On Friday May 13, The Supreme Court of Canada made the unanimous decision to support the defence of “self-induced extreme intoxication” in court. In other words, you can now avoid conviction for committing violent crime if you’re high or drunk enough.
Seriously.
This ruling came from the case of Matthew Winston Brown, who broke into houses and committed violent crimes while deep under the influence of magic mushrooms. Brown pleaded not guilty because of automatism (when someone is so intoxicated or impaired that they have no voluntary control over their actions), and, naturally, people were skeptical about the legality of this defence. The debate around whether or not he could use it went back and forth for years, until it eventually landed his case in the Supreme Court.
And it was a unanimous ruling.
On the surface this decision might seem logical. After all, in Canada, both a guilty action and a guilty mind are required for a person to be found guilty of a crime. And neither element is present when a person is in a state of automatism. But this bill will have massive impact on crimes such as sexual assault.
I find it terrifying to think that “I was too drunk or high to know what I was doing” is now a legal defence. For years, the whole culture of victim-blaming has had the mindset of “well, they shouldn’t have been drunk.” And now their assailant can get out of jail because they were drunk.
What a mess.
To the court’s credit, they have said that “protecting the victims of violent crime—particularly in light of the equality and dignity interests of women and children who are vulnerable to intoxicated sexual and domestic acts—is a pressing and substantial social purpose.” So they are, at the very least, conscious that this defence could include crime like sexual assault.
But the promises and reassurance that this defence won’t be misused mean nothing when put up against the law.
I can see all sides here, and this is one of those times when there’s a moral (and now legal) grey area. As the Supreme Court said, “Convicting someone for how they conducted themselves while in a state of automatism violates principles of fundamental justice.” But at the same time, this new defence does not provide justice for victims.
We need to make sure that the self-induced extreme intoxication defence is heavily monitored, or things could get even worse for survivors of sexual assault and violent crime.
This decision will have an impact far greater than just Brown’s case, and that terrifies me.
It should terrify you, too.