intox eval

• pro - successful for specific intent crimes (Sheehan and Moore), fair on the defendant
• pro - (Majewski) protects public policy, acts as a deterrent

  reckless being drunk in first place, can't rely on defence for BI crime
• pro - common law defence, individual cases heard based on merit
• con - common law defence, inconsistent based on subjective decisions made by jury
• con - (Majewski) contradicts coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, need both at the same time

  usually get drunk earlier on and do acts later, not following legal principle
• con - can't be a full defence as people will think they can get away with being drunk, getting drunk isn't always reckless as recklessness is knowing there's a risk and going along with it regardless
• con - binge drinking culture, cannot prohibit alcohol, gov make money on tax. red wine health benefits
• con - no difference between drugs and alcohol, drugs are illegal so punishment should be worse
• reforms - law commission proposed 'dangerous intoxication' for d committing dangerous acts while intoxicated
• reforms - full defence? cannot form mens rea, should be acquitted for all crimes