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

As for alcohol excess in general, personally I think there should be much stiffer penalties for being 'drunk and disorderly' - throwing up/brawling in the street, being aggressive/violent in A & E, etc.

I don't see that much action is usually taken at all. If people thought they could be hit with a hefty fine, they might think twice about drinking so much.

I often used to see reports from the Scottish courts where people were treated more leniently because they were drunk. Thank goodness, that mind set has changed now and it is more often seen as an aggravating factor. No one would say a drunken driver who killed someone should be treated more leniently, whether they were an alcoholic or not.

Part of the problem is that it is very hard to define what an alcohol addict actually is. I think in popular terms we think it's someone whose life is out of control but the reality is really quite different. I know an alcoholic who managed to keep it hidden from everyone inc their own family. They were regarded as a 'social' drinker when in fact they secretly drank so much their liver gave out, despite never appearing to be madly drunk, just perhaps a little tipsy now and again. It's very sad.

Totally agree with you Monica.

I agree Sodapop. which is why I disagreed with ‘alcohol brings out the real person’. Not in everyone who drinks.

I think there are two different issues here. The alcoholic or drug addict who needs help but still should be punished as well as receiving help. Then there are those people who are just stupid or inexperienced and drink for the hell of it then commit a crime. We shouldn't lose sight of the victims in all this.

If alcohol brings out the real person then alcohol dependant homeless really have a need to be homeless because they are being their real self.

Not all giggly people fall asleep when drunk, the same as normally timid people remaining timid when drunk. Not True ! I've been surprised in the past at the behaviours of both !
Dutch courage is the phrase that's used, is it not ? Pathetic !!

Using the excuse that they only did something because they had been drinking is a bogus defence.

In my experience those who are quick to fly off the handle are more likely to be violent when drunk , others who are generally easy going tend to giggle and fall asleep when drunk. So alcohol DOES bring out the real person.

If it is the first time that the perpetrator has ever drunk alcohol, they have some excuse (but not much of one) for claiming that they didn't know that it could affect them by removing their inhibitions enough to do things they wouldn't have dreamt of when sober.

But only the first time they have tried it, and the first time they have ever been in the company of others who have lost their conscience inhibitions, and they have never seen videos of drunken hooligans or heard stories of what can happen.

Well it definitely does reduce inhibitions in a lot of people.

Sometimes I think the world would be a better place without alcohol.
It wrecks families and is the cause of so much crime.

Alcohol does not reveal the 'real' person in anybody. All it does is reduce natural inhibitons in everyone, so that they do and say things that they have the wisdom to keep to themselves when sober.

To say alcohol allows the real person to emerge is not true of all who drink.

Many criminals take the alcohol to give them the confidence to commit the crime and it is a deliberate act and definitely not an excuse.

I think the sentence should be hiked for drunkenness but not alcoholism. But treatment should be part of the sentence for alcoholics.

I see no reason at all why an alcoholic should be treated more leniently than any other person who commits a crime when drunk.

The extra punishment they get may be just the trigger they need to make an effort to break the pattern. In addition an extra period of community service or prison will give thse ble to help them longer to do so.

I think Doodle has made a valid point. It has to be different for an addict, they need help. I don't believe anyone chooses to be an addict, they surely all think they can handle it in the first instance. No, I don't understand how it works, I have a very low alcohol threshold so it couldn't happen to me!

Normal drunkenness should of course be punished in a way to make the person learn from their actions.

Yes, annpl, alcoholics are more often than not registered as such.
It's the wanton damage /crimes committed by those who use alcohol as a trigger for their crime who I have no time/sympathy for. They're just yobs, purely and simply.Pests

People are aware of the effects of alcohol. Sentence should be hiked imo for those under the influence.

Alcoholism is a more difficult issue.

Alchol if an addiction does change who you are,

Good point Becket

Alcohol is considered both aggravating and mitigating for the purposes of sentencing, depending on the offender, the type of offence and the circumstances of its commission.

I get annoyed when someone who has committed a crime says they only did it because they were drunk. Alcohol does not change who you are, it merely removes inhibitions which allows the real person to emerge.

My friends ex husband literally fell out of his work van and into a heap on the floor when a policeman stopped him.
His excuse?
"I was drunk".

I don't think it should necessarily be a mitigating factor; but I do think that someone with addiction problems should be helped to get over them. Not always instead of punishment, but sometimes as part of them.

In the case of a serious crime, with victims who have been hurt, then the detox should happen in jail (with medical supervision); but if not, then I think a community sentence with compulsory therapy is more appropriate.

From what I understand, a lot of people who go to jail with no addiction problems come out addicted, so it will presumably be worse for those who are already on drugs or alcoholic.

I think that it shouldn't be the case that an addict is given a more lenient sentence than a non-addict committing the same crime; but addiction should be taken into consideration and treated (as far as possible) to prevent recidivism.

Agree,not a mitigating factor.