Dr Carly Lightowlers, University of Liverpool

Alcohol intoxication is a common feature in criminal cases brought before the courts, playing a pivotal role both in the commission of offences and in the interpretation of offender culpability (Lightowlers, 2019; 2022; Lightowlers et al., 2020). Despite its prevalence, the relevance of intoxication in assessments of blameworthiness and sentencing remains both complex and contested (Ashworth, 2015; Dingwall & Koffman, 2008; Lightowlers, 2019; 2022; Lightowlers et al., 2020; Sinclair-House et al., 2020; Warner et al., 2019; Quilter et al., 2018). And, little is known about whether the public agrees with how such offences are sentenced or the principles underpinning such decisions.

In England and Wales, sentencers have limited discretion in dealing with alcohol-defined crimes (that is, those defined in law by the presence of alcohol intoxication such as drink driving). However, the relevance of alcohol intoxication and the weight this carries needs to be determined in sentencing alcohol-related crimes, such as assault offences in which alcohol features (see Quilter and McNamara, 2018). Current sentencing guidelines treat voluntary intoxication as an aggravating factor (SGC, 2004), holding a defendant more culpable as they ought to have foreseen the possibility of acting in unpredictable or harmful ways (Ashworth, 2015) and be held responsible for their intoxicated behaviour even if it is out of character (Sentencing Council, 2019). Existing guidelines also acknowledge consumption may not be voluntary where someone is dependent upon alcohol, thus allowing mitigation where someone is seeking help or treatment (Sentencing Council, 2011; 2019).

This legal stance may conflict with cultural understandings of alcohol and culpability, which may perceive intoxication as an explanation, if not an excuse, for regrettable conduct. (For example, many offenders suggest their drinking should mitigate their sentence in their defence; Dingwall and Koffman, 2008). As public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping and legitimising criminal justice policy (Roberts and Hough, 2005; Roberts, 2019; Daly and Bouhours, 2008; Warner et al., 2009), understanding public support for the framework underpinning the sentencing of intoxicated offenders is vital. Yet few studies have examined public attitudes toward alcohol’s role in sentencing in depth, save for some considering the very serious offence of death by driving – which find widespread support for the use of alcohol intoxication as an aggravator (Roberts et al., 2008; Hough et al., 2008; Scottish Sentencing Council, 2021).

As part of a British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship on The Cultural Politics of Intoxication and Sentencing, a public engagement workshop at the British Academy Summer Showcase 2025 explored public views on sentencing for alcohol-related offending. Specifically, it addressed the following research questions:

• Do members of the public believe that individuals who offend under the influence of alcohol should receive harsher, more lenient, or equivalent punishment compared to those who offend while sober?
• Do the public favour punitive or rehabilitative approaches in dealing with alcohol-related offences?

Engaging the public

The workshop examined how courts handle alcohol-related offences and posed key questions around blame and culpability. It also explored support for retributive and rehabilitative responses.[i]  The workshop began with a brief presentation from the author on the topic of alcohol-related crime and sentencing. The seventeen attendees[ii] were polled on a central question (of whether those who offend whilst under the influence of alcohol should receive the same, more or less punishment) and engaged with a series of vignettes/scenarios through further polling and (focus) group discussion. Case scenarios were debated in small groups (~3 people per group akin to benches of lay magistrates), with sentencing outcomes voted upon using interactive presentation and polling software.

Attendees were presented with fictional case studies involving “Bob”,[iii] who appeared before the court for an alcohol-related assault.[iv] Participants responded individually to a set of scenarios involving Bob and discussed them (~5 minutes) in small groups of approximately three people. Each group reported back on their agreed-upon outcome and was asked to indicate whether consensus was reached, as well as to highlight any points of disagreement or differing rationales.

Case scenarios involving ‘Bob’ were developed to provide further information and detail and encourage reflection on the salience of Bob’s intoxication and/or alcohol dependence in attendees’ sentencing decision making and the principles upon which attendees drew to justify their opinions and decisions.

Two initial scenarios described Bob as pleading guilty to assaulting Steve, resulting in minor injury or psychological distress. It was proposed that Bob was likely to receive a community sentence of six months. The main difference between the two scenarios was that in the second, Bob was identified as alcohol-dependent, while in the first, he was not. In each scenario, attendees were asked whether Bob should get more/less or the same punishment that his sober counterpart.

Participants were subsequently encouraged to reflect on two key purposes of sentencing —punishment and rehabilitation. Both scenarios involving Bob were revisited, and participants asked whether he ought to be primarily punished or rehabilitated (offered support for alcohol dependency).

At the end of the event, attendees were once more polled on their views regarding whether offenders under the influence of alcohol receive the same, more, or less punishment, to assess any shifts in perspective following the discussions.

While findings are not generalisable to the wider population, they do offer valuable insights into how lay opinions are formed and justified; insights that are often inaccessible in judicial settings such as magistrates’ deliberation rooms.

