8 Answers

absolutely!

....yes.

Depends, when did the crime began?  One is allowed to get drunk but not to the point of obnoxiousness (that's publicly or driving or boating, you get it) but these things are considered of a disease. There is a good defense there if you get a real good lawyer let alone find one affordable. What was the crime and consequence after effect? I can't even began to call this one. Laws aren't always fair......

You choose the behavior....you pay the consequences!

Of course anyone is accountable for their conduct whether they are intoxicated or not however the law says .....

" 

Many offenses require that the prosecutor prove only that the defendant had the “general intent” to do what he did. This means proving that the defendant intentionally did something the law prohibits, but didn't necessarily intend the consequences that followed. Intoxication usually is not a defense to a crime requiring general intent.

For example, a drunk person who fires a pistol at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve, unintentionally killing another person, did not plan to kill that person—the drunk shooter may not even have known the person was in the vicinity. But the drunk shooter had the general intent to break a law (firing a gun in public), and the killing occurred as a result of that general intent and the conduct that followed it. Thus, the shooter could be charged with manslaughter in most states and his drunken state would be no defense, even though he could argue that he would not have engaged in the same conduct while sober.

Where a crime is defined by reckless conduct or negligence, intoxication will likely not be a defense, because it is foreseeable that alcohol will lead to reckless or negligent behavior. Manslaughter, which includes accidentally killing another person without premeditation or malice, is a general intent crime."

READ WAY MORE HERE>>>>http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/does-being-drunk-mean-you-cant-be-convicted-a-crime.h#

Nowadays they'll blame everybody. The store that sold them the alcohol, the bartender that served them, the host that had a party that they were drinking at. It's getting ridiculous. If you come to my house and I give you a couple beers, then you go out and do something stupid, all you have to say is well I was drunk and he gave me the beer. 

Extenuating circumstances are a bugger,,an alcoholic drinks because he cannot live life sober.and an alcoholic will do anything while drunk,that he will not do sober,and he would be very remorsefull afterwards,however he will go on to do it all over again,,yes he is accountable as he does the drinking,though not voluntary,he is forced to drink by being a alcoholic..it does go round and round,,i assume it is pretty much the same with drugs..hence the reason the penalty has so many levels,,one brush does not cover all..>>>>>><<<<<<<<..

Yes they are accountable, b/c they're not supposed to be getting drunk or high on drugs and committing crimes. Many drunks know exactly what they're doing.