It's an illness the alcoholic is responsible for getting treated.

As you so clearly and accurately pointed out, it is not an excuse, reason, or cause. Again, as you so ably mentioned, it is often an enabler, making it easier for a person to both perpetrate a distasteful deed but handle the guilt.

Alcoholism should never be used as a mitigating circumstance. Alcoholics, drunk or sober, should be held to the same standards as anyone else. Regardless of whether the deed is committed drunk or sober.

Got a cousin who was shot to death by her husband a couple of years ago. He first claimed he was innocent. Convicted. However, he is getting a few more bites at the apple.

The appeals. 1st ground, that he was drinking too much before and during his trial to effectively help his defense. Needs a new trial. Only fair. Couldn't help his lawyer the way he should have been able to. Couldn't hear advice.

2nd ground, that he was so drunk at the time the crime was committed that he doesn't remember anything, wasn't aware of it and therefore couldn't be guilty. (Even though he scarred up the barrel of the pistol after the shot to prevent ID as the weapon. His dad was a gunsmith.) This would be the defense at the new trial. Corollary - that he was so drunk he doesn't remember if anyone else came in and shot her. Could have happened, he says. Reasonable doubt.

3nd ground, that even if he chased her, then shot her in the back of the head while she was in the garage trying to get away, with a gun he had to retreive from the bedroom, he was too drunk to form intent, and it cannot be 1st degree murder. Should be 2nd degree, at worst, with time off for "good behavior" and eventual parole.

All of which is nonsense. As an alcoholic I'm responsible for what I do about it. And what I do while actively engaged in my illness. Period.

Arf