Cerealia
25-04-2005, 20:38
I find this topic rather interesting, but I don't know exactly what variables it would touch on. The basic problem is this:
If a person commits a crime under the strong influence of alcohol (i.e. > 1.5 0/00 of alc. in the blood), how should the crime be punished?
One option is that when you are drunk, chances are you won't be able to control yourself. Therefore, as you have no control of your actions, the only thing you could be charged with is getting drunk, you didn't commit the crime purposefully.
----- sub-option a) There is a general charge for drinking over the limit
----- sub-option b) There is no charge for drinking over the limit
----- sub-option c) There is a charge for drinking over the limit only if you commit a crime while under the influence.
Another option is, that if you're getting very drunk you accept that you will not be able to control your behaviour, therefore by getting drunk above the level you take responsibility for everything you might or might not do while under the influence.
----- sub-option a) The crime will be charged as if commited stone cold sober
----- sub-option b) The crime will be punished even harder, as you will also be charged for drinking over the limit.
I'm still trying to figure out how this would affect the variables. The varying sub-options are to my knowledge implemented in different countries.
As none of the Industries seems to be producing alcoholic beverages for consumption, industrial variables probably wouldn't be touched.
As far as I'm concerned it's Law and Order, Healthcare and Personal Freedom that are involved, in the form:
L&O: 1a) +, 1b) --, 1c) -, 2a) +, 2b) ++
H: 1a) +
PF: 1a) -
I'll try and work this out with all the tags and whatnot, depending on the feedback. So what do you think? Good issue, bad issue, improvements? And no, I'm not an alcoholic with a history of assaulting people.
Thanks for reading and possibly commenting on this,
Cerealissimo, great high pooh-bah of Cerealia
If a person commits a crime under the strong influence of alcohol (i.e. > 1.5 0/00 of alc. in the blood), how should the crime be punished?
One option is that when you are drunk, chances are you won't be able to control yourself. Therefore, as you have no control of your actions, the only thing you could be charged with is getting drunk, you didn't commit the crime purposefully.
----- sub-option a) There is a general charge for drinking over the limit
----- sub-option b) There is no charge for drinking over the limit
----- sub-option c) There is a charge for drinking over the limit only if you commit a crime while under the influence.
Another option is, that if you're getting very drunk you accept that you will not be able to control your behaviour, therefore by getting drunk above the level you take responsibility for everything you might or might not do while under the influence.
----- sub-option a) The crime will be charged as if commited stone cold sober
----- sub-option b) The crime will be punished even harder, as you will also be charged for drinking over the limit.
I'm still trying to figure out how this would affect the variables. The varying sub-options are to my knowledge implemented in different countries.
As none of the Industries seems to be producing alcoholic beverages for consumption, industrial variables probably wouldn't be touched.
As far as I'm concerned it's Law and Order, Healthcare and Personal Freedom that are involved, in the form:
L&O: 1a) +, 1b) --, 1c) -, 2a) +, 2b) ++
H: 1a) +
PF: 1a) -
I'll try and work this out with all the tags and whatnot, depending on the feedback. So what do you think? Good issue, bad issue, improvements? And no, I'm not an alcoholic with a history of assaulting people.
Thanks for reading and possibly commenting on this,
Cerealissimo, great high pooh-bah of Cerealia