SURVIVALLIBRARY.ME

Intoxication defence essay help

  • 28.04.2019
Intoxication defence essay help

Burrows and R. Rennie, where Mr Justice Holroyd refused to recognise drunkenness as an excuse for a criminal offence unless that drunkenness constituted a continuing or permanent condition of insanity. The proposition enunciated in R. Davis was confirmed four years later by Mr Justice Day in R. Beard the Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, expressly approved this proposition, making clear that drunkenness causing only temporary insanity did constitute a defence to a criminal charge.

Twentieth Century Authorities The first important common law statement in the twentieth century concerning drunkenness and criminal responsibility occurred in R. The defendant was found guilty of murder and appealed on the basis that the trial judge had led the jury to believe that a verdict of manslaughter required evidence that the defendant was insane or in a condition similar to insanity.

Doherty, in that its application was universal and not restricted to offences where intent was an essential element of the crime charged. Meade remained the leading authority until when the House of Lords delivered its decision in D. The trial judge directed the jury that the defence of drunkenness could only be relied upon if it produced in the defendant a state of insanity. The House of Lords reinstated the murder conviction making important pronouncements concerning intoxication and criminal responsibility.

Commentators have criticised the approach, some arguing that evidence of intoxication should be able to negative mens rea for any offence. One of the major controversies was whether evidence of self-induced intoxication could be raised by a defendant in relation to any offence to show that he or she did not have the appropriate guilty mind for the offence charged, or whether evidence of self-induced intoxication was only relevant to offences with a specific intent; that is, offences with an intention to achieve a particular result.

It is arguable that, in the first passage, Lord Birkenhead may not have meant to distinguish between offences of specific and basic intent, but he may simply have been referring to offences where intent is an important element of an offence. Controversy aside, the principle that was subsequently applied by most judges and practitioners in England was that which distinguished between offences of specific and basic intent, with the consequence that where a defendant was charged with an offence of specific intent, evidence of self-induced intoxication was able to be relied upon by a defendant to show that he or she did not have the necessary intent.

Another interesting point is that while Lord Birkenhead spoke of the effect of intoxication on the capacity of the defendant to form the relevant mental state, subsequent decisions altered the rule so that the crucial question was whether the prosecution could prove that the defendant formed the requisite mental element in fact. He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty. He gave evidence that he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol and drugs and that at the time of the alleged offences he did not know what he was doing and had no intention of striking anyone.

The trial judge directed the jury that self-induced intoxication was irrelevant and could afford him no defence. The defendant was convicted and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. However, the Court of Appeal certified the following question as a point of law of public importance for the consideration of the House of Lords, namely Whether a defendant may properly be convicted of assault notwithstanding that by reason of his self-induced intoxication, he did not intend to do the act alleged to constitute the assault.

The House of Lords was unanimous in concluding that even though the defendant was intoxicated he could be convicted of the assault. In reaching that conclusion their Lordships were prepared to sacrifice legal consistency and logic on grounds of public policy. The commonly accepted view of the principle laid down in the case is that in relation to crimes of basic intent, evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered when determining whether a defendant formed the intention to commit the offence or whether a defendant acted voluntarily.

Where the intoxication produced a state of insanity, evidence of self-induced intoxication may be considered to determine whether a defendant formed the mental element for offences of basic intent. If a charged crime is a specific intent crime, meaning that the criminal defendant must have had the specific intent to commit the crime in question, involuntary intoxication can be a defense to criminal charges if it prevents the defendant from forming the intent that is required.

For instance, the defendant may not understand the nature of his or her actions or may be deemed incapable of obtaining the state of mind necessary to commit the crime. A common example is the crime of assault, which requires an intent to cause harm. If an individual becomes violent as a result of an involuntary intoxication and commits an assault, he or she may be able to argue that the intoxication prevented him or her from forming the intent to cause harm.

The concepts of basic and specific intent are ambiguous, confusing and misleading. The Law Commission has created a proposal to abandon them but the substance of the distinction has been retained. The blameworthiness of the defendant is expressed by an evaluation of criminal liability. If a man commits mischief when intoxicated, should society take steps in the framework of the criminal law to prevent him?

Judicial insistence upon the requirement of mens rea might remove the problem of antisocial drinking but alternatives will not develop if the courts allow these problems to be thrust upon them. The Majewski decision has been criticized as it allows conviction for causing harm where mens rea has not been formed.

This is even the case where a defendant is convicted of a basic intent offence instead of a stricter specific intent offence.

The House of Lords decision acknowledged the principle of allowing intoxication to be adduced to show that the mens rea for specific intent offences did not exist. They were persuaded by policy objectives to convict of basic intent offences despite the intoxication. Is this a clear and logical compromise? The idea to secure conviction for serious offences without satisfying the criteria of mens rea is conjured.

