Evaluation of Intoxication

Question 1

What is the criticism regarding the definition of intoxication?

Answer 1

There is a distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent.

Question 2

How may there being a distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent be justified?

Answer 2

It is reasonable to argue that becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of action, thus such mens rea is proved.

Question 3

How may there being a distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent be unjustified?

Answer 3

Mens rea can be formed hours before the unplanned criminal conduct satifsfies the actus reus.

Question 4

What is the criticism regarding the operation of intoxication?

Answer 4

There is a requirement of foresight of a particular risk.

Question 5

How may there being a requirement of foresight of a particular risk be justified?

Answer 5

Majewski recklessness does not require foresight of a particular risk for public policy reasons, meaning any defendant could plead the defence due to not having seen the risk whilst becoming intoxicated.

Question 6

How may there being a requirement of foresight of a particular risk be unjustified?

Answer 6

Majewski recklessness does not require foresight of a particular risk, which is at odds with Cunningham recklessness.