Too intoxicated to be held accountable for murder?

[CornHOLIO]

Wow! Just Wow.

 

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/court-weighs-too-intoxicated-murder-defense

[carlfense]

Those aren't your normal murder cases . . . strange stuff.

[AR Husker Fan]

While it's possible a court might rule in the defendants' favor, I don't see it. Criminal law is replete with cases in which the same argument has been raised, and in each and every one the courts have held that when a person cannot avoid liability on the grounds of intoxication (the sole exception would be if you were forced at gunpoint to drink, or something similar). The basis is that it was your decision to drink, and that you know when you begin that the effects of alcohol impair judgment - you bear the consequences of any acts that occur when you decide to assume that risk. A nice summary can be found HERE.

[Creighton Duke]

I've always wondered about this. Why are people prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for committing crimes while intoxicated, high, etc., but men are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.....for women being drunk, agreeing to sex, and then having buyer's remorse after the fact?

[suigeneris]

While it's possible a court might rule in the defendants' favor, I don't see it. Criminal law is replete with cases in which the same argument has been raised, and in each and every one the courts have held that when a person cannot avoid liability on the grounds of intoxication (the sole exception would be if you were forced at gunpoint to drink, or something similar). The basis is that it was your decision to drink, and that you know when you begin that the effects of alcohol impair judgment - you bear the consequences of any acts that occur when you decide to assume that risk. A nice summary can be found HERE.

 

Actually, the common law rule was that voluntary intoxication could be a failure of proof defense for crimes requiring a "specific" as opposed to a mere "general" intent. A specific intent is some intent beyond the intent to do the actus reus of the offense. For example, burglary (breaking and entering with an intent to commit a felony therein) is a specific intent crime since it has an extra level of intent ("with the intent to commit a felony therein") on top of the actus reus ("breaking and entering"). A person charged with burglary could argue that his voluntary intoxication prevented him from forming an intent to commit a felony therein, although it would be no defense to a general intent crime (e.g., trespassing). Voluntary intoxication is probably most often used in first-degree murder cases, where it can be used to show that the accused did not premeditate the killing (specific intent) but cannot be used to show the accused was too drunk to intentionally kill (general intent).

 

This is still the law in a lot of jurisdictions and was the law in Nebraska until a couple of years ago when the Unicameral (acting on misinformation, I might add) disallowed intoxication as a mitigation or defense except for involuntary intoxication or settled insanity caused by the prolonged consumption of alcohol or other drugs (e.g., delirium tremens).

 

There are few to none reported decisions of an accused successfully using his voluntary intoxication to support an insanity defense (an "excuse" rather than a failure of proof defense). Involuntary intoxication, like insanity, is an excuse for a crime and it doesn't necessarily have to involve coercion.

 

If you're a masochist, here's a law review article that talks about the issue in Nebraska.

[AR Husker Fan]

I've always wondered about this. Why are people prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for committing crimes while intoxicated, high, etc., but men are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.....for women being drunk, agreeing to sex, and then having buyer's remorse after the fact?

 

The difference between intent and consent. Sex is a consensual act - like the old saying of "Consenting Adults". When a person is intoxicated, they lack the mental capacity to consent; their judgment is impaired. If a woman is intoxicated, she is not mentally capable of judging the circumstances and cannot legally consent. The man who has sex with her is taking advantage of her impaired state and inability to legally grant consent - it's no longer two consenting adults. On the other hand, again, if you drink you are held responsible for the results of your actions after deciding to drink. You assume the risk so to speak. While you may not have the intent to kill someone while you are driving, you did have the intent to drink, and generally speaking, you are held accountable for the reasonably foreseeable results of your decision. In that respect, the "intent" is not to kill with a vehicle - it's the intent to drink and being responsible for what are reasonably foreseeable consequences of doing so.

[JJ Husker]

If a woman gets shatfaced drunk and has sex with a man........I understand she can't grant legal consent but why isn't she also held responsible for the results of her actions? Is one of these people more at fault?

 

Sorry, just a bit bored but the above seemed to hint at sort of a double standard.

[AR Husker Fan]

She committed no crime is the simple answer. It's a crime to have sex with someone who cannot give legal consent. It isn't a crime to get drunk and have sex. I don't mean that to sound simplistic, but that's the way the law handles that. Put another way, if you get drunk and drive your car into a house, you committed a crime and society deems that you should have to pay a penalty. If you get drunk and have sex, you hurt yourself but not the other party - no harm to the other party.

[JJ Husker]

She committed no crime is the simple answer. It's a crime to have sex with someone who cannot give legal consent. It isn't a crime to get drunk and have sex. I don't mean that to sound simplistic, but that's the way the law handles that. Put another way, if you get drunk and drive your car into a house, you committed a crime and society deems that you should have to pay a penalty. If you get drunk and have sex, you hurt yourself but not the other party - no harm to the other party.

 

So, if the guy is also drunk, then it's ok?

 

Just playing devil's advocate......

[AR Husker Fan]

The most likely result (and it will depend to some extent on the laws of each jurisdiction) is no harm, no foul for both. For it to be rape, the party that commits the act will have to either be sober and take advantage of someone incapable of consent, or would have to use force or coercion. Say the guy is drunk and the girl sober - technically, she can be charged with rape. The reverse is also true. But if both are drunk, nope (again, some jurisdictions may have laws that invalidate that - the laws may say that both get charged with rape because both took advantage of a situation in which the other could not form legal consent - but having said that, I've never seen such a law). Where it can get tricky is that the degree of intoxication can play a fact question. Were both intoxicated? Was the level of intoxication for each of a sufficient level to impair mental capability to form consent? However, assume both parties are intoxicated. The girl wants sex. The guy says no. The girl pulls a gun and threatens the guy. Now you have a crime of rape. Why? Again, intoxication does not forgive the acts while intoxicated generally speaking. She may have been impaired to the level of not being able to form consent, but that no longer matters because her consent is no longer relevant - the sexual act occurred not because he took advantage of her lack of consent; it took place because she assaulted him with a weapon. He was forced to have sex.

[HUSKER 37]

The most likely result (and it will depend to some extent on the laws of each jurisdiction) is no harm, no foul for both. For it to be rape, the party that commits the act will have to either be sober and take advantage of someone incapable of consent, or would have to use force or coercion. Say the guy is drunk and the girl sober - technically, she can be charged with rape. The reverse is also true. But if both are drunk, nope (again, some jurisdictions may have laws that invalidate that - the laws may say that both get charged with rape because both took advantage of a situation in which the other could not form legal consent - but having said that, I've never seen such a law). Where it can get tricky is that the degree of intoxication can play a fact question. Were both intoxicated? Was the level of intoxication for each of a sufficient level to impair mental capability to form consent? However, assume both parties are intoxicated. The girl wants sex. The guy says no. The girl pulls a gun and threatens the guy. Now you have a crime of rape. Why? Again, intoxication does not forgive the acts while intoxicated generally speaking. She may have been impaired to the level of not being able to form consent, but that no longer matters because her consent is no longer relevant - the sexual act occurred not because he took advantage of her lack of consent; it took place because she assaulted him with a weapon. He was forced to have sex.

 

 

If I had a nickel...

[zoogs]

Wow. Good answers :

[HuskerNationNick]

I am not proud of it, but my first DUI, at the age of 19, I blew a .27 4 hours after drinking. I knew I shouldn't have been driving, but I thought I was ok to do so. I was actually pulled over for the radiator hose blowing and smoke going everywhere, rather than my driving. Nonetheless, that defense is crap, and they knew exactly what they were doing. That is a long time to serve for an accident though, and not something premeditated.