The attribution of empirical desert in complex contexts: an experimental criminal law approach to voluntary intoxication.

Abstract

One of the most controversial concepts among criminal law scholars is the actio libera in causa (alic), which refers to the possibility of establishing criminal culpability even if, at the time of the crime, the person was in a state of impaired culpability due to intoxication or mental disorder caused by their own responsible actions. However, the literature on the legal distribution of responsibility and punishment in such cases is sparse. This study uses a mixed factorial experimental design to test the concept of alic, with the primary objective of analyzing whether responsibility is assigned differently depending on whether the person intentionally or negligently placed themselves in a state of impaired culpability. Additionally, it examines whether the moral character of the individual who intentionally induces this state to commit a crime influences the perception of responsibility. The results show that while the sample does not consider the motives or moral character that led the individual to intentional intoxication, it does when the prior intoxication is negligent. Furthermore, the deservedness of punishment is perceived as highest in cases of intentional homicide, followed by negligent homicide, and lowest in cases with no homicide. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate regarding the intuitive nature of the alic attribution rule and the perceived fairness of punishment across different types of alic cases.