Is Powell Still Valid? The Supreme Court’s Changing Stance on Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Note — Volume 104, Issue 3

104 Va. L. Rev. 547
Download PDF

In its seminal case Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court struck down a state statute criminalizing narcotics addiction. The Court held this statute, in criminalizing the disease of drug addiction, constituted cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Six years later in Powell v. Texas, the Court declined to extend this holding to encompass alcoholism, because alcoholism involves the act of drinking rather than the status of addiction. However, the Court’s modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has signaled a shift in its understanding of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court has begun to take into account brain development, and its relationship to culpability, for certain classes of offenders. Neurological findings regarding the brain development involved in chronic alcoholism necessitate a similar shift in the Court’s framework for analyzing the penalization of chronic alcoholism and, given the Court’s changing stance, call into question the constitutionality of Virginia’s habitual drunkard statute. Rather than viewing alcoholism under the act-versus-status dichotomy, the Court’s Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis signals a shift towards understanding addictions such as chronic alcoholism under a non-binary framework that takes into account recent scientific understandings of addiction. Much like the Court’s shift in the juvenile and intellectual disability contexts, a similar shift should occur, this Note posits, in the Court’s proportionality analysis as applied to statutes involving chronic alcoholism. This Note concludes by calling into question the continued constitutionality of Virginia’s habitual drunkard statute under the Court’s changing jurisprudence.

Click on a link below to access the full text of this article. These are third-party content providers and may require a separate subscription for access.

  Volume 104 / Issue 3  

The Damagings Clauses

By Maureen E. Brady
104 Va. L. Rev. 341

Legal Innocence and Federal Habeas

By Leah M. Litman
104 Va. L. Rev. 417

Mining for Meaning: An Examination of the Legality of Property Rights in Space Resources

By Amanda M. Leon
104 Va. L. Rev. 497

Is Powell Still Valid? The Supreme Court’s Changing Stance on Cruel and Unusual Punishment

By Maria Slater
104 Va. L. Rev. 547