The Addicted Defendant: Liability and Blame

一项工作，以显示刑法如何与物质成瘾，揭露矛盾的做法，突出随后的风险，并提出改革的途径。法律现在自相矛盾。中毒规则表明单纯的中毒和上瘾的中毒是同义词。法律委员会报告中的评注表明，吸毒成瘾绝不会导致非自愿中毒。然而，某些行为能力相关的罪行表明，成瘾可以导致强迫性摄入麻醉剂。这些对比鲜明的叙述带有不同的隐含哲学基础，这些基础说明了成瘾的本质。此外，这些矛盾意味着存在着被告被不公平地监禁或被告不公平地自由行走的严重风险，因为这两个结论在医学上和医学上都不可能是合理的。这种跨学科的，基于桌面的研究旨在展示成瘾的神经科学，其次是遇到它的哲学解释。它在将医学和哲学辩论转化为刑法的背景下是原创的。关于成瘾已经写了很多，但这些争论并没有应用到目前的法规中。这是一个重要的问题，因为目前相互矛盾的框架对公平适用国家最严厉的制裁提出了严重的问题。

A work to show how criminal law engages with substance addiction, expose the contradictory approach, highlighting the subsequent risks and proposing avenues for reform. The law presently contradicts itself. Intoxication rules suggest thatmere intoxication and addicted intoxication are synonymous. Commentary in Law Commission reports indicate that addiction can never lead to involuntary intoxication. Yet certain capacity related offences suggest that addiction canresult in compulsive ingestion of an intoxicant. These contrasting accounts come with different implicit philosophical groundings which speak to the nature of addiction. Moreover, the contradictions mean there is a serious risk ofdefendants becoming unfairly incarcerated or defendants unfairly walking free, as both conclusions cannot be medically nor philosophically sound. This interdisciplinary, desk-based research seeks to show the neuroscience of addiction,followed by the philosophical interpretations which have met it. It is original in translating the medical and philosophical debates into the context of criminal law. Much has been written on addiction, but there has been no application of thesedebates to the present regulations. This is a matter of significance as the present contradictory framework raises serious questions about an equitable application of the state's strongest sanction.