232:
508:
68:
170:
27:
737:
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.
862:
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
834:
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. This, however, is of little value to defendants since there are
736:
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
724:
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
715:
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
829:
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
638:
which may or may not have been expressly criminalized. The attitude of a legal system to intoxicating substances can affect the applicability of intoxication as a defense under its laws: a system strongly opposed to a substance may even view intoxication as an
716:
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
820:
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. For where the commission of the
710:
The presence or absence of liability may 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,
670:: the defense would be denied defendants who had voluntarily disabled themselves by knowingly consuming an intoxicating substances, but allowed to those who had consumed it unknowingly or against their will.
732:
also includes the possibility of "pathological intoxication" whereby a medical condition that allows a small amount of alcohol to cause disproportionate intoxication that the drinker could not foresee.
662:. Intoxication may serve as a defense against proving more specific forms of intent. If so, its potential effectiveness will sometimes hinge on whether the defendant's intoxication was
720:
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
859:, 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.
749:
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
702:, where involuntary intoxication may remove criminal if not financial responsibility, while voluntary intoxication has no effect and the accused is treated as if sober.
678:
A distinction may be made based on whether the defendant chose to become intoxicated, and is thus responsible for their diminished control or not. As an example, in the
793:(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
694:
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
242:
658:, through various degrees of intent or willingness to commit a crime, general recklessness, and finally no intent at all in some instances of
978:
725:
without this rule, too many accused who are only marginally over the limit, might be encouraged to blame others for their intoxication.
538:
782:
such as attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy require specific intent in a slightly different sense. The test for the existence of
132:
690:
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
622:
or other socially approved ceremonies and festivals. In others, intoxication has been stigmatized as a sign of human weakness, of
104:
85:
40:
111:
698:, the resulting drunkenness is not voluntary and might be considered a possible defense. A sharper distinction is drawn in
630:. Secular approaches may also vary, having less inherent opposition to drugs but acknowledging that these may affect the
683:
118:
294:
276:
213:
151:
54:
195:
531:
100:
384:
180:
89:
579:) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced
717:
659:
835:
almost always offenses of basic intent that can be charged and/or the basic intent offenses are usually
1027:
524:
568:
344:
254:
46:
587:
that decreases a prison or jail sentence. Numerous factors affect the applicability of the defense.
856:
389:
258:
125:
836:
686:), the accused hates his spouse but fears to take action. The accused therefore buys a bottle of
191:
78:
950:"Intoxication & Self-defence: A Comparative Study of Principles of English Law and Shari'ah"
894:"Intoxication & Self-defence: A Comparative Study of Principles of English Law and Shari'ah"
603:
572:
374:
369:
949:
893:
250:
187:
399:
1032:
611:
8:
655:
647:
712:
607:
432:
354:
809:
779:
640:
631:
615:
584:
394:
310:
872:
805:
729:
721:
404:
359:
339:
329:
1002:
Rubin (1993) The
Voluntary Intoxication Defense AOJ Bulletin IOG. pages 3 & 4.
580:
560:
922:
691:
654:
in question may require proof of various levels of intent. This may range from
488:
334:
1021:
679:
651:
599:
1011:
Rubin (1993) The
Voluntary Intoxication Defense AOJ Bulletin IOG. pages 5-7.
757:
A limited number of offenses require a further element of intent beyond the
851:
3 All ER 716 which held that, for the purposes of the statutory defense of
552:
483:
468:
458:
453:
428:
844:
794:
634:
that help to keep socialized individuals from breaking prevailing social
767:
623:
512:
473:
442:
409:
318:
564:
478:
583:
for their actions. With regard to punishment, intoxication may be a
507:
198:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
67:
619:
463:
595:
646:
The effect of intoxication on criminal responsibility varies by
699:
687:
379:
765:
is no more than the intentional or reckless commission of the
635:
364:
863:
arson, rape, common law murder, and voluntary manslaughter.
825:
is in the future, a clear subjective intention to cause the
812:
would have had the mental element in the same circumstances;
745:
In some states, a distinction is based on the nature of the
840:
815:(c) hybrid where the test is both subjective and objective.
