3 ms·
The fact he was drunk doesn't really have much to do with it. It wouldn't be an excuse for running somebody down in his car or stabbing someone and shouldn't be
by tonyedgecombe 5y ago
The fact he was drunk doesn't really have much to do with it. It wouldn't be an excuse for running somebody down in his car or stabbing someone and shouldn't be here.
- VBprogrammer 5y agoDrunk in charge of a communications device is hardly on the same scale as driving a vehicle. One is likely to cause actual bodily harm. The other is most likely to result in minor embarrassment, except in a few wild outlier cases.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoTrue but you can argue the punishment isn't on the same scale either. If I vandalised your car or even stole it then being drunk wouldn't be a reasonable defence in those cases either.
- rndgermandude 5y agoIt actually might be an excuse to some degree. Diminished capacity is considered in many jurisdictions, and defendants who can demonstrate diminished capacity at the time of the offense can often get lesser sentences.
- cjrp 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_Engl... > Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent.[8] This may prevent the defendant from having the required mens rea. If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal.