Intoxication defense
Encyclopedia
General intent crimes do not require an intent to break the law, just an unlawful act ("actus reus") and an intent to act in such a fashion. Specific intent crimes, however, require a certain mental state ("mens rea") to break the law. One such offense, for example, is residential burglary. Residential burglary requires not only an unlawful entry into an inhabited dwelling, but the specific intent to commit some felony therein. When it comes to intoxication defenses in criminal law, even "voluntary intoxication" (the knowing and voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs) is a defense to a "specific intent" crime, whereas only "involuntary intoxication" ("My drink was spiked!") is a defense to a general intent crime. As for punishment, intoxication may be a mitigating factor
that decreases a prison or jail sentence.
have tended to have an ambivalent attitude toward public intoxication
. In some eras, alcohol consumption or drug-taking have formed the basis of religious
or other socially approved ceremonies and festivals. In other eras of a more puritanical
nature, intoxication has been stigmatized as a sign of human weakness, of immorality, or as a sin
. This lack of consistency reflects different attitudes and cultural standards of public behavior and propriety. Alcohol and drugs may affect the inhibition
s that help to keep socialized individuals from breaking the prevailing social taboo
s which may or may not have been expressly criminalized. In more modern times and depending on the nature of the crime, the potential effectiveness of the defense will sometimes hinge on whether the defendant's intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. Hence, the potential defense would be denied defendants who had voluntarily disabled themselves by knowingly consuming the relevant liquids or substances, while allowing a defense to those who had unknowingly consumed them.
defense the accused hates his spouse but fears to take action. The accused therefore buys a bottle of the best brandy
and a sharp knife. In the morning, the bottle is empty and the knife is in the spouse's heart. Because the accused had a plan and weakening the inhibitions by drunkenness was a part of that plan, an intoxication defense is not feasible. But if, at a party, a bowl of fruit punch is "spiked" by someone who secretly adds gin, the resulting drunkenness is not voluntary and might be considered a possible defense.
is set sufficiently low that people might exceed the limit without realising that they had consumed enough alcohol to do so. Leaving aside the issue that, in some states, this is a strict liability
offense excluding drunkenness as a defense, there is usually a requirement that the person who "spiked" the drinks be prosecuted in place of the driver. This reflects the fact that the commission of a crime has been procured by the actions of secretly adding the alcohol and the practical fact that without this rule, too many accused who are only marginally over the limit, might be encouraged to blame others for their intoxication. More generally, the defense would be denied to people experiencing symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked drink because they ought to have known what was happening to them. Equally, if no further consumption occurred but they ought to have recognized that they were affected by an unknown substance, beginning an activity such as driving would not fall within the defense. In other words, the policy underpinning the operation of the law favors the protection of the public as against the interests of an individual who recklessly or with wilful blindness exposes the public to danger.
If a "specific intent" in either sense is required and there is clear evidence that the accused was too intoxicated to form the element subjectively, this fact is recognised as a defense unless the loss of control was part of the plan. But this is of little value to defendants since there are almost always offenses of basic intent that can be charged and/or the basic intent offenses are usually lesser included offense
s and an alternative verdict can be delivered by judge or jury
without the need for a separate charge. In English law
, note the controversial Jaggard v Dickinson [1980] 3 All ER 716 which held that, for the purposes of the statutory defense of lawful excuse under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971, a drunken belief will found the defense even though this allows drunkenness to negate basic intent. This is limited authority and does not affect the generality of the defense.
Examples of specific intent crimes include first degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation, attempts, burglary (intent to commit larceny), larceny (intent to steal), possession of or receiving stolen property (intent to steal), and robbery (intent to steal). General intent crimes include arson, rape, common law murder, and voluntary manslaughter.
Mitigating factor
A mitigating factor, in law, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence.-Death penalty in the United States:...
that decreases a prison or jail sentence.
Discussion
SocietiesSociety
A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations...
have tended to have an ambivalent attitude toward public intoxication
Intoxication
Substance intoxication is a type of substance-induced disorder which is potentially maladaptive and impairing, but reversible, and associated with recent use.If the symptoms are severe, the term "substance intoxication delirium" may be used.-Classification:...
. In some eras, alcohol consumption or drug-taking have formed the basis of religious
Religion
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to...
or other socially approved ceremonies and festivals. In other eras of a more puritanical
Religious fanaticism
Religious fanaticism is fanaticism related to a person's, or a group's, devotion to a religion. However, religious fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation. What constitutes fanaticism in another's behavior or belief is determined by the...
nature, intoxication has been stigmatized as a sign of human weakness, of immorality, or as a sin
Sin
In religion, sin is the violation or deviation of an eternal divine law or standard. The term sin may also refer to the state of having committed such a violation. Christians believe the moral code of conduct is decreed by God In religion, sin (also called peccancy) is the violation or deviation...
. This lack of consistency reflects different attitudes and cultural standards of public behavior and propriety. Alcohol and drugs may affect the inhibition
Social inhibition
Social inhibition is a conscious or subconscious constraint by a person of behaviour of a social nature. The constraint may be in relation to behavior, appearance, or a subject matter for discussion, besides other matters. There are a number of reasons for social inhibitions, including that the...
s that help to keep socialized individuals from breaking the prevailing social taboo
Taboo
A taboo is a strong social prohibition relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and or forbidden based on moral judgment, religious beliefs and or scientific consensus. Breaking the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society...
s which may or may not have been expressly criminalized. In more modern times and depending on the nature of the crime, the potential effectiveness of the defense will sometimes hinge on whether the defendant's intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. Hence, the potential defense would be denied defendants who had voluntarily disabled themselves by knowingly consuming the relevant liquids or substances, while allowing a defense to those who had unknowingly consumed them.