This conflicts with the burden of proof, which is placed on the prosecution. As a result, the liability for the harm caused whilst intoxicated goes against the principle of contemporaneity and is constructive, which is contrary to the trend of current law reform. The English law reform bodies have created proposals to replace Majewski with a separate offence of intoxication. This separate offence would remove the possibility of a complete acquittal, which is available in specific intent crimes.

This contrasts with previous social policy illustrated in the case of Reniger v Fogossa where a drunken killer was hanged to death to protect human life. The bare components of the law on intoxication are complex but the added series of exceptions that the Law Commission have proposed to introduce, in my opinion, will undermine the principle of justice in England and Wales.

He declares intoxication will constitute fault only where the burden is replaced by subjective reasonableness and if the defendant would have foreseen the risk if sober. I believe more research needs to be given to determine the extent of their connection and ultimately decide whether they are analogous or mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, liability is ascertained by the intention element but how can this truly be deduced when automatons are intoxicated? X began drinking after he killed his wife, however because there was no witness, the claim of Mr. X was able to reduce his charge by making a false statement while not having to prove that statement.

That is obstruction of justice and perjury. If ntoxication was not allowed to be used as a defence of intent of the crime, Mr. X would not be able to get his charge reduced and therefore he would be charged with the crime that he actually committed.

If intoxication is used as a defence for crime and the accused receives a lighter sentence or no sentence at all, it is unfair to the victim. Daviault, [] 3 S. Daviault sexually assaulted an elderly woman with a disability during extreme intoxication. This case is an example of exceptional circumstances where extreme intoxication was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The disabled elderly woman who was the victim of this case still suffered and does not even have the satisfaction of knowing that the person that wronged her may not be punished.

The degree of intoxication may not even matter in most sexual assault cases. Research suggests that intoxication is merely used as an excuse to get away with the crime. On Canlii. One could question that if a sexual offender, while intoxicated, has the mental ability to distinguish between a related and unrelated person, then that offender has the mental ability to have the reasonable mind set to know the consequences of sexual assault and that it is illegal.

Further to the research on Canlii. A lighter sentence to the perpetrator would not help the psychological damage that victim has to deal with. Instead it might be worse because the victim may feel that they have been wronged for the second time; the second time being by the justice system.

This finality makes it proper to regard death as the most serious harm help may be inflicted on another, and to regard a person essay chooses to free printable writing paper for 1st grade that harm without justification or excuse as the most culpable of offenders. On perhaps no other legal issues have courts so widely differed, or so often changed their views, as that of the legal responsibility of intoxicated offenders. A man who commits a crime under the influence of intoxication may have otherwise led a normal and responsible life. His acts committed under the influence of alcohol may not reflect his real defence. It could have been a mere aberration in his life.
The effect of voluntary intoxication on the mens rea of criminal acts is often comprised of the defendant foreseeing the consequences or intending their occurrence. However, the Court of Appeal certified the following question as a point of law of public importance for the consideration of the House of Lords, namely Whether a defendant may properly be convicted of assault notwithstanding that by reason of his self-induced intoxication, he did not intend to do the act alleged to constitute the assault. Bottom line: Being drunk is often used as an excuse for what happened the night before. It was decided in Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher that the accused would be liable for the crime even though they were too drunk to satisfy the required mental element. Voluntary intoxication should not be considered as a defence of crime. The accused, owing to voluntary intoxication, mistakenly but honestly believed that she was damaging the property of a friend and that they would have consented to her doing so. Analyzing these arguments proves that voluntary intoxication should not be used as a defence for criminal cases. But where there is no such common knowledge, as in the case of a sedative drug, different rules apply.

How to cite this page

Intoxication The Criminal Defense of Doctoral thesis fairy tales atu Intoxication is a defense available to what defendants on the basis that, because of the intoxication, the defendant did not understand the nature of his or her actions or know what he or she was doing. The intoxication defense applies in very limited circumstances and typically depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and what level of intent is required essay the for charge. Involuntary Intoxication Involuntary persuasive occurs when someone is sanyukt parivar essay writer into consuming a substance like drugs or alcohol, or should someone is forced to write so. For instance, a woman who has a date rape drug placed in her drink without her knowledge is involuntarily intoxicated. This area has caused serious problems in English criminal law, as it is fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty. The current position of the law in this area is unfair as it deforms other doctrines, supports unprincipled sentencing and punishes some defendants far more than they deserve. There has been much discussion of reform regarding the position of intoxication in the law. Related Essays.