740:
996:
695:
627:
839:
and an alternative verdict can be delivered by judge or
673:
923:"A-G for N. Ireland v. Gallagher [1963] AC 349"
753:. This term refers to two separate types of offense:
614:in particular. In some instances, consumption of a
92:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
606:, historically based on the relationship between
575:. Where a crime requires a certain mental state (
1019:
684:Gallagher case in English law on intoxication
532:
239:The examples and perspective in this article
843:without the need for a separate charge. In
55:Learn how and when to remove these messages
941:
539:
525:
16:Legal defence of diminished responsibility
295:Learn how and when to remove this message
277:Learn how and when to remove this message
214:Learn how and when to remove this message
152:Learn how and when to remove this message
741:Offenses of basic and of specific intent
692:weakening the inhibitions by drunkenness
959:. University of Leeds. pp. 241–242
1020:
705:
808:to the accused on the basis that the
771:). This additional element is termed
674:Voluntary and involuntary consumption
225:
163:
90:adding citations to reliable sources
61:
20:
598:have varied in their attitudes and
13:
903:. University of Leeds. p. 166
800:(b) objective where the requisite
14:
1044:
947:
891:
36:This article has multiple issues.
506:
230:
168:
66:
25:
77:needs additional citations for
44:or discuss these issues on the
1005:
971:
915:
885:
643:rather than a mitigating one.
1:
878:
979:"Criminal Law: Intoxication"
590:
7:
866:
718:driving under the influence
253:, discuss the issue on the
194:the claims made and adding
10:
1049:
983:National Paralegal College
340:Mental disorder (Insanity)
957:White Rose eTheses Online
901:White Rose eTheses Online
847:, note the controversial
569:diminished responsibility
345:Diminished responsibility
857:Criminal Damage Act 1971
837:lesser included offenses
618:has formed the basis of
616:mind-altering substance
929:. e-lawresources.co.uk
573:substance intoxication
101:"Intoxication defense"
612:religion and alcohol
557:intoxication defense
259:create a new article
251:improve this article
241:may not represent a
86:improve this article
849:Jaggard v Dickinson
706:Foreseeability test
641:aggravating factor
608:religion and drugs
600:cultural standards
179:possibly contains
1028:Criminal defenses
810:reasonable person
780:inchoate offenses
682:defense (see the
650:and offense. The
602:regarding public
585:mitigating factor
549:
548:
311:Criminal defenses
305:
304:
297:
287:
286:
279:
261:, as appropriate.
224:
223:
216:
181:original research
162:
161:
154:
136:
59:
1040:
1012:
1009:
1003:
1000:
994:
993:
991:
989:
975:
969:
968:
966:
964:
954:
945:
939:
938:
936:
934:
919:
913:
912:
910:
908:
898:
889:
873:Settled insanity
730:Model Penal Code
722:strict liability
660:strict liability
610:in general, and
571:on the basis of
541:
534:
527:
511:
510:
425:
405:False confession
330:Actual innocence
307:
306:
300:
293:
282:
275:
271:
268:
262:
234:
233:
226:
219:
212:
208:
205:
199:
196:inline citations
172:
171:
164:
157:
150:
146:
143:
137:
135:
94:
70:
62:
51:
29:
28:
21:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1001:
997:
987:
985:
977:
976:
972:
962:
960:
952:
946:
942:
932:
930:
921:
920:
916:
906:
904:
896:
890:
886:
881:
869:
773:specific intent
751:specific intent
743:
728:In the US, the
708:
676:
593:
545:
505:
493:
421:
414:
301:
290:
289:
288:
283:
272:
266:
263:
248:
235:
231:
220:
209:
203:
200:
185:
173:
169:
158:
147:
141:
138:
95:
93:
83:
71:
30:
26:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1046:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1014:
1013:
1004:
995:
970:
948:Javed, Azhar.
940:
914:
892:Javed, Azhar.
