up to as you beat your wife to a pulp. You were, after all, in a state of “automatism.”

Social activists, women in particular, who’ve been campaigning seemingly forever to strengthen the laws surrounding domestic violence, must have just cringed and gotten cold shivers upon hearing that being boozed up can be an excuse for pulverizing a spouse.

I can’t claim to know the statistics in such tragic matters, but I’d be willing to bet that liquor, more often than not, has been a steady and terrible component in spousal abuse.

And how about barroom fights? Two men (mostly men, I’d say) engage, let’s say, in a knock-down, dragout brawl, with one of the combatants winding up in a coma in hospital. It’s certainly not far-fetched to suggest that the pugilist left standing could have his lawyer argue he was so drunk he couldn’t recall anything beyond midafternoon, and that the racket occurred later that evening.

“Your Honour,” pleads the legal beagle, “my client was hammered, he was in a state of ‘automatism’, and can’t possibly be held liable for his actions.”

How about an impaired driver who knocks down a youngster on a bike, and then leaves the scene? Could not the case be made that he was so inebriated he couldn’t even recall getting behind the wheel in the first place, and, thus, couldn’t be blamed for any of his subsequent actions?

MOCKERY OF JUSTICE

My professional life has allowed me to observe and document, and to supervise the documentation of, some of the most violent crimes in Newfoundland over the decades, and intoxication raised its ugly head in many of those stories.

And having spent considerable time as a bar fly, drinking in some tough Newfoundland bars, I’ve also witnessed some incredibly nasty fights, invariably among men ossified to the gills, donnybrooks in which emergency room attention was sometimes required.

And continuing on that personal note, I have to confess I was involved in boozefuelled episodes in which pure luck prevented me from winding up in jail.

To even contemplate for a second the idea that presentday occupiers of such seats of shocking behaviour could obtain a legal pass because of drunkenness is ironic in the extreme, and makes a mockery of our so-called justice system.

And, yes, I recognize that the members of the Supreme Court are not searching out a way to ease the consequences for drunks charged with crimes, that they are, instead, interpreting the laws of the land as they see them, in cold and emotionally detached fashion.

Even the judges themselves during their private moments, though, must have recognized that this particular ruling is fraught with the most dramatic of repercussions, but found their hands tied.

It goes almost without saying, then, that it’s up to the federal government to display some fortitude here, if not plain old common sense, and introduce legislation that will counteract any ruling, of any sort, that permits individuals charged with violence to walk free because they happened to have been drunk.

God, indeed, may protect fools and drunks, but let’s hope he (He) doesn’t protect from the voters those foolish politicians who do not do the right thing here and have this ruling drowned immediately in the ocean of ignominy.

Where it belongs.