SIR - I refer to John Phillpott's article,'You can't blame drink for low-life crimes' (Seven Days, June 23). I wholeheartedly agree with him.

I joined the police in 1965 and one of the first things I learned in my training was that drunkenness was no excuse in law for committing a crime.

I retired in 1995 and the law at that time remained the same. I doubt very much that this has changed in the intervening years. If it has then I am sure some aspiring legal person will put me right.

Yet day after day we read court reports in your paper where defending solicitors trip out this excuse that their client would not have committed the crime if they had not been under the influence of alcohol.

If drunkenness is not an excuse then it should not be allowed to be put forward.

I note John's point that on hearing this, magistrates go into lenient mood and give a reduced sentence.

I strongly feel that they should do the opposite and impose a much heavier punishment, on the basis of if a person drinks and cannot hold his liquor without committing crime, then they should be persuaded that it would be in their best interests in the future to avoid alcohol, or at the very least reduce their intake so that they can enjoy themselves without causing mayhem.

W Murray, St John's, Worcester.