Voluntary and involuntary consumption
There is a certain raw sense in this distinction. As an example, in the so-called Dutch courageDutch courage
Dutch courage or liquid courage refers to courage gained from intoxication by alcohol. Originally the phrase 'Dutch courage' referred to the courage that results from indulgence in Dutch gin , but 'Dutch courage' can also apply to the gin itself.In 1650 Franciscus Sylvius, a Dutch doctor, created...
defense the accused hates his spouse but fears to take action. The accused therefore buys a bottle of the best brandy
Brandy
Brandy is a spirit produced by distilling wine. Brandy generally contains 35%–60% alcohol by volume and is typically taken as an after-dinner drink...
and a sharp knife. In the morning, the bottle is empty and the knife is in the spouse's heart. Because the accused had a plan and weakening the inhibitions by drunkenness was a part of that plan, an intoxication defense is not feasible. But if, at a party, a bowl of fruit punch is "spiked" by someone who secretly adds gin, the resulting drunkenness is not voluntary and might be considered a possible defense.
Foreseeability test
The presence or absence of liability may be said to hang on a foreseeability test. The fact that the consumption of alcohol or the ingestion of drugs may cause a loss of control is well-known. Thus, anyone who knowingly consumes is, at the very least, reckless as to the possibility of losing control. If they did not wish to lose control, they would not consume, so loss of control must be within the scope of their intention by continuing to consume. But, loss of control is not instantaneous and without symptoms. The issue of involuntary consumption is therefore contentious. In most legal systems, involuntary loss of control is limited to cases where there is no real loss of control with noticeable symptoms. Thus, for example, in many states, the blood alcohol level for the commission of the offence of driving under the influenceDriving under the influence
Driving under the influence is the act of driving a motor vehicle with blood levels of alcohol in excess of a legal limit...
is set sufficiently low that people might exceed the limit without realising that they had consumed enough alcohol to do so. Leaving aside the issue that, in some states, this is a strict liability
Strict liability
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability...
offense excluding drunkenness as a defense, there is usually a requirement that the person who "spiked" the drinks be prosecuted in place of the driver. This reflects the fact that the commission of a crime has been procured by the actions of secretly adding the alcohol and the practical fact that without this rule, too many accused who are only marginally over the limit, might be encouraged to blame others for their intoxication. More generally, the defense would be denied to people experiencing symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked drink because they ought to have known what was happening to them. Equally, if no further consumption occurred but they ought to have recognized that they were affected by an unknown substance, beginning an activity such as driving would not fall within the defense. In other words, the policy underpinning the operation of the law favors the protection of the public as against the interests of an individual who recklessly or with wilful blindness exposes the public to danger.
Offenses of basic and of specific intent
In some states, a distinction is based on the nature of the mens rea requirement. While voluntary intoxication may not be a defense to an offense of basic (sometimes termed "general") intent, it is allowed as a defense to offenses requiring a specific intent. This term refers to two separate types of offense:- Some offenses are based on basic intent where the mens rea is no more than the intentional or reckless commission of the actus reusActus reusActus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
. But a limited number of offenses are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. - The inchoate offenses such as attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy require specific intent in a slightly different sense. The test for the existence of mens rea may be:
-
- (a) subjective where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (see concurrenceConcurrenceIn Western jurisprudence, concurrence is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus and mens rea , to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability...
); - (b) objective where the requisite mens rea element is imputedImputation (law)In law, the principle of imputation or attribution underpins the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat—ignorance of the law does not excuse. All laws are published and available for study in all developed states...
to the accused on the basis that the reasonable personReasonable personThe reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured...
would have had the mental element in the same circumstances; - (c) hybrid where the test is both subjective and objective.
- (a) subjective where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (see concurrence
- The rationale for the existence of criminal laws is as a deterrent to those who represent a danger to society. If an accused has actually committed the full offence, the reality of the danger has been demonstrated. But, where the commission of the actus reus is in the future, a clear subjective intention to cause the actus reus of the full offense must be demonstrated. Without this "specific intent", there is insufficient evidence that the accused is the clear danger as feared because, at any time before the commission of the full offense, the accused may change his or her mind and not continue.
If a "specific intent" in either sense is required and there is clear evidence that the accused was too intoxicated to form the element subjectively, this fact is recognised as a defense unless the loss of control was part of the plan. But this is of little value to defendants since there are almost always offenses of basic intent that can be charged and/or the basic intent offenses are usually lesser included offense
Lesser included offense
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime....
s and an alternative verdict can be delivered by judge or jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
without the need for a separate charge. In English law
English law
English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries and the United States except Louisiana...
, note the controversial Jaggard v Dickinson [1980] 3 All ER 716 which held that, for the purposes of the statutory defense of lawful excuse under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971, a drunken belief will found the defense even though this allows drunkenness to negate basic intent. This is limited authority and does not affect the generality of the defense.
Examples of specific intent crimes include first degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation, attempts, burglary (intent to commit larceny), larceny (intent to steal), possession of or receiving stolen property (intent to steal), and robbery (intent to steal). General intent crimes include arson, rape, common law murder, and voluntary manslaughter.