
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 16, 1994                   TAG: 9411170078
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A CANADIAN CASE

IN ABSOLVING a man of guilt because he was extremely drunk when he assaulted his wife, Canada's Supreme Court struck a disturbing blow against the notion that people are responsible for what they do.

The ruling runs counter, fortunately, to the growing belief in this country that drunkenness is no excuse for acts that harm others.

If, after consuming 80 ounces of liquor, 12 beers and prescription drugs in a 30-hour period, a man is not responsible for the violence he commits against another person, is he not responsible for consuming dangerous amounts of these substances in the first place?

If not, is he blameless, then, if he gets behind the wheel of a car and accidentally runs over a child?

The American public, tired of seeing drunken drivers get mere slaps on the wrist for irresponsible behavior that endangers others, has made it clear to its lawmakers that avoidable impairment should not be considered absolution. No longer does society laugh off drunken driving as a high-spirited if somewhat risky caper.

Intoxication, whether from alcohol or an illegal drug, can make normal constraints disappear. But this does not render blameless the drunken motorist who gets angry and drives an automobile into a crowd of pedestrians - any more than a bank robber who blows away a teller is not guilty because he was high on crack and didn't know what he was doing.

Responsibility for drug- and alcohol-influenced crime begins when the perpetrator sets about getting so blitzed that the normal restraints governing human behavior - whether an internal sense of right and wrong, or fear of the consequences of violating society's laws - disappear.

A leading Canadian criminal lawyer says growing public concern about the ramifications of the court's legal interpretation are out of proportion to its probable impact. The standard of proof for the extreme-drunkenness defense is so high, he says, that a near-lethal amount of alcohol would have to be consumed. But those who abuse alcohol over a long time can build up a tolerance to its effects; some can tolerate amounts that would kill a social drinker.

These are the last people who should be excused for violence under the influence. Most assaults are committed under the influence of alcohol. Perpetrators often pretend they go to the bottle seeking "courage." Not so. Courage isn't what they need to batter and rape. What they're after is a numbed conscience.

by CNB