concluding that the judgment in Powell rested on the overlap in the views of “four members of the Court” who held that Powell’s acts of public drunkenness “were punishable without question” and the view of Justice White that Powell’s acts “were punishable so long as the acts had not been proved to be the product of an established irresistible compulsion”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the judgment in Powell rested on the overlap in the views of “four members of the Court” who held that Powell’s acts of public drunkenness “were punishable without question” and the view of Justice White that Powell’s acts “were punishable so long as the acts had not been proved to be the product of an established irresistible compulsion”
- noting that "there is definitely no Supreme Court holding" of addiction as a defense
- rejecting the assertion that "punishment of addict possessors is neither a reasonable nor a necessary means to achieve [the] goal" of reconciling the need to eliminate drug traffic with the need to rehabilitate addicts
- characterizing such an interpretation as "an amplification and extrapolation of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment advanced in the admittedly confused and divergent opinions in Robinson v. California and Powell v. Texas "
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBB, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in Judge Wilkey’s opinion and add a few words.
The doctrine espoused by the minority would license an addict to commit any criminal act — including the sale of drugs —that he considers necessary to support and maintain his habit. In my opinion neither the Constitution nor any statute requires that result, and I decline to bring it about by judicial legislation.