NCJ Number
89305
Date Published
1981
Length
15 pages
Annotation
Under Canadian law, drunkenness is grounds for acquittal only if the crime charged involves specific intent, and in such cases, the collaboration of the pharmacologist and psychiatrist will likely be used with increasing frequency.
Abstract
In extreme cases, alcohol may induce a condition which would qualify for an insanity defense. Where the effects of alcohol are less dramatic, issues such as provocation and incapacity to form a 'specific intent' become relevant. In Canada, certain crimes require a 'specific' intent as distinct from a 'general' intent. By limiting the applicability of a defense of drunkenness to those crimes for which conviction for a lesser offense can result, e.g., manslaughter instead of murder, the courts have attempted to ensure that persons who cause harm while drunk do not escape liability completely. The defense of drunkenness requires that the degree of intoxication be substantial enough to impair the mental functions necessary for a specific intent to be formed. The mental elements requiring specific intent will also vary among offenses. In the case of the insanity defense, the law makes no reference to any legally acceptable causes of insanity. Although mental disorder caused by intoxication is rare, the following are some medically recognized mental disorders that may arise from intoxication: pathological intoxication, delirium tremens, alcoholic hallucinosis, alcoholic dementia, and alcoholic paranoia. The complex issues involved in cases where intoxication may be raised as an insanity defense require the testimony of pharmacologists and psychiatrists. Whether such testimony is best provided through retrospective reconstruction unaided by direct laboratory investigations of particular defendants and whether experts should fulfill an adversary role or function as amici curiae are issues requiring further exploration. Fifty-two notes are provided.