A STUDY ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL | Written by Atilan Bishop

[CopOwl 1668]

A STUDY ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL

 

 

Written by

LORD ATILAN BISHOP

On the 11th of Gronna ag Droba, 451E.S.

 

---

 

The topic of being under the influence of alcohol is a truly fascinating moral dilemma when it comes to doing criminal actions; the actions of which exist in the purview of the Jura i Krima. Morally or ethically, there is a substantial number of arguments claiming that an accused who definitely did the crime was drunk, and that his drunkenness should be taken into account. The Law does feature a clause in which one’s drunkenness can offer a level of reduced sentencing, or the ability of the man to not be charged due to Article III of Jura i Krima. On the other hand, others argue the opposite; using Article IV of the same Jura i Krima to claim that it is irrelevant.

 

---

 

Laws in Question:

JURA I KRIMA

 

III

Let he who is of unsound or simple mind be free from punishment.

 

IV

Let he who commits a crime through carelessness or recklessness be guilty of Negligence, to be punished as if they had committed the crime itself.

 

---

 

So, what are the two real viewpoints here? 

 

Firstly, no one is arguing whether or not the accused truly did the crime. In this situation, the man without reasonable doubt did the crime. It is instead his liability and culpability that this Study seeks to question. This paper accepts that, and this is not the focus of the Study but rather this is more focused on what the Law has to say on the matter, and where arguments and counterarguments can be made in the event of committing such crimes under the influence. 

 

Let’s begin with those who could argue that the accused level of drunkenness should be taken into account for their sentencing. For them, the Law does have a provision in Article III for if they can successfully argue such a point in a Court of Law. As stated in Article III: “Let he who is of unsound or simple mind be free from punishment”. Some can argue that alcohol can make one of unsound mind. To address that: it is important for the man’s degree of drunkenness to have been noted and taken into effect. For example, his behavior, any slurred speech, if the man threw up, etc., should be taken into account when determining how drunk he was, and thus of how much his unsound mind can be attributed to his actions at that time. Though, it is also important to understand the nature of the crime and who the victim was - if there was one. For instance, drunkenly assassinating a man versus drunkenly punching him may well carry different weights, and also provide questions of his drunkenness. If a Lawspeaker can argue such a defensive point well, he might even be able to get the man relieved of his crime, but it would have to depend on these factors which the Jovenaar must take into consideration when issuing their judgement.

 

Now, let’s turn to the opposite perspective. Luckily for the opposing side, there is Article IV, which states as follows: “Let he who commits a crime through carelessness or recklessness be guilty of Negligence, to be punished as if they had committed the crime itself”. One can argue that a man who drinks could be guilty of negligence. As drinking, and then committing a crime such as assault or drunken murder, can be seen as an act of carelessness and recklessness on the man’s part. This also includes property damage while drunk, and also slander. For those using this aspect of the Law, the level of drunkenness is not as relevant since the crime in question was still committed. But again, Article III can still be used to rebut such a claim. However, if the Lawspeaker argues his points well, he can convince a Jovenaar to swing in his favor, and to charge the man with his committed crime - and Negligence on top of it. 

 

So, now where does these notations leave this Legal Study? Well it leaves behind a quandary. A conclusion can be reached that both Article III and IV can be utilised in a Court battle, and fight against one another well when it comes to matters of drunken crimes. So thus, we have two conflicting laws in this matter. So, as to this matter at the end of the day, it will come to the arguments presented by both Sides, and who can win using his arguments more effectively. And, of course, the presiding Jovenaar and how he chooses to rule on such a case, especially as his job is to navigate conflicting Laws and legal quandaries such as these.

 

---

MONN TAMORT OE SPARVEED,

 

His Lordship, Atilan Viktor Bishop, Ambassador to Balian, Ward of the Office of the Justiciar

 

Her Excellency, Adele Emma Ludovar, Lady Justiciar of Hanseti-Ruska, Countess of Otistadt, Viscountess of Sezwesk, Baroness of Juliksburg, Lady of Ricksburg, Kastellan of Domestic Trade, Kastellan of Labour