It is recognized that criminal law should punish only reprehensible conduct. However, the doctrine of intoxication takes a restrictive approach to allowing defendants to prove their innocence. It is true that those who are intoxicated may be morally culpable due to their choice to be "out of control", however, what about those who were involuntarily intoxicated? The doctrine very rarely allows the use of defenses, casting doubt on the ability of criminal law to filter out the guilty. First, I will discuss how to punish the guilty while respecting the principles of criminal law and current doctrine. Second, cases where the individual did not deserve punishment will be examined, as evidence that the law only punishes the guilty. Third, I will examine issues related to the distinction of specific and fundamental intent, and finally I will evaluate issues related to the doctrine of intoxication. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay According to the M'Naghten rule, it has been admitted that "alcoholism offers no defense because the alcoholic probably knows right from wrong early in the process." drink'. This is an understandable position, since even if the concept of "irresistible impulse" is added to the equation, "the result will not change, since the impulse under which the alcoholic suffers is not an impulse to commit a crime." In other words, getting drunk is not a way to avoid responsibility. The doctrine's strict limitation on an individual's right to use the involuntary and voluntary defenses prevents the doctrine from being abused to absolve others from liability. Despite criticism that the doctrine is too narrow and restrictive, it exemplifies the need for criminal law to prosecute only those responsible; There are exemptions for those who meet the requirements. Public safety arguments propose that a fundamental function of criminal law is to "exert a general deterrent effect, to protect key social and individual interests". Ensuring that only those who are legally guilty are punished fulfills this function. However, there are underlying issues in the doctrine that raise the question of whether criminal law can only punish those who are guilty. By punishing those who are guilty, the principle of legality is enforced. With a doctrine as complex as intoxication, there is a lack of understanding of defenses and the extent to which an individual is responsible for a crime committed while intoxicated. This confusion highlights the need for change and for the law to recognize that the only way to support fairness is to clarify the law for the public. Second, by punishing only reprehensible behavior, the law satisfies the principle of fair labeling by reasonably distinguishing crimes. Fair labeling prevents overcriminalization. Stigmatizing as a criminal any individual who has committed a crime while intoxicated, even though there may be mitigating factors that reduce their responsibility, extends the principle of responsibility. With voluntary intoxication, “the threshold for male rea is much lower for intoxicated defendants than for sober defendants.” Rather than requiring the sober defendant to foresee the relevant harm, "it is apparently sufficient for the jury to be satisfied that a reasonable person would have done so" in the case of intoxicated defendants. Criminalizing intoxication is problematic and, as the law currently stands, "the cause of punishment is the drunkenness that led to the crime, rather than thecrime itself". Kingston's case raises issues with involuntary intoxication, which in turn imposes the need to punish only those who are guilty. Involuntary intoxication is said to be "exculpatory if the effect of the intoxication is to remove a plaintiff's normal capacity for practical reasoning". Despite being pointed, the defendant was found to have the necessary intent, which raises doubts about the fairness of the case. The Court of Appeal explicitly chose to change the rules governing criminal liability to conclude that “only the guilty are punishable,” which led to the decision in Kingston that involuntary drunkenness negates the necessary male rea However, the House of Lords overturned the decision of the Court Appellate Court was widely criticized, as a doctrinal change that allowed involuntary intoxication to deny men's guilt "could have distanced criminal excuses from their moral counterparts", which in turn could have created an "excuse generalized criminal liability". The decision taken by the House of Lords was very objective, failing to understand the context in which the situation was. Hart's fair opportunity theory proposed that blame is assigned only if an individual has a "fair opportunity" to "adapt his behavior to the law." This principle has been ignored and a more restrictive interpretation of the doctrine has been adopted, highlighting the need for the law to broaden its interpretation and focus more on the state of the accused at the time rather than just the act committed. This would allow for a fairer system of punishing guilty individuals. Lord Taylor CJ stated that "a man is not responsible for a condition produced 'by the stratagem or fraud of another.'" The offender deserves to be punished for factors within his control, not for results which occurred by chance. Therefore, in Kingston, even if he committed serious misconduct, it