to think alcohol use should not be a mitigation when a crime is committed?

That’s like saying two wrongs make a right isn’t it?
They should not have been drunk on vodka and they should not have gone on the rampage.
I am with you M0nica - it should earn a higher sentence not be a mitigating factor.
The world is a sad and contrary place.

I do not think it was acceptedin this case, but I have read of judges accepting that the accused was otherwise of good character and would not have done what they did if they had not been drunk, so instead of getting 6 months inside, which was the normal sentence for the crime, they get it suspended with community work instead.

I think there sould be a mandatory hike in the sentence if the accused was not in their right mind because they had chosen to drink, take drugs, or indulge in other high risk behaviour that led to the crime.

It's their own choice to get in that state.
Harsh judgements based on alcohol being involved might cause a bit of caution among such stupid people.

NO excuse

All down to choice. End of.

It's the same when drugs are involved. It gets on my nerves each time I see this as an excuse for certain behaviour.

I agree with you. It was bad enough what those selfish idiots did. Would being drunk have been pleaded in mitigation if someone had been attacked/murdered? Anyone could commit any crime and say it wasn’t them it was the booze.

What was the decision of the court as a whole? (not the solicitors for the drunken louts, trying to make them out to be nice lads deceived by the demon drink - which they must have consumed quite voluntarily and with the intention of getting blootered), because if the excuse was accepted, then that is reason to condemn the courts.