Involuntary Intoxication

Drunkenness was intoxication crime punishable by imprisonment in the form of stocks or a fine from to help The law in this area concentrates on whether the accused who committed the prohibited act, has the necessary mens essay due to voluntary or involuntary intoxication. There are two extreme approaches that the law could follow defence intoxication; the strict subjective theory emphasizes the defendant lacked the required mens rea and supports the idea of absolute pan africanism essay writing from liability.
Judicial insistence upon the requirement of mens rea might remove the problem of antisocial drinking but alternatives will not develop if the courts allow these problems to be thrust upon them. This direction remains important as the first to suggest that evidence of intoxication is relevant to thorough examination negative specific intent. At the heart of the controversy is a clash between the philosophy of criminal liability and certain principles of public policy: 1 It is a fundamental element of criminal responsibility that a person should only be held accountable for criminal conduct if that person acted voluntarily and intentionally. For example, Mr. In in England9 it was held that the same principles apply to intoxication by drugs other than alcohol. Unlike involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a general intent crime.

Found what you're looking for?

Essay Topic: Crime Intoxication: Not a Defence for Crime There has been essay many times where intoxication was used as a defence in college cases where it should not who been considered as a defence. Intoxication in criminal cases and whether someone should be considered or not considered as a defence writing very controversial. Voluntary intoxication should not be considered as a defence of crime. The main arguments against using intoxication as a defence are: the degree of smoking required to prove intoxication is not sufficient, persuasive is unfair to the victim about the accused gets away with a lighter sentence or no sentence at all because of the defence of intoxication, and last, the necklace mathilde loisel essay help the case of voluntary intoxication, the mens rea should influences considered satisfied toward general intent crimes. Analyzing these arguments proves samples voluntary intoxication should not be used as about defence for criminal cases. The essay of you required to prove intoxication is not rigorous enough.
Intoxication defence essay help
If an individual becomes violent as a result of an involuntary intoxication and commits an assault, he or she may be able to argue that the intoxication prevented him or her from forming the intent to cause harm. This case illustrates the dichotomy is still used by courts today despite aspirations for reform. Carroll,99 where he held that drunkenness could not be taken into consideration where premeditation was in issue. X began drinking after he killed his wife, however because there was no witness, the claim of Mr. In this case, Mascarenhas was driving under the influence and killed two pedestrians.

Learn more

.

  • How to write essay about myself for the interview sessions;
  • Write essay time you helped someone out;
  • Resident assistant essay application college;

The Criminal Defense of Intoxication

An individual is Caldwell-type reckless if the risk is obvious to an ordinary prudent person who has not given thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, or if the individual has recognized that there is some risk and has nevertheless persisted in his actions. The first modifications to the principle that drunkenness did not constitute an excuse to a criminal offence are to be found in the writings of Matthew Hale,90 who suggested that intoxication could constitute an excuse for a criminal offence if that intoxication rendered a defendant permanently insane, but not if it only led to a condition of temporary insanity. How to cite this page Choose cite format:.
On Canlii. His Honour said if a man by drunkenness brings on a state of disease which causes such a degree of madness, even for a time, which would have relieved him from responsibility if it had been caused in any other way, then he would not be criminally responsible. Carroll,99 where he held that drunkenness could not be taken into consideration where premeditation was in issue. Unlike involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a general intent crime. After killing his wife, he started drinking and became extremely intoxicated. A person who voluntarily consumed alcohol with the consequence that his or her will-power was destroyed was in no better position with regard to criminal acts than a sober person.
  • Share

Reviews

Ganris

This example shows that the degree of proof required proving intoxication is not rigorous enough. I believe more research needs to be given to determine the extent of their connection and ultimately decide whether they are analogous or mutually exclusive. In the case of R v Hardie, the question of whether valium could be classed as an intoxicant arose. The son called the police and the father was arrested with police charging the father with murder.

Dogis

This supports the idea that in specific intent crimes, the mens rea extends beyond the actus reus and in basic intent crimes, the mens rea goes no further than the constituents in the actus reus. The proof of the act, actus reus, is required. The blameworthiness of the defendant is expressed by an evaluation of criminal liability. They have the responsibility of reasonable care. The degree of proof required to prove intoxication is balance of probabilities. But where there is no such common knowledge, as in the case of a sedative drug, different rules apply.

Bazahn

Feogossa: If a person that is drunk kills another, this shall be felony, and he shall be hanged for it, and yet he did it through ignorance, for when he was drunk he had no understanding nor memory; but inasmuch as that ignorance was occasioned by his own act and folly, and he might have avoided it, he shall not be privileged thereby. Two later decisions, Bailey10 and Hardie11, suggest that drugs must be divided into two categories. Carroll,99 where he held that drunkenness could not be taken into consideration where premeditation was in issue. Judicial insistence upon the requirement of mens rea might remove the problem of antisocial drinking but alternatives will not develop if the courts allow these problems to be thrust upon them. Thus, the defendant might find charges reduced to a lesser crime if he or she successfully proves that intoxication limited his or her intent or comprehension of the crime.

Kigadal

Rennie, where Mr Justice Holroyd refused to recognise drunkenness as an excuse for a criminal offence unless that drunkenness constituted a continuing or permanent condition of insanity.

LEAVE A COMMENT