In the interests of science, I have, on occassion, attempted to intoxicate myself as much as possible. And in none of my adventures in being sloshed, have I EVER been able to reach a state in which I could possibly excuse myself for consistent bad acts like rape, abuse, or any other crime. While highly impaired to the point where I could definately see that driving might be a seriously bad idea, and indeed that unthought impulsive actions might lead to singular and immediate bad acts, I nevertheless am not able to appreciate the claim that being intoxicated could excuse extended acts of criminalilty like rape, robbbery, or anything else involving extended effort or forethought. Despite the fact that I become highly impaired in spontanteous movements and planning, nevertheless, I retain my moral compass and ability to check and question my more immoral behavior, being that I retain my normal personality and values (it’s just made very very stupid). I therefore concude that any legal defense based on the “well, I was mentally impaired by drugs!” defense is legitimately considered to be a crappy and worthless excuse for bad behavior that extends beyond single stupid bad acts. No one can possibly become drunk or high enough to excuse bad behavior that extends beyond single poorly thought out actions.
That’s just the schnapps talking.
In Spain, being under the influence when you commit a crime leads to more punishment, no less.
The reasoning goes along the lines of:
If you did it, it is something that you actually want to do. If you wanted to do it when you were sober, but didn’t dare, and asked Mr Alky or Ms Pill for extra balls, you’re such an imbecile that what we should really do is drop you into a well and pour cement into it. Our religion forbids it, though.
Having been under the influence and having joined some sort of AA-like program after (“your Lordship, I know it was wrong, when I realized I’d done it I saw what a fuck-up I’d become and I’m working on it”) is considered to be one of those instances where the good balances the bad, so you’re likely to get the same sentence as if you hadn’t been UI. It may get suspended “for further evaluation in X time, so we can see whether the program is working.”
I hold that people already possessed with a short temper, are more likely to achieve such a state while under the influence. So, PCP won’t turn you into a cannibal or rapist if you didn’t harbor such tendencies before consumption. My personal experiences tell me that these defences are simply exploitation of the dogma surrounding drugs, i.e. inherently evil substances that “take over” otherwise “free-willed” humans. It is embodied by this quote of Steve Forbes: “[drugs] destroy the body, enslave the soul, and take away people’s freedom to think and choose for themselves.”. Jacob Sullum, of Reason, covers this well in his book, review of which, can be found here. I, especially like the term Sullum coined up to describe such beliefs: voodoo pharmacology.
Alcohol does modify the behavior of those who become intoxicated by lowering inhibitions. Someone might become friendlier then normal, more arguementative, talkative, or they might just clam up. Typically I don’t think people get a lesser sentence just because they were intoxicated. I suppose in some cases it could be taken into account during sentencing but I don’t think the behavior is excused.
Marc
I hope that social gaffes can be excused. I alienated a friend by bringing up a sore subject to him while drunk, and there was no reason for me to have brought it up. We aren’t close, and I was acting too familiar about a very painful experience for him, and I have felt pretty immensely guilty about it since. This was about a week and a half ago.
Sometimes I use alcohol to help me release my inhibitions and release stuff I’ve held back, and oftentimes I’ll feel like a million bucks afterward. I just wish I had a desert or forest to go out and do this by myself or with friends who are ok with this sort of thing, that would be nice.
However, I don’t think that it can excuse rape and such. It’s a matter of degree in my opinion. I don’t believe that drugs take away all self-control. I have a lot of experience with many drugs, and different levels of intoxication, and I find my ability to control myself is in direct proportion to the level of self-confidence I have in my life around that time. If everything is going rather well, there is no reason for me to act stupid. However, if I have something i’m holding back then I release it when intoxicated and feel exposed, stupid and embarassed for the way I acted.
Erek
Can you cite a jurisdiction where being drunk IS a legal defence for criminal acts? In many jurisdictions, being under the influence of drugs is specifically excluded as a defence (unless the impaired person was drugged against their knowledge or will.)
A further point: you conflate your experience with alcohol with ALL drugs. You may retain a measure of moral proprietry while drunk, but this does not mean that you would act the same while influenced by certain other drugs. Some drugs may induce a dissociative state or amnesiac effect beyond simple drunkeness.
While drunkeness is not an excuse, your experience is not always what others experience under the influence of alcohol. Some people do not retain their moral compass, hence the really bad behavior followed by intense regret the next day. To assume that everyone has your personal experience with alcohol is erroneous.
Conventional wisdom is that being intoxicated removes a woman’s ability to consent to sex.
IIRC, this isn’t exactly the case, but I forget what is the case.
This seems to be a similar issue - responsibility ofr one’s actions whilst toxed.
Maybe at the point where they’re passed out. Typically people just think that intoxication makes it more likely for a woman to consent. Big difference, no?
Marc
My experience has been similar to Apos - I’ve never had occasion to be drunk enough to forget the events of the night before, but but even at the most tipsy was able to decide that taking the long path to the outhouse (instead of the shorter distance right by the fire) would probably be a good idea.
I’m happy to say the worst that has occured is that I become overly loquacious. For this reason, I’ll excuse people for posting drunk. 
(As long as it’s not a habit).
Yeah, I have to think that there is a BIG double standard here. Now, obviously, if a woman is passed-out drunk and some one takes advantage of her; thats one thing. But what makes my blood boil is when the woman wasn’t passed out, consents to have sex, then cries foul the next morning.
Why is there no acountability here, yet so much when you get behind the wheel of a car? (And rightly so.)
I agree with you but it doesn’t matter. If you kill someone driving drunk, you can just blame the car manufacturer.
There is an easy and obvious counter argument to that lawsuit; if the passengers can’t expend the effort to fasten their seat belts, who is to say they would bother to roll up their high-strength windows?
Sex requires the consent of the people involved. The law has determined that there are certain categories of people who lack the capacity to form consent. One that comes to mind is children – even if a child can say the words that appear to form consent to sex, the law says that a child does not have the capacity to consent so consent isn’t valid (hence, statutory rape). The law also says that men and women who are intoxicated lack the capacity to form consent. (See this article about the trial of three young men who videotaped sex with an intoxicated young woman.)
Because consent is required for sex, the ability to consent is important. Consent is irrelevant to most other crimes, like theft. If I get drunk voluntarily, then go and steal your car, the fact that I am intoxicated is not a defense to theft.
SHAKES, just because a woman is conscious doesn’t mean she is capable of consent. But I agree with you that in those circumstances when a woman cries rape instead of regret, it isn’t fair.
That makes perfect sense but logic and law don’t mix. You can spill hot coffee on your crotch and sue the restaurant for giving you coffee too hot for your crotch.
Ever heard of a “mean drunk”? That’s the person who, when they get drunk, they get agressive - belligerent, pick fights, get violent, break stuff and so on. I’ve met one of two of 'em.
Me, I just get more talkative and “goofy”. Then I drink a lot of water, take some Tylenol and go to sleep.
I think that alcohol just lowers your inhibitions and your baser personality traits shine through. Remember Bill Cosby’s line about cocaine:
“It intensifies your personality!”
“Yes, but what if you’re already an asshole?”
Every heard the phrase: “instant asshole, just add alchohol”?
Fair enough, maybe I just have a biased view but it seems to me that the scales have a proclivity for siding with the woman, when in fact BOTH people involved were under the influence.
Valgard you should take asprin. That Tylenol will tear your liver up after a night of drinking.
True, but a man can also claim that he did not consent due to intoxication. But can you really see a guy standing in court saying: “But, Your Honor, she raped me!”