Background: The Swedish penal code has viewed self-induced temporary insanity, caused by intoxication, depending on which Sociology of Punishment is currently active. Starting from a lenient view of drug-induced insanity in the Middle Ages towards a harsher penal climate today.  Aims: This thesis aims to investigate how the Courts of Appeals views self-induced temporary insanity. Specifically, the investigation highlights how the courts navigate between the conflicting rationalities governing criminal intent on the one hand and drug abuse on the other. Results: A thematic analysis using NVivo showed that the Court of Appeals verdicts are inconsistent regarding sentencing when addiction is involved. The results also show a lack of knowledge about addiction as an illness within the Court of Appeals and that the courts sentence substance abusers much harder than others with temporary insanity. The thesis concludes that the Rule of Law is at risk when inconsistent verdicts are commonplace.