Abstract
In legal practice it is assumed that the ordinary man intends the natural consequences of his acts. When this responsibility is questioned as a result of some change in mental state, a clear cut and absolute statement of presence or absence of mental capacity seems to be expected. This is not necessarily a helpful approach or consistent with clinical observations.
Where the individual is impaired due to alcohol, narcotics, barbituates and other drugs this limitation of mental capacity is rarely total. The situation is similar in states of fatigue, hunger or chronic illness, or even of emotional disturbance.
The problem of impairment, even when only partial, is that a pattern of behaviour may emerge, due to disturbances in perception, judgment, and coordination which are grossly deviant from that of the individual in a sober state and do not represent his desire or intent in that state.
The extent to which this person is addicted and the extent to which permanent brain damage exists also influence the degree of manifest disturbance when alcohol or drugs are used.
These have pertinence in considering the culpability of persons accused of murder and other serious crimes, especially in attempting to determine appropriate sentence or disposal.