What the public thought

Alcohol: a mitigating or aggravating factor?

Initially participants were polled on whether “those who offend under the influence of alcohol should receive the same more or less punishment”. Uninhibited by the statutory directive to consider intoxication as aggravation, ten respondents participated in this poll with two (20%) suggesting ‘more’ and six (80%) suggesting equivalent (‘the same’) punishment ought to be meted out compared to those who offend while sober. No respondents suggested less.

These instinctive responses revealed a majority preference for alcohol intoxication being consider a neutral factor in arriving at sentencing decisions. This was also reflected in the discussion that followed consideration of scenario one subsequently presented to attendees. Reasoning tended to focus on the harm incurred to the victims as a key consideration, with the consensus being that the victim had sustained harm regardless of the perpetrator’s intoxication or sobriety. However, one participant voiced the opinion that the intoxicated subject ought to have foreseen the effect alcohol might have had on their behaviour which made them more culpable and thus deserving of further punishment. Whilst in a minority, this view corresponds most directly with the current sentencing guidance mandating (voluntary) intoxication as an aggravating factor in sentencing (SGC, 2004).

Being under the influence

Participants were asked to indicate whether they would increase or decrease a suggested sentence for the defendant or issue the same sentence in scenario one in which the protagonist was under the influence of alcohol at the time of an assault offence. Uninhibited by the statutory directive to consider intoxication as aggravation, most (11/12; 91.67%) believed this should not alter the sentence (the same) in contrast just one (8.33%) who believed this ought to result in a harsher (more) punishment.

Consensus in the group discussion was that the presence of alcohol did not materially change the fact that the offence had occurred and harm to the victim had been sustained and therefore consideration of the protagonist’s alcohol intoxication was thought to be irrelevant in determining the punitive dose to be administered.

Disclosing a known dependence

Participants were next asked to indicate whether they would increase or decrease a suggested sentence for the defendant or issue the same sentence in scenario two which was the same as scenario one, save for the protagonist having a known dependence upon alcohol. Uninhibited by the invitation to consider dependence as a potential mitigating factor as per current sentencing guidelines (e.g. assault guidelines; Sentencing Council, 2011), instinctive responses from the polling revealed most (8/9; 88.89%) believed this should not alter the sentence (the same). In contrast one (11.11%) believed this ought to result in a harsher (more) punishment. No respondents suggested this ought to mitigate (less) punishment.

Discussion revealed reasoning for increased punishment being the protagonist’s likely prior insight into how intoxication impacted upon their behaviour with negative effect. Presumably translating into increased culpability for engaging in the consumption of alcohol, nevertheless.

Despite not going as far as to claim it should mitigate the sentence dispensed, key to most other participants’ reasoning for keeping the sentence the same was the recognition given to addiction as a medical illness that the protagonist needed help with. And whilst this had the potential to render someone less culpable – as they may not have the same control over their (drinking) behaviour, consensus was that the presence of alcohol dependence did not necessarily make a difference to the harm sustained by the victim. Participants also tended towards views which placed the responsibility to respond to their alcohol dependence firmly with the perpetrator.

Consensus was that the perpetrator should still be punished with the same severity as if alcohol was not involved in the offence, but the response could include mandatory treatment as the delegation agreed rehabilitation (as opposed to deterrence) would be a more salient and appropriate consideration this instance.

Revisiting being under the influence

Revisiting scenario one, in which the protagonist had no known dependence upon alcohol the majority (7/12; 58.33%) thought they ought to be primarily punished. Whilst three participants (25%) suggested they ought to be primarily rehabilitated. A further two (16.67%) indicated that they were unsure. Discussion revealed support for punishment taking primary focus was once again the harm sustained to the victim. However, the response profile indicates how rehabilitative aims of sentencing are nevertheless important to some.

Revisiting known dependence upon alcohol

In revisiting scenario two, where the protagonist was known to be medically dependent upon alcohol, the majority (9/12; 75%) thought they ought to be primarily rehabilitated. Whilst two participants suggested they ought to be primarily punished, and one suggested they were not sure. Responses tended to reflect the ‘primary’ sentencing aim as the question asked. Discussion revealed how– even if punishment ideas won out in their poll responses how they thought rehabilitation should be delivered in parallel; with both punishment and rehabilitation considered as important as each other.

Alcohol: a neutral factor?

At the end of the event, participants were invited to indicate whether, in general, they believe “those who offend under the influence of alcohol should receive the same more or less punishment”. Most (9/10; 90%) suggested the same one (10%) suggested ‘more’ and no respondents suggested less. This closing response profile suggests a slight move towards a less punitive and more neutral sentiment held by the collective following their exposure to the topic and discussions.

Insights and implications

To provide insight on public views of sentencing for alcohol-related offences, attendees at a public engagement event were polled and asked to deliberate several scenarios involving (assault) offending whilst under the influence of alcohol.

