Premium
Drugs, Alcohol and Crime: A Response to M. Goode
Author(s) -
Skene Loane
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
australian drug and alcohol review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.018
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1465-3362
pISSN - 0819-5331
DOI - 10.1080/09595238680000591
Subject(s) - commit , criminal law , element (criminal law) , voluntariness , law , statutory law , principal (computer security) , criminology , mens rea , criminal liability , political science , psychology , computer security , database , computer science
Matthew Goode argued in this journal last year that grossly intoxicated people who commit criminal acts should be treated in the same way as other offenders. If they can not be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to have acted consciously, voluntarily and with the mental element required to be proved for the offence charged, then they should be acquitted. The law generally does not impose criminal liability in the absence of fault and it makes no difference that the lack of voluntariness or intention arose from self‐induced intoxication. This is indeed the law in the common law states of Australia and Goode believes that it is right and should not be changed or modified. This article examines Goode's arguments, challenges some of his assertions and suggests that he is unduly sanguine in concluding that no change is necessary. It is the present writer's view that a new statutory offence should be created to deal with offenders who are acquitted of criminal offences because their gross intoxication ‘negatived’ the mental element of the principal offence charged.