Correct option is C
The correct answer is (c).
The statement that "Voluntary drunkenness is an excuse for knowledge" is not correct. Voluntary intoxication is generally not an excuse under criminal law; it does not negate the element of mens rea (guilty mind) required to establish criminal liability. In fact, the law typically holds individuals accountable for their actions even if they were voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence. The exception to this would be if the intoxication was involuntary or reached such a degree that it completely impaired the individual's ability to understand the nature of their actions.
Information Booster: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense in criminal law because the law assumes that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions even when under the influence of alcohol or drugs that they voluntarily consumed. This principle discourages the use of intoxication as an excuse for committing crimes. The only instances where intoxication might reduce criminal liability are when the intoxication is involuntary or when it completely negates the possibility of forming any intent.
Additional Knowledge:
·
Non compos mentis (a): A person who is non compos mentis, or not of sound mind due to illness, is typically exempt from criminal liability as they lack the mental capacity to form intent.
·
Intoxication as defence (b): Intoxication must render the accused an "automaton" to be a viable defense, meaning they had no control over their actions.
·
Compulsion as defence (d): Compulsion can be a defense except in cases of murder or crimes punishable by death, as the law prioritizes the protection of life over the actor's duress.
