The Case Of Powell V. US
Citation: Powell V U.S. No. 405, Supreme Court of the United States, 1968, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S. Ct. 2145 L. Ed 2d 1254, 1968 U.S. 1140.
Facts: Leroy Powell was arrested December, 1966 for public intoxication, which is in violation of Texas state law. Powell was found guilty and fined. He appealed and at trial Powell argued that he was not at fault for his behavior due to chronic alcoholism, which is a disease. He further argued that punishing him for his behavior was cruel and unusual behavior, a violation of the eighth amendment. To defend his theory, Dr. David Wade, a psychiatrist, was brought in to testify. Dr. Wade testified that chronic alcoholics can’t control their compulsion to drink excessively, therefore aren’t responsible for their behavior. The court found that chronic alcoholism is not a defense to the charge of public drunkenness. It did however allow Powell to admit three findings of fact: (1). Chronic alcoholism is a disease that overpowers one’s will to resist the continuous and excessive consumption of alcohol. (2). That a chronic alcoholic who goes out in public does so due to his disease, not out of free will; and (3). That Powell was a chronic …show more content…
Powell used the case of Robinson V California to argue his case. In Robinson V California, the Supreme Court held that a statute making it a criminal offense to be addicted to the use of narcotics was a violation of the eighth amendment. The reasoning was the statute criminalized an illness. In Powell’s case of public intoxication, he wasn’t convicted due to a disease, chronic alcoholism, but for his behavior in a public space. The court also reasoned that not enough medical research exists proving that chronic alcoholism is an actual disease. Furthermore, the court feels that if Powell’s alcoholism relieves him of guilt for his behavior, it creates a new defense for future cases in criminal
Facts: Leroy Powell was arrested December, 1966 for public intoxication, which is in violation of Texas state law. Powell was found guilty and fined. He appealed and at trial Powell argued that he was not at fault for his behavior due to chronic alcoholism, which is a disease. He further argued that punishing him for his behavior was cruel and unusual behavior, a violation of the eighth amendment. To defend his theory, Dr. David Wade, a psychiatrist, was brought in to testify. Dr. Wade testified that chronic alcoholics can’t control their compulsion to drink excessively, therefore aren’t responsible for their behavior. The court found that chronic alcoholism is not a defense to the charge of public drunkenness. It did however allow Powell to admit three findings of fact: (1). Chronic alcoholism is a disease that overpowers one’s will to resist the continuous and excessive consumption of alcohol. (2). That a chronic alcoholic who goes out in public does so due to his disease, not out of free will; and (3). That Powell was a chronic …show more content…
Powell used the case of Robinson V California to argue his case. In Robinson V California, the Supreme Court held that a statute making it a criminal offense to be addicted to the use of narcotics was a violation of the eighth amendment. The reasoning was the statute criminalized an illness. In Powell’s case of public intoxication, he wasn’t convicted due to a disease, chronic alcoholism, but for his behavior in a public space. The court also reasoned that not enough medical research exists proving that chronic alcoholism is an actual disease. Furthermore, the court feels that if Powell’s alcoholism relieves him of guilt for his behavior, it creates a new defense for future cases in criminal