Talk:Intoxication defense
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intoxication defense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
rewrite[edit]
The article lacks citations and does not fully explain the defense. It is also written from the POV hostile to low BOC% for drunk driving and "puritanical" societies. The "dutch courage defense" appears to be an attempt to draw a slightly related slang term into the legal sphere. The division of crimes according to specific and general intent ignores crimes of negligence, where intent is not a necessary element. The section on "Foreseeability test" confuses dram shop act laws (a crime of negligence) with crimes of strict liability and the intoxication defense. The intoxication defense is an excuse defense. Strict liability offenses disregard the intent of the defendant. It is possible for someone to have a high blood alcohol content and be a more adept driver than everyone in the world, yet possessing a percentage over the legal limit will result in strict liability regardless of the intent or awareness of the offender. The "Offenses of basic and specific intent" section makes two major errors in reference to "states", which I take in the sense of United States rather than countries. First the division of basic and specific intent crimes exists in only 1/3 of states. The remaining 2/3, DC, and the Federal Government use a version of the Model Penal Code, which revised culpability requirements from the common law. Second, it fails to mention how voluntary intoxication is disfavored or banned in all but a handful of states. Additionally, the Supreme Court in Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) held that there is no due process right to the defense and banning the defense is justified (the case also gives a very good history of the defense with citations). In short, the article needs to be rewritten taking special note to the common law treatment of intoxication and how each English colony treated the defense or lack of defense subsequently. The sections that include opinions and conclusions not supported should be deleted. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)