In Thursday’s state House meeting, Rep. Virg Bernero, D-Lansing, joined 99 other House members in a vote to remove the intoxication defense.

According to this new bill, “under the influence” will no longer be an excuse for criminal behavior in Michigan.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ruth Johnson, R-Holly, counters the defense that the voluntary consumption of alcohol or other drugs can legally impair an individual’s ability to obey the law.

“I have always believed that being under the influence of alcohol and drugs doesn’t excuse one from being accountable for one’s actions,” Bernero said.

“I am convinced that this should be the standard across the board.

“I’m hopeful that it will encourage people to drink and act responsibly.”

Rep. Michael Murphy, D-Lansing, also voted in favor of the bill.

“We live in a time when accountability and responsibility are key in society,” Murphy said. “I don’t know what defense you can use when somebody commits a crime while intoxicated. That’s no excuse.”

Although 100 representatives voted in favor of the bill, Rep. Stephen Adamini, D-Marquette, was its sole opposition.

Adamini could not be reached for comment.

Jim Newton, attorney for Student Legal Services, said Adamini may have opposed the bill because the defense is rarely used in the court system.

“It’s not a very popular defense,” Newton said. “I don’t think it would affect people very much.

“I feel like this is more political posturing than anything, because nobody wants to vote against this.”

Economics and public policy senior Susana Cabrera said she thinks the bill would be a good change for the legal system.

“Intoxicating yourself isn’t an excuse or justification for hurting someone else,” Cabrera said. “If you were mentally ill, not 100 percent, that would be different. The difference is that’s a medical condition whereas if you intoxicated yourself that is a state of mind.”

Business management freshman Scott Davidson said he also agrees with the bill.

“If people take the responsibility to be drinking, they also have to take responsibility for their actions,” Davidson said.

Entomology graduate student Laura Palombi said the current defense could only be used in specific circumstances.

“If someone’s going to pull that excuse out, they’ll have to convince the jury that they had no judgment at all,” Palombi said.

Murphy said he cannot see a reason why the bill would not be beneficial.

“Without a doubt it would be a benefit,” Murphy said. “That’s why it was overwhelmingly supported.

“I don’t think anything like this infringes on civil liberties and personal rights, it just holds people accountable. I think that’s a good thing.”