As you read and think about the Robinson case, be prepared to answer some of the following questions during class discussion:
1. What did the statute at issue in Robinson attempt to criminalize? Under the terms of the statute when is a person guilty of violating the statute?
2. How did Robinson come to be prosecuted under this statute? What was the evidence against him? What was the exact basis of his conviction?
3. On what grounds did Robinson appeal his conviction to the United States Supreme Court? What was the issue that the Court decided in the Robinson case?
4. According to Justice Stewart, what are the valid actions that a state may take to regulate or control the use of narcotics in society? Why did the statute at issue in Robinson fall outside of the range of permissible actions that a state might take to control narcotics?
5. At one point in his opinion, Justice Stewart states that, "[e]ven one day in prison would be cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" of having a common cold." Why --exactly-- would a punishment under these circumstances be unjust? Compare Justice Stewart's opinion to the opinion of Justice Douglas. In what ways are their arguments similar?
6. In his opinion in Robinson, Justice Harlan not prepared to conclude that a punishment under §11721 was unconstitutional for the reasons that Justices Stewart and Douglas were. On what basis did Justice Harlan break with Stewart and Douglas? Despite this disagreement, Justice Harlan concurred in the result in Robinson. On what basis did Justice Harlan decide that Robinson's conviction could not stand?
7. In his dissenting opinion in Robinson, Justice Clark distinguishes between two different types of addicts. On what basis is this distinction made? How does the distinction between these two groups of addicted people support Justice Clark's opinion that the California statute at issue in the case is valid?