The following case were found at saylordotorg.githun.io
Generally
a defendant’s status in society is not a criminal act, such as
being an alcoholic or a drug addict. Status is who the defendant is,
not what the defendant does. Similar to punishment for an involuntary
act, when the government punishes an individual for status, it is
essentially targeting that individual for circumstances that are
outside his or her control. This punishment may be cruel and unusual
pursuant to the Eighth Amendment if it is disproportionate to the
defendant’s behavior.
In
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the US Supreme Court
held that it is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment
pursuant to the Eighth Amendment to punish an individual for the
status of being a drug addict—even if the drugs to which the
defendant is addicted are illegal.
The Court compared drug addiction
to an illness, such as leprosy or venereal disease. Punishing a
defendant for being sick not only is inhumane but also does not
specifically deter, similar to a punishment for an involuntary act.
In contrast, the case of Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), the US Supreme Court upheld the
defendant’s conviction for “drunk in public,” in spite of the
defendant’s status as an alcoholic. The Court held that it is
difficult but not impossible for an alcoholic to resist the urge to
drink, so the behavior the statute criminalized was voluntary.
Also,
the Court ruled that the state has an interest in treating alcoholism
and preventing alcohol-related crimes that could injure the defendant
and others. Pursuant to Powell, statutes that criminalize voluntary
acts that arise from status are constitutional under the Eighth
Amendment.
If
the defendant can control the actions at issue in spite of his or her
status, the defendant’s conduct can be constitutionally
criminalized and punished pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. This is
where the law fails to equally prosecute or protect, respectively, the perpetrator and the
victims.
While
it is difficult, but not impossible, for a drug addict to resist the
urge to enter an altered state of mind by using drugs. It is a
conscious and voluntary choice before they facilitate the
introduction of drug(s) into their body. Regardless of whether that introduction
is oral, injected, smoked, 'snorted', or by any other means.
If it was
impossible to resist the urge to use drugs nobody would seek treatment; let alone successfully complete a drug treatment program.
Alcoholism
is also a treatable illness which is not always 'controllable' by the alcoholic.
The State should also have an interest in treating drug addicts and
preventing drug addicted crimes, which generally include promoting the sale and use of illicit drugs, theft,
burglary, breaking and entering, and other serious crimes which
could, and often do, injure the drug addict and others, but not at the expense of innocent taxpayers who are not involved in the crime or the addicted perpetrator!
