Today most jurisdictions reject voluntary intoxication as a defense to general-intent crimes, but allow the defense related to whether a defendant was capable of forming a specific intent.
Discuss the rationale for this distinction, whether your (MINNESOTA) state statutes allow this defense, and your thoughts on whether this defense should be available or not.
Your response should be written in APA format with proper in-text references as well as a separate “reference” page. It should be a minimum of 1 full page, not including the reference page.
*Includes an introduction with a strong thesis statement and includes a strong conclusion
*Clearly identifies your state and accurately explains your state’s interpretation of being able to use VOLUNTARY intoxication as a defense. Includes appropriate state statute(s) by name and number. Demonstrates that the student understands their state’s laws/procedures regarding intoxication as a defense and how and why it connects to general and specific intent. Demonstrates student understands the difference between general intent and specific intent. Information/ideas are detailed, well developed, pertinent, and more complex in nature. Written using the author’s own voice. Any sources utilized are credible and reliable.
*Clearly explains your thoughts on intoxication as a defense.
preview of the answer..
In the State of Minnesota, and in other States across the country, a person who voluntarily intoxicates himself and then goes ahead to commit crime cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defense to excuse himself or herself from criminal liability (Dimock, 2010). This notwithstanding, evidence of intoxication can be used as a defense for crimes committed. The rationale for this distinction is that a person who is [too] intoxicated may not be in the correct mental state to make sane judgements…
317 words APA