Powell v. Texas (1967)
- Docket
- 405
- Decided
- 1967-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Is the conviction of a chronic alcoholic for public intoxication cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment? Conclusion: No. Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for a four justice plurality, affirmed the lower court. The plurality found that the record did not prove that alcoholics were totally unable to control their alcohol consumption. The law prohibiting public intoxication did not punish Powell for his alcoholism, but for his being drunk in a public location. Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo L. Black, and Justice John M. Harlan joined in the plurality. Justice Hugo L. Black concurred, writing that the Eighth Amendment does not require states to decide what part of a defendant’s personality is responsible for their actions. Justice John M. Harlan joined in this concurrence. Justice Byron R. White concurred in the judgment, writing that he would not punish a chronic alcoholic just for being drunk, but supports the punishment for being drunk in public. The record did not support the argument that Powell had no control over being in public. Justice Abe Fortas dissented, writing that criminal penalties are not proper for people with conditions that they have no power to change. The record showed that Powell could not control the constant excessive consumption of alcohol and did not appear in public of his own volition. Justice William O. Douglas, Justice William J. Brennan, and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissent.