should smack heads be allowed to use their habit as an excuse in court?

Answer 1

No - they should just be shot!

Answer 2

Even in court, we all have freedom of speech -- when the judge says it's our turn to speak.

So, a smack head can tell the judge that the habit is an excuse.

The problem with that is that the judge won't agree. At best, he'll order drug treatment, along with any other sentence for whatever else was done (if convicted).

Certainly, using the excuse that one was under the influence of a drug is not a defense against committing a crime. It just doesn't work that way.

Answer 3

It is not an excuse but a reason for their behaviour. These people need help and unless the courts are made aware of their problems how will they ever stand the chance of getting help. Most addicts do not receive any help untill they have reached the stage of being in trouble with the police, by which time they are probably quite far down that path.

Answer 4

Drug taking is not a defence but it would be a subjective characterisitic of the defendant and may be admissible as evidence. I do not think it excuses their behaviour but the law accommodates addictions as something the individual cannot control. The crime in question would really be of paramount consideration here and also whether the hearing is in magistrates or crown court. Juries may be influenced by a judge when told what they ought and ought not disregard but magistrates are less susceptible especially if the defendant is a repeat offender.

Answer 5

The majority of your answerer's are just plain bloody stupid. They are also extremely ignorant and intolerant. Most of them are female. If a girl was raped or sexually abused as a child most of the female answerer's to this question would take the girls side irrespective of other facts and yet it is precisely that kind of horrendous ordeal which often leads to drug addiction in the first place.

Just imagine it was your daughter/mother/sister who was horribly raped or abused as a child and then sought relief from drugs because she genuinely could not cope with the terrible emotional problems that resulted from the ordeal which had been forced on her, you would change your tune then.

Your answers show that you are intolerant and intolerance is at the base of many a drug addicts problems. Intolerance is also the root cause of many wars, relationship breakdowns and more abuse and more drug addiction. It is an absolute fact that intolerance caused millions of Jews to be sent to the gas chambers, it has caused and is still causing today hundreds of millions of people to be tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered. INTOLERANCE, you people who are so stupid and intolerant should hang your heads in shame.

It is not a smack head's habit which is used as an excuse in court, it is what caused the habit in the first place that may or may not be used in mitigation and rightly so.

Answer 6

Absolutely not...it was a choice to start taking the drug in the first place so they should be responsible for all consequences of taking it. They should be tried like the rest of us and not just sent to rehab for us to pay for them to get better. Prison is the best rehab and the people who are affected by that person's choice to use drugs would certainly agree that the damage caused to their loved ones should not be dismissed because of an addiction. Try getting out of a drunk driving accident that kills someone by saying they are an alcoholic and their "habit" is to blame. We all have a choice and they should have chosen not to taken the drugs or not to drink and drive in the first place!

Answer 7

As the law stands, drunkenness, drug use are no defence to crimes that by operation of common law or statute that for a defendant who is found to be reckless (subjective recklessnesss)(also known as Cunningham recklessnes named after the case) which is when a defendant realised a risk of causing harm but chose to continue to perform the substantive act, because the act of getting drunk or high in its self has been found to be reckless so for example a defendant charged with asault or criminal damage would not have a defence and in my opinion quite rightly.
However drunkenness and drug addition is a defence to specific intent crimes such as murder, a defendant would be indicted on a charge of manslaughter which allows for recklessness, which if found guilty may face the same length of sentance as if convicted of murder.

Answer 8

The more smack they take, the longer it takes to get off and come down, so the longer the sentence. Assuming they do not continue their habit in jail.

Answer 9

A drug addiction isn't an "excuse" or a defense for anything, its just one more thing to be court-ordered in the event of probation or sentencing, drug treatment and frequent random UA tests to see if you are using.

Answer 10

Well there we are, enter the gooders, we had to have a couple of them I suppose.

I went through years of abuse from a violent husband but I didn't turn to drugs or alcohol as a way out. There are no excuses. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!!

Answer 11

NO, they should all be shipped off to a deserted island somewhere and be made to go through cold turkey with no drug supplements. Pete doherty should be the first one sent, he makes me sick, he keeps going to court getting off, goes on a drug feuled rampage back up at court slap on the wrists and away he goes again. Our legal system is a joke.