Public Intoxication | Research & Encyclopedia Articles

Before the seventeenth century, public intoxication was not, by itself, a crime in England. Drunkenness was punishable as a criminal offense only if it resultedin some form of breach of the peace or disorderly conduct. In 1606, however, in England, simple public intoxication was first made a criminal offense. This English precedent was reflected in some laws in the American colonies as well as in the United States in the city, county, and state laws enacted after the American Revolution. By the early 1960s, about two million arrests occurred annually for simple public intoxication, representing about 33 percent of all arrests in the United States.

Since then, remarkable changes have occurred in the handling of public intoxication. Through efforts initially in the courts and later through federal and state legislation, important steps have been taken to transfer the handling of public intoxication from the criminal-justice system to more humane and effective public-health care. The major stumbling blocks to further progress have been the lack of adequate funding and uncertainty about the most effective way of treating alcohol abuse and alcoholism.

Beginning in 1964, lawyers argued that derelict alcoholics could not lawfully be punished for their public intoxication on two independent grounds. First, they argued that these derelict alcoholics did not have the mens rea (Latin, guilty mind or intent) required for conviction of a crime, because their public intoxication was a symptom of the disease of alcoholism. Second, they argued that punishing an alcoholic for exhibiting the symptoms of that disease in public was cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

In lower court cases, these arguments prevailed. In 1968, however, in the case of Powell v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a split decision on this issue. Four justices found that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to convict Powell, an admitted alcoholic, for simple public intoxication. Four other justices determined that the matter should be left to the states and should not be decided on a constitutional level. The ninth and controlling justice determined that, because Powell had a home, he could properly be held responsible for being intoxicated in public and thus was appropriately convicted. This left open the question of whether a derelict alcoholic, without a home, could also be convicted.

Faced with a stalemate in the Supreme Court, advocates for reforming the public-intoxication laws turned to Congress. In spite of a large number of federal public health statutes, none referred explicitly to the problems of intoxication and ALCOHOLISM. Congress responded by enacting the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Act of 1968, which recognized alcoholism as a major health and social problem, and recommended handling public intoxication as a health problem rather than as a law-enforcement matter. This was followed by the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, which created the NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM to administer all alcoholism programs and authority assigned to theU.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare(now the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). These new federal laws for the first time provided a national focus for handling public intoxication on a public-health basis.

Before the court cases and the federal statutes, simple public intoxication constituted a criminal offense throughout the United States. Following the dramatic legal developments in the courts and in Congress, state and local laws rapidly began to change. Initially in the District of Columbia and in Maryland, and subsequently throughout other parts of the country, the criminal statutes prohibiting simple public intoxication were repealed and replaced with new laws establishing detoxification programs for intoxicated persons and rehabilitation programs for chronic alcoholics. By the early 1990s, more than 67 percent of the states had revised their laws to reflect this change in approach.

Existing federal and state laws now provide a firm foundation for handling public intoxication as a public-health problem rather than as a matter for the criminal-justice system. Relatively little additional change can be accomplished solely by further litigation or legislation.

With these legal and legislative hurdles overcome, two additional obstacles have arisen to impede further progress. First, the competition for federal and state health funds has become intense. Other important health needs, including basic health care for the needy and treatment for people with acquired immunodeficiency sydrome (AIDS), have made it very difficult for public officials to devote adequate resources for the expansion of public-health programs to include public intoxication and alcoholism. The problem has been compounded by a lack of any clearly effective method for the prevention or treatment of intoxication and alcoholism. A low rate of rehabilitation has led many public health officials to conclude that scarce public resources are more effectively devoted to other illnesses, especially communicable diseases. Unless there is additional investment, the police will remain deeply involved in identifying and responding to intoxicated individuals, and their response will not necessarily be limited to transporting the individual to a sobering-up station.

Progress in the prevention and treatment of intoxication and alcoholism has therefore been slow, in spite of the major changes made in the courts, the Congress, and state and local legislative bodies. Unless and until the American public places a higher priority on the handling of public intoxication as a public-health matter or medical science finds more effective methods to prevent and treat this problem, this situation is unlikely to change.

Two developments in the last decade of the twentieth century illustrate the public concern and frustration with the continuing problems of public intoxication and alcoholism. First, publicity about the substantial death and destruction caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol has led to more stringent penalties and more strict enforcement against this behavior. Second, tragic death caused by binge drinking on college campuses have led to an increase in the drinking age from 18 to 21, and stricter enforcement in college towns throughout the country.

Detoxification; Homelessness, Alcohol, and Other Drugs; Temperance Movement; Treatment, History Of)

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AD-MINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. (1967). Task force report: Drunkenness. Washington, DC: Author.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. (1971). First special report to the U.S. Congress on alcohol & health, Chapter VII: The legal status of intoxication and alcoholism. DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-9099. Washington, DC: Author.

This is the complete article, containing 1,063 words (approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).