The article considers three arguments: that intoxication should mitigate the sentence, should have no impact on the sentence, or should increase the sentence. Although there are persuasive reasons for treating intoxication as an aggravating factor, particularly for those who have previously offended while intoxicated. Still, this argument does not withstand the test of retributive justification in terms of individual responsibility and culpability for the behaviors that violated the law. Regarding the argument that intoxication should have no bearing on the sentence, the argument fails when comparing culpability for behavior largely influenced by the effects of alcohol with the culpability of a sober offender who presumably has normal control over his/her behavior at the time of the offense. Regarding the argument for the mitigation of a sentence when alcohol contributes to the offending behavior, this article offers a refinement in the conditions under which a sentence should be mitigated due to the offender’s intoxication. An individual who becomes intoxicated and offends for the first time deserves mitigation because the consequences of his/her alcohol-influenced behavior were unforeseeable. On the other hand, an individual who has offended while intoxicated in a previous offense does not deserve mitigation of his/her sentence, because he/she chose to drink after knowing the foreseeable consequences of his/her behavior under the influence of alcohol. 43 references