Queston 1. Is it wise social policy for a person's voluntary intoxication to be available to reduce the level of or even negate one's guilt? Remember that in these circumstances, there is no question as to who did the act in question. This boils down to a question of the effect the intoxication had on the mens rea. Is this giving the actor a windfall?
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishments. Who is to determine what is "cruel and unusual" punishment? Ultimately it will be the Supreme Court of the United States. What norms should the court use in fashioning standards for this? Is this flexible standard that can change over time? If so, must the change always benefit the accused? In other words, if society has become more enlightened and the concept of cruel and unusual has evolved over time to forbid certain penalties (we do not execute for cattle rustling anymore), can society likewise evolve towards a more harsh treatment if conditions change and we become enlightened (or "dis-enlightened"?) in a different way? Is, for example, castration a cruel and unusual punishment for convicted sex offenders?
Question2. As outlined in chapter 4 of your text, every act must be accompanied by mens rea to be criminal. That said- society is often appalled when apathetic onlookers do nothing to help a victim from danger.
In July 2015; for instance, a young man was stabbed to death inside a metro train as passengers looked on. Click below for a news article on the incident:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/victim-in-metro-slaying-stabbed-repeatedly-during-robbery-on-train/2015/07/07/8dd09132-249b-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html
Can one's failure to act ever satisfy the mens rea element for criminal prosecution? Fully explain the basis of your position.