Why is voluntary intoxication usually not accepted as a defense to criminal liability?

Answer 1

Under the common law, voluntary intoxication IS a valid defense to specific intent crimes such as: (forgery, attempt, larceny, solicitation, embezzlement, conspiracy, robbery, assault (I think), and burglary. It is a defense in those crimes because voluntary intoxication would negate the requisite mental state required for the crime. In other words, you must intend to commit the crime for specific intent crimes. Voluntary intoxication is a defense in those crimes because it can negate the intent to commit the crime.

However, voluntary intoxication is not available for crimes that only require a general intent such as battery. In such crimes, you need need not intend to commit the crime. Substantial knowledge that the contact will occur is sufficient. Therefore, voluntary intoxication can not be a defense.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

This is the thinking behind it: You (the accused) were the one who drank to the point of intoxication, no one was holding a gun to your head and/or pouring booze down your throat, and you could have stopped at any time before you drank so much that your judgment was impaired, so if you get drunk and commit a crime you have no one to blame but yourself. No, voluntary intoxication should NEVER be accepted as a defense to a criminal charge. If you're adult enough to drink, you're adult enough to drink responsibly -- AND you're also adult enough to take responsibility for your actions and accept the consequences if you do something stupid.

Answer 4

Because the theory of it as a defense is flawed. It proposes that the intoxication negates the required mental state for the crime.

However, the flaw is that this overlooks the fact that getting drunk in itself is the result of deliberate action.

So what if the defendant didn't "willfully" shoot the victim, since he was too drunk to know what he was doing; when he started drinking, he was stone cold sober, and willfully drank himself stupid.

Answer 5

Because criminal behavior is a forseeable consequence of intoxication.

Answer 6

A part of the Magna Carta states that a mentally ill person cannot be charged with a crime, including murder, unless he is drunk.
Being drunk is a choice and that choice may carry consequences

Answer 7

Its the same as "Ignorance is bliss." Regardless of whether or not you knew it was wrong, it was wrong.