The 'Too Intoxicated' Defense Measuring All Criminal Defendants by the Same Judicial Standard

Abstract

In select jurisdictions, a criminal defendant who voluntarily becomes intoxicated before the commission of a crime may negate an element of the offense and receive a modified jury instruction, including charges of lesser included offenses. These modified instructions alleviate the severity of the defendant’s actions and essentially pardon his criminal conduct. This standard is unacceptable; a system of government that tolerates this type of behavior promotes criminal conduct by embracing voluntary intoxication as an acceptable defense. This message opposes the morals and beliefs upheld by our society and as such, the voluntary intoxication defense should be abolished. Eliminating the intoxication defense would reinforce the standards of fairness and justice supported by our community; it would increase judicial uniformity in the courts, improve judicial efficiency of legal resources, simplify confusing jury instructions and yield numerous societal benefits. Because of its volitional nature, intoxication should be measured by the same judicial standard as that of sobriety, regardless of the mental state of the defendant during the commission of a crime. For these reasons, voluntary intoxication should not be an available defense to excuse or mitigate the criminal behavior of a guilty defendant.