Michigan legislators recently passed a bill to eliminate the excuse “I was drunk” as a possible legal excuse for a crime. Although the measure is understandable, and passed 99-1 in the House and 36-0 in the Senate, the actual need for such a law is highly doubtful.

While legislators rushed to vote for the bill - during an election year, no less - few could probably point out a time when a defendant successfully used intoxication as a legitimate excuse for a crime. Our court system is simply smarter than to allow that to be a viable excuse in most cases.

There are no real numbers to surface so far to determine the use of such a defense is a problem in this state. Instead, the Legislature is taking away the authority of the courts to judge for themselves. This move could unnecessarily limit our legal system, preventing the use of the defense in cases in which it may be valid.

Some worry that with the possibility of the “drunken defense,” anyone could slyly get inebriated before committing a crime to avoid accepting blame for their actions. Most lawmakers were probably as surprised as the average citizen that Michigan law allows such a defense, and freeing hardened criminals because of an alcohol problem could have serious long -term ramifications.

Intoxication is a self-induced process, and anyone who chooses to become so and then commits a crime should be held accountable. All of this information is common sense, and to require legislation seems like overkill - judges and juries are smart enough to interpret law.

The Legislature shouldn’t focus its time on such a bill. It’s a waste of time when further work and improvement could be done on much more heady topics, such as Michigan’s ever-tightening budget.

The American legal system is a complex beast, with plenty of intricacies that few are aware of and even fewer understand.

While the intoxication defense may seem foolish, it is doubtful it would ever play a major role in the courts.

The legal system has the intricacies to ensure that everyone, no matter the crime, has the best chance for as fair a trial as possible. To eliminate options may make sense - but at what cost further down the road?

Regardless of whether the intoxication defense remains on the books, in Michigan if you do the crime, you will do the time.

The courts have managed to keep the issue from becoming a major problem, as evidenced by the overwhelming minority of people who are even aware that the law exists.

To rally overwhelming support for such a banal bill looks more like busywork - a few final hurrahs before the House and Senate head for summer vacation.