Most of us have done stupid things while drunk. It might have been something as simple telling a friend that you didn't really like her new hair cut after all. You really wish you didn't say it, and probably wouldn't have if the alcohol never got the better of you.

You can only hope that your friend will understand that you were acting out of character and will stop giving you the silent treatment soon enough.

But what if you did something worse than a small slip of the tongue, what if you broke the law while intoxicated from drugs or alcohol? What if you stole something, injured someone, or even killed someone?

It sounds scary, but it happens. In one infamous case, a man took LSD and hallucinated that he was being attacked by snakes. While defending himself from the 'snakes', the man strangled and suffocated his friend. I'm sure you can appreciate that intoxication and the law is a gray area.

Drug and alcohol research has confirmed that such substances alter our state of consciousness, meaning that we don't necessarily act voluntarily while under the influence. That's right, the 'I only did it because I was drunk' excuse is somewhat legit.

But should this excuse extend to someone who broke the law because they were intoxicated to the degree that they acted involuntarily? I think that if the offence was unplanned and out of character, then evidence of intoxication should be considered by the jury.

While the person may have voluntarily become intoxicated, the effects of alcohol may have been largely unforeseen and resulted in involuntary, uncharacteristic behaviour.

A drug user may unknowingly use a dangerous mix of drugs, such as PCP and cannabis, which may result in violent reactions in usually non-violent individuals. Should the drug user be punished for their ignorance?

It is also known that a small percent of the population may have aversive, violent, psychotic reactions to certain drugs, including benzodiazipines and alcohol. Should the user be held completely responsible for their biological misfortune?

I'm not saying it's as easy as 'this dude broke the law, but he was totally wasted so we will just let him off'. After all, the reason that we have the law is to protect the wider community.

But it does seem reasonable to lessen a charge if it can be proven that the offender acted without intent and involuntarily. In the case of the LSD man strangling his friend, his charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter.

A controversial decision, but as far as I'm concerned it was the most appropriate decision. Contrary to my argument, some people will argue that the person voluntarily chose to drink excessively or take drugs, and should therefore be held fully accountable for any crimes committed while under the influence.

I would argue for a more compassionate approach. After all, I'm sure most of you can relate to doing something regretful while under the intoxicated.

What do you think?

Reference Rajaratnam, S., Redman, J., & Lenne, M. (2000). Intoxication and criminal behaviour. Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, 7, 59 - 69.