Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Voluntary intoxication, where a defendant has wilfully consumed drink or drugs before committing acts which constitute the prohibited conduct of an offence, has posed a considerable problem for the English criminal law. There is a correspondence between incidence of drinking and crimes of violence, such as assaults and stabbings.
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication.Where a crime requires a certain mental state (mens rea) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions.
The alternative is that the voluntary intoxication provides a "prior fault" which substitutes for the mens rea required. [11] [12] However, the taking of alcohol or drugs probably bears little similarity to the rest of the crime the defendant stands accused of it. [11]
For example, lack of specific intent might reduce murder to manslaughter. Voluntary intoxication nevertheless often will provide basic intent, e.g., the intent required for manslaughter. [9] On the other hand, involuntarily intoxication, for example by punch spiked unforeseeably with alcohol, may give rise to no inference of basic intent.
Diminished responsibility and voluntary intoxication [ edit ] Voluntary intoxication will not satisfy the criterion that there must be an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957) and therefore cannot be relied upon as grounds for the partial defence. [ 3 ]
DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 is a leading English criminal law case, establishing that voluntary intoxication such as by drugs or alcohol is no defence to crimes requiring only basic intent. The mens rea requirement is satisfied by the reckless behaviour of intoxicating oneself.
Voluntary intoxication can be a defense for specific crimes (larceny, attempt, solicitation, conspiracy and so on), but not for general intent crimes (arson, assault, battery, rape etc.). The defendant has the burden of proof for voluntary intoxication. Claiming that he would not commit the crime when sober is not a defense.
Voluntary (and often involuntary) intoxication cannot cause legal automatism. In many jurisdictions, there is a distinction made between "sane automatism" and "insane automatism". Where the involuntariness is caused by a mental illness, or "disease of the mind", as per the M'Naghten rules , it will be regarded as "insane automatism" and will ...