A range of views were expressed on the role alcohol intoxication ought to play in sentencing. Most tended to view it as a neutral factor – challenging current sentencing guidance which prescribes voluntary alcohol intoxication as aggravating the offence.

There was consensus that alcohol dependence was a medical illness requiring treatment and a belief that rehabilitation ought to be administered alongside punishment in such cases. The findings thus support a distinction between alcohol use and alcohol dependency, as seen in current sentencing guidelines.

Despite support for the distinction between alcohol dependent and non-dependent drinking, discussions revealed challenges in determining the voluntary nature of intoxication and the extent to which addiction/alcohol dependence ought to be considered mitigating.

Findings also highlighted an ongoing tension between striking the correct balance between retributive and rehabilitative responses to alcohol-related offending (Lightowlers, 2022).

These findings have relevance in the context of ongoing sentencing reform (see MoJ 2025), which considers the rehabilitative value of Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATR) for those with alcohol dependence – something that accords with public approval for treatment interventions running alongside punishment as seen in this study.

The current study findings also have relevance for alleviating the prison crisis in England and Wales – despite alcohol’s complete absence in a recent report on the latter (Rowland and Pope, 2025). These findings – which provide insight into public opinion on the sentencing of alcohol-related offences – may also be of relevance to the work of the Justice Committee (2023) and informing the work of the Sentencing Council in raising awareness and strengthening confidence in sentencing (Sentencing Council, 2021).

Funding and Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the British Academy grant award MCFSS23\230024. Thanks are also extended to the British Academy Summer Showcase 2025 delivery team and members of the public in attendance who made this public engagement exercise possible. Jenna Carr also deserves a special mention for supporting the author in the event’s delivery.

References

Ashworth, A. (2015). Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daly, K. and Bouhours.B. (2008). Judicial censure and moral communication to youth sex offenders. Justice Quarterly 25 (3): 496–522.

Dingwall G. & Koffman. L. (2008). Determining the Impact of Intoxication in a Desert-based Sentencing Framework. Criminology & Criminal Justice, (8):335-348.

Hough, M. and Roberts, J.V., Jacobson, J. Bredee, A. and Moon, N., (2008) Attitudes to the sentencing of offences involving death by driving. Project Report. Sentencing Advisory Panel, London, UK.

Justice Committee (2023). Public opinion and understanding of sentencing. Available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmjust/305/report.html#heading-4

Lightowlers C. (2022) Intoxication and Sentencing: A review of policy, practice and research. Sentencing Academy. Available at https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Intoxication-and-Sentencing.pdf

Lightowlers C. (2019). Drunk & doubly deviant? Gender, intoxication and assault. British Journal of Criminology 59(3): 693-717.

Lightowlers C., Pina-Sánchez J. and Watkins E. (2020). Contextual culpability: How drinking and social context impact upon sentencing of violence. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 22(3), 442–461.

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2025). Independent Sentencing Review: Final report. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-sentencing-review-final-report

Roberts J.V. and Hough M. (2005). Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Roberts J.V. (2019). The Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales. Crime and Justice 48:187-253.

Roberts, J., Hough, M., Jacobson, J., Moon, N., & Bredee, A. (2008). Public attitudes to the sentencing of offences involving death by driving. Criminal Law Review, 7:525–540.

Rowland C. and Pope T. (2025). Inside England and Wales’s prisons crisis. Institute for Government. Available at https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/inside-crisis-prisons-england-wales_0.pdf

Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) (2004). Overarching Principles: Seriousness. Available at https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_seriousness_guideline.pdf [Accessed 06/08/2022]

Sentencing Council. (2011) Assault Offences: Definitive Guideline.

Sentencing Council (2019) Expanded explanations in guidelines.

Sentencing Council (2021). Sentencing Council strategic objectives 2021-2026. Available at https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/strategic-objectives-2021-2026/

Sinclair-House, N., Child, J. J., & Crombag, H. S. (2020). Addiction is a brain disease, and it doesn’t matter: Prior choice in drug use blocks leniency in criminal punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(1), 36–53.

Warner K, et al. (2009). Gauging public opinion on sentencing: Can asking jurors help? Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 371. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Warner, K., Davis, J., Spiranovic, C., Cockburn, H., & Freiberg, A. (2019). Why sentence? Comparing the views of jurors, judges and the legislature on the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, Australia. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(1), 26-44. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817738557

[i] Ethical approval was granted by the University of Liverpool (Reference: 12772

[ii] The Summer Showcase 2025 format encouraged people to move in and out of spaces (workshops and exhibits) meaning some attendees only attended on partial basis and others listened to the workshop but may not have engaged in polling or deliberations.

[iii] Deliberately named to reflect a White British male identity.

[iv] An assault offence was chosen to feature as it is a common alcohol-related offence heard by courts and distinct from alcohol defined offences (such as drink driving).