Extreme Intoxication, Entrapment, and Police Brutality

June 9, 2020

So, episode 108 – a new record.  But you know that right? Because you subscribe to the show on iTunes and have already rated and reviewed the podcast – right? You should.

Hey look we have a sponsor! Let the podcast money start rolling in! But seriously a huge thanks to Emond Publishing!

Also a huge thanks to my firm Abergel Goldstein & Partners who have not murdered me for editing the podcast at work!

I has been a frustrating week.

We start with a discussion about the protests that have swept the world following the tragic murder of George Floyd by the police and the hypocrisy of politicians.

Speaking of politicians, we move on to talk about the misrepresentations about a recent Ontario Court of Appeal case that found the Criminal Code’ prohibition on the defence of extreme intoxication unconstitutional. It all started with headlines that falsely claimed that the Court of Appeal ruled that being drunk was a defence to sexual assault. The NDP started a petition, and again misrepresented the issue. The issue is complicated. The constitutional considerations are intricate. And sexual violence is a big problem. But misrepresentations can do damage – so we break it all down.

We end thing off taking about a recent Supreme Court of Canada case on dial-a-dop entrapment schemes. Should police detect crimes or create them?

Remember, you can self-isolate in The Docket’s Discord chatroom.  Join the Discord channel, take part in  the ongoing chat, and listen to live recordings with this link: https://discord.gg/2TzUamZ

Subscribe to The Docket on iTunes to get the latest episode pumped straight into your earbuds. If you like the show your subscriptions, comments and ratings really help us (so do that and then do it on your friends computer too) – Click Here.

You can also access the podcast on SoundCloud.

Emilie Taman on Twitter: @EmilieTaman

Michael Spratt on Twitter: @mspratt

If you like show spread the word.


The Docket Podcast RSS