In terms of criminal law, what is the primary limitation of the defense of simple intoxication?

The primary limitation of the defense of simple intoxication lies in its applicability to specific intent crimes. In Canadian criminal law, simple intoxication refers to a state of being impaired by drugs or alcohol but does not excuse or justify criminal behavior in the same comprehensive way that other defenses, such as mental disorder, might.

For specific intent crimes, which require a particular mental state or intention to commit the offense, the defense of simple intoxication can be used to argue that a defendant lacked the necessary intent due to their impaired state. This means that if the intoxication prevents the accused from forming the specific intent required to commit the crime, it may serve as a legitimate defense.

In contrast, for general intent crimes — which only require the intention to perform the act itself, rather than any specific intention — simple intoxication generally cannot be used as a defense. The rationale is that individuals are still held accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they were intoxicated, when no specific intent needs to be proven.

This delineation helps clarify why option C is the correct choice, as it accurately reflects the legal principles regarding the defense of simple intoxication in relation to different categories of crimes.