Devadas has added another dimension to the discussion on alcohol. This is in reply to his comment on my previous post. I agree with his first four statements. The fifth statements is not always correct. In driving related offences, the blood level of alcohol is given importance. This is because law has prescribed a safe Blood Alcohol Level for driving after drinking. In many countries it is 80 mg per 100 ml of blood. In India it is 40 mg%.
The sixth statement needs little more analysis. What are the ingredients of a crime ? Law states that for an act to be considered as crime, 2 things are needed.
1) Actus Rea: That is an act coming within the purview of law has to be committed - criminal act.
2) Mens Rea: The act is committed after decision is taken by a mind - criminal mind.
Persons suffering from severe (but not all) mental illnesses are absolved of criminal responsibility, if it can be proved beyond doubt that the alleged person is incapable of conceiving and executing the act. This means that the person may be guilty, but he is insane and incapable of testifying before court. I am leaving aside the complicated issue of the standards for arriving at this conclusion - McNaughton's law, plea of diminished responsibility, Durham's rule, ALI test etc. He is committed for treatment to a mental hospital. But the court awaits a stage where the psychiatrist declares him fit for standing trial. In practice this happens rarely or after much delay. Very rarely only acquittal takes place completely.
Coming to crime committed after alcohol intake. Here a person who knows that alcohol (or any other drug with mind altering properties) impairs his ability to take decisions, control impulses etc is still taking it for recreational purposes or out of compulsion (when he is alcohol dependent). Imagine a situation where an accused uses this a a defense and pleads not guilty. If the court accepts this, I am sure all the lawyers will be very happy. Now they are trying to prove that their client had not taken alcohol. But after this new law, they will try to show that their client was under the influence of alcohol. As Mr. Devadas stated earlier crime rate is higher after use of alcohol. So a situation arises wherein you can drink and bash anybody and get away without punishment ! This situation will jeopardise safety of the common man.
Therefore there is nothing wrong in punishing a person for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol. Here also he is freed if it is proved that he was made to take it against his will. But mentally ill persons who commit crimes as a result of their illnesses have to be treated differently. Their mental state at the time of committing the offence is crucial in deciding their criminal responsibility.
ഇന്ത്യ
4 weeks ago
2 comments:
In a society where alcohol is legally permitted for consumption punishing the person who is totally unaware /not remembering his acts is not fair.,(no individual can correctly predict /anticipate the action of alcohol on the brain )
It is the unpredictable nature of the alcohol that create the confusion.So to have a consensus I am ready to agree that" Alcohol should be punished.." !!
Ha Ha Ha !!!
A person who deliberately consumes alcohol and misbehaves is liable to be punished because he is aware of the unpredictable manner in which it can act on his body. The misbehavior is not the problem of 'alcohol' as it does not cause the same reaction in others. It is the interaction between his brain /ind and alcohol that creates the misbehavior. Alcohol can be elimnated from causation as it does not cause similar misbehavior in other persons. Therefore by this logic also the individual who misbehave is to be punished.
Post a Comment