but the title seems to be deliberately provocative, or goady as they say on MN.
if i said,
how do we stop people over the limit being labelled as drunk drivers,
the obvious answer is to stop them from driving when drunk.
but you seem to be suggesting, by analogy, that it is unfair to label them as criminals because they had been drinking at the time of the offence.
it seems circular to me.
then you seem to want to try the intricacies of the imagined case, as if saying, well the driver only ordered soft drinks, he didn't know he was over the limit.
we could do this with any scenario.
the age of criminal responsibility in England is ten. if a case is proved against a boy aged over ten, he cannot evade liability by saying he was drunk at the time. that would be a charter for drunken criminality.
a conviction depends on the matter being proved. if it cannot be proved, then he will not be convicted.
are you suggesting large-scale miscarriage of justice, where boys are routinely convicted on flimsy evidence.
because the stats do not support that. quite the contrary.