Show of HandsShow of Hands

Praetorianus April 16th, 2016 4:55am

Should someone who commits a crime while being impaired by severe intoxication (alcohol or street drugs) get a more lenient sentence than someone who committed the same crime while not under the influence of any substance?

17 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Rosebud Ohio
04/20/16 8:47 pm

Yes and no. In some cases it should hold its own additional sentence, like drunk driving.

cyanospool The Deep North
04/16/16 2:51 pm

If you willingly did it while drunk, you willingly did it.

AmericanWolf For the Benefit of All
04/16/16 10:27 am

No, the consequences should be more severe.

Reply
dlinz001
04/16/16 9:00 am

With how this world is going I can see people getting out of crimes because they were under the influence

OldPoop
04/16/16 7:44 am

In fact, the punishment should be stiffer. The perp knew exactly what they were doing when they put themselves under the influence.

Reply
gow488 Wisconsin
04/16/16 7:34 am

No. You are always responsible for your own actions.

Reply
bluerum29 optimistic idealist
04/16/16 6:44 am

Makes sense to me. I always say that the things you say when drinking can't be held against you afterwards.

Vietman manhattan
04/16/16 10:59 am

That works with me and my friends when we go out drinking, but I don't expect it to apply to strangers.

ronderman North Carolina
04/16/16 5:10 am

In some cases, quite the opposite. If someone is driving drunk and kills someone, that should be a stricter sentence.

If someone has a well documented history of alcoholism, this should also be treated with a heavier hand.

Reply
getupbaby South City
04/16/16 5:00 am

They should be charged differently depending on a few variables. If the criminal is on drugs and shows no want to quit or no remorse I think you sentence them exactly the same.

dale41 Lets play two
04/16/16 4:33 am

Bad idea, but with affluenza currently a thing, no reason this shouldn't be.

TierasPet
04/16/16 3:25 am

Yes, voluntary intoxication is rarely an acceptable defense serious crimes but there are times when it is and I would argue that it should not be. The drunk driving punishments bug me the most.

Diogenes FreeMeBe
04/15/16 10:56 pm

A crime is a crime is a crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Period. Yes?/s

Praetorianus Fair enough.
04/15/16 10:00 pm

Not at all. I've heard it is an issue in Europe with some laws invoking mitigating circumstances but I think it was your free decision to impair yourself to begin with. You should be held fully responsible for what you did afterwards.

Reply
TierasPet
04/16/16 3:26 am

It can be a mitigation factor here too.

rickvee Living the dream
04/16/16 3:32 am

So all I have to do is get drunk and use that for an excuse to rob a bank or kill someone? It seems like that would pervert the court system even worse.

TierasPet
04/16/16 3:37 am

Not necessarily but it may mitigate your charges. If you didn't have intent before you started drinking, you can argue you couldn't form it when you were drunk. Since the mental state must be proved in almost all cases, you could get a more lenient sentence that way. I don't like the rules but I also don't make them; if I did, being intoxicated of your own free will would never be a defense.