A state of intoxication may be defined as a state where the intoxicated man is rendered incapable of knowing the nature of his act, or that his act is one which is either wrong or contrary to law . The simplest argument as to why intoxication may be used as a defence is that if a person is in an intoxicated state, and is not aware of what he is doing, there can be no mens-rea and thus he cannot be guilty of a crime.
No man should be convicted of a serious offence unless he acted voluntarily and he was at least aware when he acted that his conduct might cause damage of the kind forbidden by the offence with which he is charged . This is however a much too simplistic argument and cannot be used in all circumstances. A much better way of explaining
…show more content…
While a justification “speaks to the rightness of the act; an Excuse, to whether the actor is accountable for the concededly wrong act”. While both excuse and justification are defences, an excuse does not deny, at any level, the wrongness of an act, but merely, according to circumstances peculiar to the individual in question, “seek the avoid the attribution of the act” on him. A justification of an act, on the other hand do not accept that wrongness of a particular act, but on the other hand believe than an individual was correct in acting the way in which he/she did …show more content…
The reason for the insertion of Section 86 in this regard is probably to make overt the fact that in the case of many offences that require some guilty knowledge or intention, a man voluntarily intoxicated would be deemed to have the same knowledge as had he not been intoxicated. The difference between the two sections lies in the consequences arising from voluntary and involuntary intoxication. The absence of certain qualifying words in S. 86 pointing towards intent must not lead to the presumption that even if the level of insobriety in the accused is not so much as to not impair the level of reason, requisite intent may not be presumed
I think that even when our acts are driven by an automated machinery - the brain, that should not be an excuse to exculpate us but instead an approach to find solutions. II. Why blameworthiness is the wrong question. Eagleman states that the question no longer makes sense because a person and its biology are now understood to be the same.
In their conclusion the Appellate court reasoned that the argument of Reyes drunkenness by the defense as a form of habit carried little weight. They agree that there is no exact formula for establishing habit. However they do hold it to a standard of “uniformity of response”. Meaning the defendant needed to prove in order to result to habit evidence that “intoxication on a given occasion depends on the degree of regularity of the practice and its coincidence with the occasion”. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 1979) They concluded that four instances over a period of approximately four years could not constitute as or satisfy the requirements for establishing
Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson have written a book that many people may find difficult to read. Why? Because it is like holding a mirror in front of one’s own face and looking into it. The book is about something most, if not all of us, have done: Justified our actions or words no matter how wrong they were. As Tavris and Aronson (2007) wrote in their book, “. . . most of us find it difficult, if not impossible to say, ‘I was wrong; I made a terrible mistake.’ The higher the stakes – emotional, financial, moral – the greater the difficulty.”
In the Model Penal Code, section 2.01 discussed are the requirements of voluntary act; Omission as Basis of Liability; and Possesion as an Act. Mainly focusing on the “Voluntary” and “Involunatary” sections, first, stated is that “A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Secondly, stated are acts that are not voluntary wihin the meaning of this section following as, “A reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; and a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.” These requirements correspond with the Latin term “Actus Reus” which is a term used to describe a criminal act. Actus Reus is the wrongful dead that compromises the physical components of a crime. There is a fundamental principle stated in the case textbook that criminal liability always entails an “Actus Reus”, that is, “the commission of some voluntary act that is prohibited by law.”
In this essay, I will argue that though Strawson’s Basic Argument is sound, society has constructed a more applicable version of the term “acting morally responsible” which holds us all accountable for our actions. Firstly, I will provide a brief overview of the Basic Argument as well as distinguish between Strawson’s and society’s definitions of being morally responsible. Secondly, I will justify Strawson’s first premise. Finally, I will raise and refute the response of author Ian McEwan. In short, Strawson’s Basic Argument proves that we cannot ultimately be morally responsible for what we do.
In America we believe in the saying “you are innocent until proven guilty” but we the people are remarkably swift to point our fingers at someone we believe that committed the crime. This habit is frequently displayed within our criminal justice system when a crime is committed we quickly assume it has something to do with the first person we can link the crime to. We tend to naturally feel sympathy for the victim therefore; if the individual accuses one for a crime the jury has no reason not to believe the victim. Society does not bother to care if the individual did not do the crime because as long as someone was caught and accused of the wrongdoing, then we the people can proceed on with our lives knowing we punished someone for the crime
The mental state of the suspect can give explanation to a false confession. If a person is inebriated and is questioned before she is sober, that may lead to easier manipulation by the police. A suspect under the influence of alcohol or drugs may not remember all the events leading up to her arrest. This mental state allows police officers to give misleading information, which may imply that the suspect did commit the crime and does not remember the incident.
The definition of justification is “the involvement the defendant admitting that when they committed a criminal act; their actions were justified by duress, necessity, self-defense, provocation, and entrapment.” (Lawteacher.net, 2014) This legal defense allows the defendant to give understanding as to why they committed the crime, and the best opportunity to justify their side of the story to make it seem ok in the eyes of others. Duress is defined as “threats, violence, constraints, or other ...
Generally speaking, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) references substance dependence (in this case, alcohol) as a cluster of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological symptoms that shows that the person is continuing use of the substance even with adverse effects on the individual’s life. Specifically, for a person to be diagnosed with substance dependence they must show at least three of the following symptoms; tolerance, withdrawal, substance being taken in larger amounts of over a longer period of time than intended, an unsuccessful desire or effort to control the use of the substance, there is a great deal of time devoted to the drug, important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced due to the substance, and the individual continues use of the substance even with the knowledge that the substance is causing physical or psychological problems (APA, 2000).
When a person is accused of being "guilty", society must assume the person is innocen...
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
as distinct advantages of the. These things should be in ones self-interest, society says. If someone says, rapes another person, they are not acting in their own self interest. They run the risk of feeling guilty, guilt is not conducive to happiness. They run the risk of being thrown into jail.
Intoxication: This means that the parties to the contract should not be under the influence of any alcoholic product such as drugs or drinks at the time of making of the contract. The case of Blomley v Ryan can be a good example of Intoxication. In this case Blomley was to purchase a farm from Ryan and at the time of contract Ryan was under the influence of alcohol so the contact was not enforceable.
...n the case of Bacchan Singh, it was given not to restore the interest of the plaintiff but to show what punishment should a person have to for committing a crime with that much level of seriousness.
Alcohol poisoning is a medical emergency that resutls when there’s high levels of alcohol in your blood that can put a person in a coma, respiratory depression, or even cause death. (cdc.gov)