Mitigating Circumstances

Strata

If a person is convicted of a crime while under the influence of drink or drugs why should that be a mitigating circumstance when it comes to their sentencing?

Assuming they are adults, they choose to take the drink/drugs so why should that even be a factor?

prinz

Obviously it's a factor when it comes to the accused's mental capacities at the time of whatever the crime was. But tbh it's being taken to ridiculous lengths these days in the Irish courts. As a factor it's being given far to great a weighting when it comes to sentencing IMO.

chin_grin

What did you do OP? C'mon, fess up.

MitchKoobski

Yeah what did you do? And are you planning on trying to represent yourself?

Strata

It's not for me. It's a friend's brothers cousin.

That makes no sense at all about it affecting your mental condition. How does that make the crime worthy of a lesser sentence. Surely it's an insult to the victim.

prinz

Strata wrote: »

That makes no sense at all about it affecting your mental condition. How does that make the crime worthy of a lesser sentence. Surely it's an insult to the victim.

Depends on what crime we're talking about tbh, well should do for me.

biko

If you're on drink/drugs you're under "the devils spell" and not responsible for your own actions. Only sober people can get jail.
That's what I've learned in court.

So if you kill someone by accident, down a bottle of Jameson and blame the drink.

Einhard

I tend to agree with you OP. Obviously, there's ceratin circumstances when certain mitigating factors should be taken into account, but if you deliberately choose to impair your mental capacity through drink or drugs, then I can't see how that can be used in your defence. By that logic, being drunk could be used as a mitigating factor in cases of drunk driving causing death or injury!

MitchKoobski

Don't blame if on the knife crime, don't blame it on the big fight, don't blame it on the whiskey, blame it on the boogie :pac:

Strata

prinz wrote: »

Depends on what crime we're talking about tbh, well should do for me.

Einhard wrote: »

I tend to agree with you OP. Obviously, there's ceratin circumstances when certain mitigating factors should be taken into account, but if you deliberately choose to impair your mental capacity through drink or drugs, then I can't see how that can be used in your defence. By that logic, being drunk could be used as a mitigating factor in cases of drunk driving causing death or injury!

I can't think of any crime though that it should be used as a mitigating circumstance. For what kind of crimes do you think drink/drugs should be taken into account?

Einhard wrote: »

I tend to agree with you OP. Obviously, there's ceratin circumstances when certain mitigating factors should be taken into account, but if you deliberately choose to impair your mental capacity through drink or drugs, then I can't see how that can be used in your defence. By that logic, being drunk could be used as a mitigating factor in cases of drunk driving causing death or injury!

Einhard: you'll be given ideas to those soul-less solicitors:eek:

Einhard

Strata wrote: »

I can't think of any crime though that it should be used as a mitigating circumstance. For what kind of crimes do you think drink/drugs should be taken into account?

I'm not saying drink or drugs should be used as mitigating factors, but there are other instances where such factors should be taken into account.

Einhard: you'll be given ideas to those soul-less solicitors:eek:

How do you know I'm not one?

Mwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaha!!!!

(Disappears in a puff of smoke)

prinz

Strata wrote: »

I can't think of any crime though that it should be used as a mitigating circumstance. For what kind of crimes do you think drink/drugs should be taken into account?

First time, small crimes tbh, generally that don't involve anyone else, or damage to property. It's easier to keep someone over night, let them sober up and off with a caution etc, or a fine in court.

Strata

prinz wrote: »

First time, small crimes tbh, generally that don't involve anyone else, or damage to property. It's easier to keep someone over night, let them sober up and off with a caution etc, or a fine in court.

What you're saying is fair enough but you're referring to a situation where the Guards don't prosecute someone for a small/first time crime.

That's not really mitigating a sentence though. I'm referring more to cases where a judges lessens a sentence because the convicted person was under the the influence of either drink or drugs.

I'm kinda split on this.. Mostly think that it shouldn't be part of your defense but bad things can be done by good people under the influence of drugs. What if you're spiked and freak out?

Strata

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm kinda split on this.. Mostly think that it shouldn't be part of your defense but bad things can be done by good people under the influence of drugs. What if you're spiked and freak out?

That would be a case where I think it would be reasonable for a judge to consider mitigating the sentence. Only because the person didn't take the drink/drug by choice.

But if someone willingly takes drugs and then goes out and does something "out of character" I don't see how that can be used as a defence.

Einhard

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm kinda split on this.. Mostly think that it shouldn't be part of your defense but bad things can be done by good people under the influence of drugs. What if you're spiked and freak out?

Well a crime is a crime, and the character of the accused shouldn't come into it really. If your drink is spiked then you're not responsible, and it would be wrong to be held so. But if you get drunk and headbutt someone, you shouldn't be able to turn around claim that it was the drink wot done it, that you're really a good person...

Einhard

Einhard wrote: »

Well a crime is a crime, and the character of the accused shouldn't come into it really. If your drink is spiked then you're not responsible, and it would be wrong to be held so. But if you get drunk and headbutt someone, you shouldn't be able to turn around claim that it was the drink wot done it, that you're really a good person...

Yea I agree.. Alcohol shouldn't be a part of any defence. But at the same time, if my friend did something awful under the influence of say acid, i'd have to feel sorry for both him and the victim.

It's a tough one, I know they'd deserve to be reprimanded but at the same time, I'd know it wasn't really them that did it. Previous character has to have a massive influence.. Afterall, the legal system isn't there to punish.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Einhard wrote: »

Well a crime is a crime, and the character of the accused shouldn't come into it really

Stopped reading after that tbh.

Mike 1972

biko wrote: »

If you're on drink/drugs you're under "the devils spell" and not responsible for your own actions. Only sober people can get jail.
That's what I've learned in court.

So nobody has ever been convicted of drunk driving ?

tommywiseau

for a split second i though thread title was 'midget circumcision'.

Mike 1972

Defendant No 1 "He had a hard life......................."
Defendant No 2 "He comes from a respectable family"

orourkeda

Strata wrote: »

If a person is convicted of a crime while under the influence of drink or drugs why should that be a mitigating circumstance when it comes to their sentencing?

Assuming they are adults, they choose to take the drink/drugs so why should that even be a factor?

If alcohol shouldnt be allowed as a factor why allow any other form of mitigation be counted.

Wouldnt it be a wonderful world if all court cases were all as straight forward as you would like them.

Alcohol is a mind and mood altering substance and can cause normally rational people to do things they'd never dream of. As long as alcohol exists it will cause and contribute crime. Why not just ban alcohol if you think its effects should be dismissed so lightly

aDeener

Strata wrote: »

It's not for me. It's a friend's brothers cousin.

That makes no sense at all about it affecting your mental condition. How does that make the crime worthy of a lesser sentence. Surely it's an insult to the victim.

so just your friend's cousin then