883:
882:
880:
877:
876:
875:
868:
865:
832:
831:
818:
817:
816:
813:
798:
788:
787:
776:
742:
739:
707:
704:
675:
672:
592:
589:
547:
546:
544:
543:
536:
529:
521:
518:
517:
516:
515:
513:Law portal
500:
499:
495:
494:
492:
491:
486:
481:
476:
471:
466:
461:
456:
450:
447:
446:
438:
437:
436:
435:
426:
416:
415:
413:
412:
407:
402:
397:
392:
387:
382:
377:
372:
367:
362:
357:
352:
347:
342:
337:
332:
326:
323:
322:
314:
313:
303:
302:
285:
284:
245:of the subject
243:worldwide view
238:
236:
229:
222:
221:
176:
174:
167:
160:
159:
74:
72:
65:
60:
34:
33:
31:
24:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1045:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1008:
999:
984:
980:
974:
958:
951:
944:
928:
924:
918:
902:
895:
888:
884:
874:
871:
870:
864:
860:
858:
854:
853:lawful excuse
850:
846:
842:
838:
828:
824:
819:
814:
811:
807:
803:
799:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
777:
774:
770:
769:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
752:
748:
738:
734:
731:
726:
723:
719:
714:
703:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:Dutch courage
671:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:premeditation
653:
652:criminal code
649:
644:
642:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
588:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
542:
537:
535:
530:
528:
523:
522:
520:
519:
514:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
497:
496:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
477:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
455:
452:
451:
449:
448:
444:
440:
439:
434:
430:
427:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
411:
408:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
361:
358:
356:
353:
351:
348:
346:
343:
341:
338:
336:
333:
331:
328:
327:
325:
324:
320:
316:
315:
312:
309:
308:
299:
296:
281:
278:
270:
260:
256:
252:
246:
244:
237:
228:
227:
218:
215:
207:
204:February 2008
197:
193:
189:
183:
182:
177:This article
175:
166:
165:
156:
153:
145:
142:February 2008
134:
131:
127:
124:
120:
117:
113:
110:
106:
103: –
102:
98:
97:Find sources:
91:
87:
81:
80:
75:This article
73:
69:
64:
63:
58:
56:
49:
48:
43:
42:
37:
32:
23:
22:
19:
1007:
998:
986:. Retrieved
982:
973:
961:. Retrieved
956:
943:
931:. Retrieved
926:
917:
905:. Retrieved
900:
887:
861:
852:
848:
833:
826:
822:
801:
783:
772:
766:
762:
759:basic intent
758:
750:
746:
744:
735:
727:
709:
677:
667:
663:
648:jurisdiction
645:
604:intoxication
594:
576:
556:
553:criminal law
550:
429:Criminal law
422:
400:Self-defense
350:Intoxication
349:
317:Part of the
291:
273:
267:January 2011
264:
240:
210:
201:
178:
148:
139:
129:
122:
115:
108:
96:
84:Please help
79:verification
76:
52:
45:
39:
38:Please help
35:
18:
1033:Drug policy
988:19 November
963:19 November
933:19 November
927:E-law cases
907:19 November
845:English law
804:element is
795:concurrence
761:(where the
700:Islamic law
668:involuntary
632:inhibitions
563:by which a
395:Provocation
1022:Categories
879:References
827:actus reus
823:actus reus
768:actus reus
626:, or as a
624:immorality
567:may claim
443:common law
410:Entrapment
360:Automatism
319:common law
188:improve it
112:newspapers
41:improve it
855:under s5
830:continue.
664:voluntary
620:religious
596:Societies
591:Variation
581:liability
565:defendant
433:procedure
390:Necessity
255:talk page
192:verifying
47:talk page
867:See also
802:mens rea
784:mens rea
763:mens rea
747:mens rea
713:reckless
577:mens rea
489:Evidence
469:Property
459:Contract
454:Criminal
423:See also
335:Immunity
249:You may
806:imputed
786:may be:
561:defense
498:Portals
484:Estates
375:Mistake
370:Consent
355:Infancy
186:Please
126:scholar
688:brandy
636:taboos
555:, the
479:Trusts
441:Other
380:Duress
321:series
128:
121:
114:
107:
99:
953:(PDF)
897:(PDF)
559:is a
474:wills
445:areas
365:Alibi
257:, or
133:JSTOR
119:books
990:2016
965:2016
935:2016
909:2016
841:jury
778:The
464:Tort
431:and
105:news
696:gin
666:or
628:sin
551:In
385:Age
190:by
88:by
1024::
981:.
955:.
925:.
899:.
797:);
50:.
992:.
967:.
937:.
911:.
775:.
540:e
533:t
526:v
298:)
292:(
280:)
274:(
269:)
265:(
247:.
217:)
211:(
206:)
202:(
184:.
155:)
149:(
144:)
140:(
130:·
123:·
116:·
109:·
82:.
57:)
53:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
