Pretty much, yeah. I'm acknowledging that it is possible the person with numerous DUIs is an alcoholic and that, once drunk, the intent necessary for a knowing crime is no longer really there. The logic of 'chose to get drunk so chose the consequences' doesn't work if the person has a disease causing them to continuously drink.

Recognizing the root cause doesn't remove choice or blame. If we follow your logic consistently, then none of us are ultimately responsible for anything we do because of determinism.

Things like that should only really be a factor in choosing sentencing and rehabilitation.

>Recognizing the root cause doesn't remove choice or blame.

That's not my logic.

If you have a disease that causes an involuntary action, that removes choice.

I could extend that - the more something slides towards coercion, the less choice there is. Rather than a complete removal, a person's punishment should be evaluated in light of the circumstances in which they act.

>Things like that should only really be a factor in choosing sentencing and rehabilitation.

That's kinda what I'm talking about - a sentence of being known as a scumbag.

Do you think being an alcoholic is a valid defense if you murder someone while drunk?

Unlikely - it's definitely something you can raise in an argument about intent to get drunk and that lack of intent impacting the nature of mens rea, so it might be a mitigating factor, but either way it isn't a complete defense so you're kinda starting at negligent homicide.

The difference, of course, is I'm not actually talking about what you did, I'm talking about what makes you a scumbag. I don't think people can really be unintentional scumbags - intent is required.