has no moral significance if he was unintentionally drunk beforehand Reprehensible conduct must be the only driving force for punishment because it can lead to unjust results necessary to balance the protection of the public with the responsibility of the offender; Kingston had committed crimes in the past which the courts used as a factor in his conviction. The case highlights a "shift from individual responsibility for each crime" to holding a individual responsible based on his "character", where defendants are judged on the basis of previous convictions However, with respect to Kingston, it was admitted that even for "stigmatized crimes it is not possible to exempt all innocent people while remaining within the doctrinal parameters of the law". Allowing the acquittal of intoxicated individuals from criminal offenses poses a danger of decriminalization, however, convicting innocent individuals is unjust, so the law must find a balance and reform the doctrine. However, the distinction between fundamental intent and specific intent is blurred, which raises practical issues regarding the definition of reprehensible conduct. It has been argued that this distinction is "ill-defined", which in turn calls into question the practical reliability of the doctrine of intoxication. Labeling intoxicated individuals as reckless "is based on fiction", with Lord Elwyn Jones' argument in the DPP v Majewski case confusing the term "reckless" with predicting risks while intoxicated. Lord Elwyn Jones stated that "getting drunk is reckless behaviour", which is difficult to understand, as drinking is a common social practice and in only 39% of violent incidents does the victim believe that the perpetratorcrime is under the influence of alcohol. Considering all individuals who get drunk as imprudent is a hasty generalization and a stereotype that cannot define reprehensible conduct. Furthermore, the intoxication rules were found to be inconsistent with Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. This act requires courts to consider "all the evidence when deciding whether the defendant intended or anticipated an outcome" . However, in the case of DPP v Majewski, all evidence of intoxication is denied unless the crime has specific intent, and Section 8 only refers to "legally relevant evidence". This means that the courts do not have a holistic picture of the case because the evidence pertains to that of the individual's state during the crime is ignored whether he has a fundamental intent. As part of the Law Commission Report, they acted for the abolition of the distinction between fundamental and specific intentions. Furthermore, the Commission mentioned the codification of the law to make it more accessible and facilitate the clarification of uncertain terms. However, the government rejected these proposals, perhaps because they were "unnecessarily complex", as the Home Office described the draft criminal law. Stagnation in law change is overcriminalizing individuals who may not be as blameworthy as others. However, while the doctrine has significant setbacks, a change could be costly in terms of how intoxication is perceived as a crime. The Law Commission initially proposed the abolition of the Majewski rules, due to the "absence of satisfactory criteria" in determining the distinction between crimes of specific intent and basic crimes. Furthermore, they noted that by abolishing these rules, "D's intoxication would be taken into account in determining whether they had the requisite state of mind for liability." Despite this view, the Commission decided to discard this proposal due to limited support and sensitivity regarding its practicality; those interviewed underline that "the police should dedicate more time to investigations". Therefore, the changes could lead to a greater proportion of individuals escaping accountability, rather than effectively punishing those who are at fault. Furthermore, almost no decisions have held that the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated, which poses problems with the involuntary intoxication defense. The defense is «simply and completely non-existent, which is dangerous in the sense that «it is risky to generalize an enormous body of legislation such as that on crimes committed by drunkards». Courts tend to avoid resorting to the defense of involuntary intoxication, which may be because "the rules are neither clear in practice nor easily explainable in theory". In the case of Kingston, although it is argued that the case highlights the need to punish only the guilty, if there are fundamental errors in the doctrine of intoxication, how can the law punish only guilty conduct? However, creating a new defense and agreeing with the Kingston Court of Appeal's decision would be controversial. It was stated that this defense "applies to all crimes" and "leads to acquittal, unlike provocation or diminution of responsibility". The Law Commission noted that a full defense would be easy to produce, as the accused would need only minimal evidence to prove that they were behaving inappropriately. This perspective undermines the law and allows susceptible people to avoid punishment. Therefore, the position that the involuntary intoxication defense should be expanded and applied would provide greater opportunities for individuals to open up€™ (2019)