AJ, the original news report stated that she was not of sound mind due to being effected by an illicid drug.

Thats good enough for me until someone can show otherwise.and as has been said in a round about way, professionals being employed by governments are usually selected from those who the real work rejected, hence the dramatic reduction in renumeration.

chrisgaff1000,

I’m not sure what to say to your claims other than they contradict what I’ve observed, which is closer to what I quoted of o sung wu.

With regards to your previous posts (which I somehow missed, sorry), this is not true:

<<"Intoxication is a complete defense to any crime" primarily because there is no deliberate intent to commit a crime.>>

Section 28 of the Queensland Criminal Code prevents an intoxicated accused relying on their intoxication as a defence. Sub-section 28(1) provides an exception where the accused did not knowingly consume the substance, but sub-s 28(2) eliminates intoxication as a defence when the substance was knowingly consumed. The only leeway a judge has in considering intoxication as a defence (which has been clarified and expanded on in case law) is provided in sub-s 28(3), but this is only applies in cases where there was specific intent. It does not absolve the accused of intent (See Crump v R and R v Box & Martin).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s28.html

--

rehctub,

See above. What you’re claiming happened is not possible under Queensland law. I don’t know where you read that this woman was let off because she was intoxicated, but the article I linked to above contradicts that claim. Indeed, so does s 28 of the Queensland Criminal Code.

<<the original news report [is] good enough for me until someone can show otherwise.>>

Resisting news that you were wrong about something that you think is a bad thing in the first suggests your reasoning here is entirely motivated.

<<and as has been said in a round about way, professionals being employed by governments are usually selected from those who the real work rejected, hence the dramatic reduction in renumeration.>>

Said by whom? Conservative folk wanting to justify their conspiracy theory regarding a sinister class of ruling elites, I’ll bet. It’s mere paranoia. The forensic psychiatrists I’ve known of do what they do because they’re passionate about medicine and the law, not because they weren’t good enough to have their own practices.

You are making things up to suit your worldview.