I was wondering about this. One of the reasons that I will never knowingly touch any drugs is that while I know how easy it is to not notice how much one has consumed while one is consuming, and that after one drink, I may think that another is a good idea, and so forth until I am comatose. So, is the fact that I embark down this path a moral or legal defence? Or, if you get drunk and commit a crime, are you/should you be as guilty as if you did the crime while stone cold sober?
Yes, you should be just as accountable as when you are stone cold sober. The reasons?
-
"Look, judge, I told you I was drunk when I was driving that stolen car and ran over that old lady! Give me a break!"
-
People who are intent on committing crimes could simply get drunk beforehand to get a lesser sentence.
Absolutely.
(Except for sleeping with celebrities which should be exempt)
How does one go about getting unknowingly drunk?
I suppose someone who has been given a series of stealth drinks without their knowlege might have a half assed defense for having done something foolish because of it. But folks comming out of bars don’t seem to have much of a defense to me.
Bar, drink, get drunk, break law, go to jail.
It just seems pretty easy to predict.
Tris
Well, someone who’s inexperienced in drinking might enjoy too many beverages without realizing that he’s becoming intoxicated.
Having said that, if you get drunk – either deliberately, or because you just don’t care if you get drunk or not – you are responsible for whatever disasters ensue.
I am not sure how it breaks down statistically, but for me, and a whole lot of other people, the first few times the getting intoxicated part was the whole point.
Perhaps we need a product safety lable. “This shit will get you drunk.”
Tris
People should certainly be held responsible for their actions if they were drinking alcohol (regardless of whether they thought they were drunk or not). The only exception I can think of is if they were not aware that the drink was alcoholic - e.g. if they unknowingly drink spiked drinks. That shouldn’t absolve all responsibility - if you know what being drunk feels like and feel that you’re drunk, then you should act appropriately - but should incriminate another guilty party.
I think you’ve seen Reefer Madness one too many times.
Faster! Faster!
Sounds like every party I attended while in college. PARRRR-TYYYY :drunk smiley:
From the sounds of your OP, you don’t know what kind of person you’d be under the influence. That’s your choice, but one of the reasons people do drink is to find out who you are, stripped of the SuperEgo’s layer of restrictions. And it makes you sound a little uptight.
But as to the legal liabilities of drinking, there are several grey areas. Here are some scenarios.
-
You’ve been drinking and you get in your car to drive it. Whoa! You’re more liable if you get into an accident, because you created the risk.
-
You’re a Freshmen girl at her first College Frat. Not knowing your limits, you get plied with alchohol, get completely dumb, and have sex with some upper classman. Did he take advantage of your state? Unclear. Are you responsible for the situation? Again, unclear.
-
You’re from the Bronx, and after drinking several 40s with your friends, you are all convinced by one of your friends that you should go roll a hobo. Your responsibility has definitely not diminished.
-
You get drunk at a party, and someone steals your wallet. You were definitely not “asking for it.” The thief has normal culpability.
I’d say overall, your culpability while deliberately impairing your judgement stems from normal expectation of the situational outcome of drunk/not drunk in that situation. 1) Is it something you might have done while not drunk? 2) Did you get drunk for the express purposes of the outcome? 3) Was the outcome a reasonable expectation of the behavior? and 4) Did you know your limits?
Tho this is far afield from any area I specialize in, one’s drunkenness might be relevant to their being charged with particular crimes that require specific intent. For example (and this may be a bad example) someone in a drunken stupor might be incapable of forming sufficient specific intent required to be charged/convicted of first degree murder. The drunk certainly could face lesser charges.
And civil liability might be based upon recklessness and negligence rather than evil intent for a particular act.
Maybe I should have paid more attention in law school!
People who are drunk are responsible for what they do. They are not, however, responsible for what is done to them. This is a distinction that many people seem to have trouble with.
I can also imagine drunkenness being a basis for voiding contracts entered into while drunk. Lack of capacity.
The legal drinking age is 21 in the U.S. So it may be perfectly legal for the upperclassman to screw the brains out of the 18 year old freshman girl since she is considered an adult for the purposes of sex, but he could be liable for supplying alcohol to a minor. Quite a precarious situation, and I don’t agree with the 3 year “adult minor” system we have now, but that’s the law. 
You’re a Freshmen ** boy ** at her first College Frat. Not knowing your limits, you get plied with alchohol, get completely dumb, and have sex with some upper classman ** girl **. Did **she ** take advantage of your state?
And if both were drunk who’s responsible?
If you drink so much that you’re doing stupid things, that’s your fault. Sex is no different. Yes, you’re entirely responsible for the situation.
You “know” wrongly. One is perfectly aware of the fact that they are drinking, and when they are intoxicated, they are perfectly aware of their actions. They may be more susceptible to suggestion, from both themselves and others, and as a result may partake in activities that they would be less likely to involve themselves in when sober, but they are still aware of what they are doing. Hence, they are responsible for their actions.
Alcohol isn’t the demon you imagine it to be, and as such it doesn’t abdicate responsibility to the extent that you appear to expect it to.
No, that’s right. The only time voluntary intoxication MAY be an incomplete defense is to specific intent crimes.
OTOH, drinking to get up the nerve to kill someone is frowned upon just like regular murder.
I disagree that one always ‘is perfectly aware of one’s actions’ while intoxicated (blackouts are a documented phenomenon).
One can be held legally responsible for actions committed while intoxicated, tho again, legally, that intoxication can be either a mitigating factor (in some cases) or an enhancement (in driving related deaths/injuries for example).
Dinsdale correctly also points out that contracts signed while intoxicated are often not enforceable.
RE: the drunken person and ‘what happens next’, the issues can become pretty complex.
One issue is “was the person aware of their relative intoxication”. A woman in my town was given “Long Island Ice Tea” to drink, later said she was unaware it was alcoholic. and while passed out, the man she was with had sex with her (there were physical signs that led her to know some one had had sex w/her while passed out). He was prosecuted, found guilty. I recall ordering a drink and being given a double - you may think “how the hell didn’t she know this”, well, I don’t often order mixed drinks while I"m out. So, when I ordered the second, I was unaware that I was really consuming 4 drinks (when my general limit was 2).
Also remember alcohol takes some time to process, so depending on a wide variety of factors, the intoxication process is actually continuing after the person recognizes ‘whoa, I’ve had enough’.
And certainly, getting intoxicated does not equal “I now give permission to anyone in the near vacinity to use my body for sex”. (so, I absolutely reject the “she got drunk, so it was her fault she got raped” concept. It may not have been a wise thing to do, but it does not mean that she’s responsible for bad thing that happened to her)
I’m teetotal, and always have been (OK, I drank one glass of champagne at my sister’s wedding).
I have no idea what being drunk is like.
I usually gulp lemonade in pubs.
A work ‘colleague’ once served me a quadruple vodka and lemonade.
Fortunately I noticed.
Should I get drunk that way, would I have any defence to offences involving drunkenness?
Would the ‘colleague’ be liable?
How about the barman?