CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law

Criminal Law

Liability

Drug and alcohol intoxication, since the mid 1800's, is not itself a defense to a crime as for this case. Nonetheless, in many jurisdictions in the United States, drug and alcohol intoxication can be used to raise reasonable doubt about a specific intent that is an integral element of some crimes. All crimes, except strict liability crimes, necessitate both an act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea). If there is no mens rea such as in an accident, an individual cannot be found guilty of a crime requiring criminal intent (PAUL 2001 815). This area of the law is complex, differs from state to state, and is much more complicated than the insanity defense as Katie in this case. However this knowledge is important whenever forensic psychiatric evaluations are performed in jurisdictions that permit these defenses. It is important for more forensic psychiatrists to become familiar with these issues.

General criminal intent refers to the intent to perform the act. General intent can be negated only by an insanity defense. It is a complete defense, negating the entire mens rea (both general and specific intent). A defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Drug and alcohol intoxication alone cannot be the basis for an insanity defense. In addition to general intent, many crimes require an additional specific intent. A specific intent is intent to do some further act or to achieve some additional consequence, in addition to the general intent to do the act. The concept of specific intent was developed as a means of taking drug and alcohol intoxication into account as a partial excuse. Drug and alcohol intoxication can be used to negate only the specific intent in specific intent crimes.

Mens rea defenses are partial defenses that can negate a specific intent and thereby result in a defendant being found guilty of a lesser-included crime. In those jurisdictions that permit such defenses, drug and alcohol intoxication can be used as evidence to raise reasonable doubt about a required specific intent. In some states, such evidence is used affirmatively to negate a required specific intent, and the defense is called "extreme emotional disturbance (SANFORD & Stephen 2001 128)." Since the mid 1900's, originally in UK as well as later in many other states, mental illness also was included as a way to negate specific intent. The defense became known as diminished capacity and referred to a defendant's capacity to have the specific intent required for a crime. If a diminished capacity defense is successful, the defendant is found guilty of a lesser included crime, thereby resulting in a lesser sentence.

Charge

This paper applies an emerging method of research, "legal praxeology, " to the study of decisions concerning intoxication as a defense to criminal charges. This method is based on the observation that judges import their own values, attitudes as well as beliefs into their decisions in identifiable ways. We observed this phenomenon in 40 cases and deduced that judicial views about the intoxication defense are organized ...