The Prohibition of "Status" Crimes

Case: Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) [p. 140]

Summary: Robinson was convicted for being addicted to the use of narcotics, per a CA statute
that makes it a criminal offense. The SC reversed that decision, stating that it was cruel and
unusual punishment to imprison a person merely for being addicted, even though they never used
narcotics in that state or been guilty of irregular behavior.
o This is an illness. It is not voluntary. We cannot punish someone for a disease b/c it's not
voluntary to have the disease (addiction).
o There was no "act" in the State.

RULE: It can not be a crime to have a "status" of something; there must be an act.

Concurring: Agreed statute was unconstitutional, but said this because you cant punish someone
for having the desire to commit a crime. So even though narcotic use is a crime, his addiction to
narcotics, is the desire to commit a crime. But without the actual use, there could be no criminal
act.

Dissent: The fact that he's addicted is a strong indication that he uses narcotics. Dissent argues
that it is no less constitutional than convicting him on evidence that he actually uses.

Class Notes
• In Powell v. Texas, it was a public intoxication statute. How is Δ trying to use Robinson in
his case, by invoking the illness.
o Addicts are sick, and acted involuntarily.
o Powell argues that he cant help being an alcoholic, it's a disease. It's involuntary.
 But conviction upheld. The statute in question punished the act of being
drunk while in public, not the status of just being an alcoholic. This
statute fine b/c it punishes an act. It doesn’t become unconstitutional just
because Δ committed the act while suffering from his disease, alcoholism.
• RULE: It's unconstitutional to punish someone who has not committed an act.

Notes:
• 2 possible rationales for this decision:
o Involuntary conduct cannot be punished. Robinson cannot stop being an addict
without medical assistance. Hence, he is an addict involuntarily.
o Punishment must be for past, not future, conduct. Being an addict implies the
desire or propensity to commit punishable acts in the future.
• Homeless case
o Want to enjoin the city from enforcing statutes that prohibit public acts that they
need to do in public b/c they're homeless.