Talk:Criminal law of Canada

Canada: Law Start‑class High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Intoxication Defence

I think note 7 is wrong. Intoxication negates the mens rea of specific intent crimes, but not crimes of general intent. Daviault opened the possibility for intoxication to apply to general intent crimes but s.33.1 appears to have closed that possibility.

stats wanted

- Can someone put some stats about the general age of young law offenders-would help ALOT!!! ~Abeyeyie Kreeztalyz

- I'm not sure that that information is released, since the identities of Youths are protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Perhaps you could look on Statistics Canada's website (http://www.statcan.ca) and dig them up? I would, but I'm not in the mood to attempt to navigate a complicated government (gasp!) website. Baribeau 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- According to a fact sheet produced by the Law Courts Education Society in June of 2001, the stats for youth crime in 1997 were:

24% of crimes committed by youth were by 17-year-olds, 24% were by 16-year-olds, 22% by 15, 15% by 14, 8% by 13 and 3% by 12

Habeas Corpus

Is it a criminal offense to not advise a arbitrarily held prisoner of his rights to council?

In case I get lost my email is Criticalmassone@hotmail.com

No, it is not a criminal offence to fail to advise a prisoner of his/her right to counsel. However, if a police officer fails to do so and the prisoner makes incriminating statements then these statements may possibly be found to be inadmissible as evidence because the prisoner's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. As well, it might also be considered unprofessional conduct and making a complaint against the police officer.

-Hairytoad (hairytoad2005@hotmail.com)

Criminal law under the Constitution Act, 1867

Why do we have these two articles separate with no links to each other? Granted, they're slightly distinct, but pretty intertwined. The article wouldn't be too long if they were combined. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True they should be linked, but they should definitely not be merged. This article in about the substantive content of criminal law, the other is about the constitutional power to create criminal law (perhaps it should be called the "criminal law power under the constitution"). The principles behind the latter are in essence a matter of constitutional law and don't really have much bearing on the application of criminal law. At most there should be a nod to the provision of the constitution in this article. --PullUpYourSocks 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason to merge them. They should simply be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.20.197 (talk • contribs) 17:34, February 28, 2007 (UTC)

I would vote to keep them separate. It could be confusing for someone looking for information about the substance of Cdn criminal law, to find part of the article discussing federal-provincial issues. --Mathew5000 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge tag. I hope there are no protests. -PullUpYourSocks 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]