U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Drugs and Criminal Responsibility

NCJ Number
73484
Journal
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 33 Issue: 5 Dated: (October 1980) Pages: 1145-1218
Author(s)
E H Benton; A Bor; W H Leech; J A Levy; S D Lipshie; T B Mitchell; G M Brown
Date Published
1980
Length
74 pages
Annotation
This article synthesizes and organizes materials concerning drugs and criminal responsibility, identifies serious analytical flaws in many criminal defenses, and proposes measures to protect not only the legal rights of the drug-dependent defendant but also the rights of society.
Abstract
The effects of the more commonly encountered drugs upon the human body are initially explored. The effects of the following drugs are detailed: cocaine, depressants, hallucinogens, marijuana, narcotics, PCP, peyote and mescaline, psychotherapeutics, solvents, and stimulants. The authors then examine the intoxication defense, concluding that a person must have the opportunity to prove the absence of criminal volition or intent at the initial consumption of alcohol or drugs. Moreover, courts should at least be willing to reduce the criminal sanctions when a defendant can show that he formed no criminal intent at the time of consumption. In examining the insanity defense, the project summarizes the requirements of the defense and various tests employed by the courts, analyzes the drug dependence theory, and summarizes the leading cases under each of the insanity tests. Related defenses, including compulsion and diminished capacity, are discussed. Finally, the drug dependent insanity plea is analyzed with major emphasis on the role of the expert witness and the factfinder and on several proposed solutions. It is concluded that traditional legal theories concerning drugs and criminal defendants should be reexamined and reinterpreted. Furthermore, courts and legislatures should develop more equitable theories and search for alternative forms of treatment and rehabilitation for the drug dependent defendant. Footnotes are included.

Downloads

No download available

Availability