John, under the influence of alcohol, commits a robbery. He began the act intending to injure the victim but claims his intoxicated state impaired his ability to form the mens rea required for robbery. Which of the following statements best describes the effect of John's intoxication on his criminal responsibility for robbery?
John's intoxication excuses him from criminal responsibility because he was unable to form the intent required.
John's intoxication negates the specific intent required for robbery, but he is still liable if the crime is considered a basic act.
John's intoxication alters the robbery into a lesser offense of theft.
Intoxication affects criminal responsibility for robbery, and John is liable.
Intoxication can negate the specific intent required for certain crimes like robbery, but it does not necessarily absolve the defendant from all liability, especially for basic or general intent elements. The correct answer accurately reflects this nuanced understanding. The other options incorrectly suggest complete excuse, assert that intoxication always results in liability without exception, or improperly change the nature of the offense.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is mens rea and why is it important in criminal law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of intoxication on criminal liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between specific intent and general intent crimes?