Not just that, but the O.P. does not seem to be well informed on what the ruling is actually about/intended to be used for.
A short version, copied/edited ....
“I've seen a lot of people outraged -- understandably -- by yesterday's headlines saying that "the Ontario Court of Appeal rules intoxication can be used as a defence in sexual assault and violent crime cases". This headline is incredibly misleading (looking at you CP24 and MPP Jill Andrew). I slogged through the 110 page decision, so before you share petitions or try to fight this, there are some important parts of the decision you should know):
(...it is virtually impossible to use being drunk as a defence to sexual assault, even after yesterday's ruling)
1. There were 2 cases dealt with in yesterday's decision, neither one of them involved sexual assault OR alcohol. They involved murder and aggravated assault as a result of hallucinations (more on that later).
2. Being intoxicated or very intoxicated is not a defence to most crimes, including sexual assault and other violent crimes. This was not changed by yesterday's ruling.
3. The only type of intoxication that can be used as a defence is "intoxication akin to automatism". What does that mean? It refers to someone who is so intoxicated that they no longer have any free will and their mind and body are totally out of their control.
4. The law that was overturned yesterday said that people were responsible for violent crimes even if they had no control or understanding that they were committing them, so long it was as a result of self-induced intoxication. This includes prescription medicine, illegal drugs, and potentially alcohol. However the Court also noted that there is evidence that it is physiologically impossible for alcohol to make someone intoxicated enough for the defence of extreme intoxication to apply. To argue this defence, you have to provide a medical expert witness to show that you had no control over yourself at the time of the offence. It's an extremely difficult defence to make out.
5. The reason the law was overturned was that it was punishing people for actions that they were not morally responsible for. This violates the principles of fundamental justice. Notably, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was one of the groups fighting to get the law overturned.
6. So what kinds of cases are we talking about here? The first case concluded yesterday (R v Chan) dealt with a teenager who took magic mushrooms. The drugs caused a severe reaction (likely due to an undiagnosed brain injury) and he broke into his father's house, killed his father, and attempted to kill his father's partner. When police arrested him they said he "had super strength" and was acting extremely erratically. The partner's evidence suggested he had no idea who they were or what was happening.
The second case (R v Sullivan) dealt with a man who was taking prescription medicine to help quit smoking. One of the side effects of the medicine was psychosis. He reacted poorly to the pills, having hallucinations, and eventually he attempted suicide by taking 30-80 of the pills. This caused a severe psychotic episode where he thought his mom was an alien trying to kill him, so he stabbed her. Fortunately she survived the incident.
The way the law was, both of these men would be guilty and have to go to jail. That's why it was overturned. It's a complicated, difficult part of the law, and I totally understand why people are upset when they first hear it, especially people without any legal training. Hopefully this has helped clarify some of what's happening. The petitions to appeal the decision are asking for both men to be convicted. If you think that's just, then do as you see fit, but please understand what is really happening in this case, and don't make decisions based on misleading headlines.”
