For a Motive of Kindness...20 years in Federal Prison
Examining the Unintended Consequences of Drug-Induced Homicide Prosecutions and the Case for Evidence-Based Policy Reform.
For a Motive of Kindness…
20 Years in Federal Prison
Introduction
Prosecutions for drug-induced homicide (DIH) or drug delivery resulting in death (DDRD) have increased substantially in the United States since approximately 2011. These prosecutions are often justified as part of the government’s response to the opioid crisis, with the stated goals of reducing overdose deaths, discouraging drug distribution and use, and protecting public safety. However, emerging research suggests that many of these prosecutions target individuals who occupy relatively minor roles in drug distribution networks.
Studies such as Carroll et al. (2021) and Peterson et al. (2019) report that a significant proportion of individuals charged under DIH statutes are low-level participants, including friends, family members, or co-users of the overdose victim. In media coverage and public discourse, these individuals are often characterized as drug dealers, even though drug sharing and informal exchanges are common within networks of individuals who use the same drugs (Beletsky, 2019). Current state and federal statutes rarely distinguish between large-scale commercial trafficking and the informal exchange of drugs among people experiencing addiction. As a result, individuals suffering from substance use disorders may be prosecuted and sentenced under statutes originally intended to target professional drug traffickers.
Long-term trends in overdose mortality raise questions about the effectiveness of punitive drug policies. As shown in Table 1, overdose deaths have increased dramatically since the beginning of the War on Drugs in the 1970s. The 1970s represent the only decade in which overdose deaths declined, starting with 7,101 people who died that year from a drug overdose.
During the 1980s, overdose deaths increased by more than 100 percent compared with the previous decade, followed by an increase of nearly 274 percent in the 1990s. Although population growth occurred during these decades, the rise in overdose deaths significantly outpaced population increases. The upward trend continued into the twenty-first century, with overdose deaths increasing by more than 84 percent between 2010 and 2019. More recently, overdose deaths rose sharply between 2019 and 2021, driven largely by the proliferation of illicit fentanyl. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 105,007 overdose deaths occurred in 2023.
Table 1. Overdose Deaths in U.S.
Year | % Chg in Deaths | % Chg in Pop
1970–1979 | -64.17% | 10.41%
1980–1989 | 102.05% | 8.99%
1990–1999 | 273.92% | 12.10%
2000–2009 | 112.48% | 9.01%
2010–2019 | 84.27% | 6.31%
2019–2021 | 52.37% | 0.38%
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
Two frequently cited justifications for harsh sentencing policies in drug cases are the reduction of addiction and the prevention of overdose deaths. However, the trends illustrated in Table 1 suggest that increasingly punitive enforcement strategies have not achieved these objectives.
Substance use trends show a similar pattern. Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) indicate that the number of individuals reporting current drug use has increased substantially over the past two decades. As shown in Table 2, the number of current drug users aged twelve and older increased from approximately 14 million in 2000 to 48.4 million in 2024, representing a 246 percent increase. These trends suggest that policies aimed primarily at deterrence through punishment have not significantly reduced drug use or addiction.
Table 2. Rates of Addiction
Year | # of People Addicted (Millions) | Rate of Change
2000 | 14 |
2009 | 21.8 | 55.71%
2010 | 22.6 | 3.76%
2019 | 57.2 | 631.86%
2020 | 59.3 | 3.67%
2023 | 48.5 | -18.21%
2024 | 48.4 | -0.21%
Source: National Survey on Drug Use & Health (2000–2020)
In addition to questions regarding deterrence, several studies suggest that DIH laws may produce unintended public health consequences. Research by Jakubowski et al. (2018), Koester et al. (2017), Wagner et al. (2019), and Banta-Green et al. (2013) indicates that aggressive enforcement strategies can discourage individuals from contacting emergency services during overdose events due to fear of arrest or prosecution. When witnesses hesitate to call for medical assistance, the likelihood of fatal outcomes increases. To the extent that DIH statutes reduce individuals’ willingness to seek emergency assistance, these policies may undermine the public health goals they are intended to achieve.
Legal scholars have also questioned the compatibility of DIH statutes with established principles of criminal law. Varner (2019) argues that many DIH prosecutions effectively impose strict liability for homicide, allowing individuals to receive lengthy prison sentences even when there is no evidence that they intended to cause harm. Phillips (2020) examines the development of strict liability offenses in American criminal law and emphasizes the importance of men's rea, or criminal intent, as a fundamental component of due process. According to Phillips, weakening or eliminating intent requirements in homicide cases raises significant constitutional concerns. Buikema (2015) similarly argues that imposing severe criminal penalties for accidental overdose deaths may conflict with principles of fairness and proportionality.
Despite these concerns, DIH statutes continue to expand. Currently, twenty-six states have enacted specific drug-induced homicide laws in response to the opioid crisis, while other states pursue homicide or manslaughter charges in overdose cases. The increasing reliance on severe criminal penalties is notable because it occurs in the absence of clear evidence that such policies reduce drug use or overdose mortality. At the same time, research in addiction science emphasizes the importance of medical treatment, harm reduction strategies, and public health interventions.
The gap between criminal justice responses and the scientific understanding of addiction, therefore, remains substantial. Addressing this gap requires careful examination of the assumptions underlying current policy and the broader purposes of incarceration in drug cases. This article contributes to that discussion by examining the operation of DIH laws through a combination of statistical analysis, legal scholarship, and a qualitative case study. It presents the case of Scott, a federal prisoner sentenced to twenty years in prison following the overdose death of a friend. To further examine sentencing patterns, the study also reviews 50 DIH prosecutions at both the state and federal levels to compare sentencing outcomes and better understand how these laws operate in practice.
References
Banta-Green, C. J., Beletsky, L., Schoeppe, J. A., Coffin, P. O., & Kuszler, P. C. (2013). Police officers’ and paramedics’ experiences with overdose and their knowledge and opinions of Washington State’s drug overdose–naloxone–Good Samaritan law. Journal of Urban Health, 90(6) 1102-1111.
Beletsky, L. (2019). Deadly Dragon: How the Opioid Crisis in the United States Is Impacting the Enforcement of Drug-Induced America’s favorite antidote: Drug-induced homicide in the age of the overdose crisis. Utah Law Review, 2019(4). https://dc.law. utah.edu/ulr/vol2019/iss4/4.
Buikema, J. (2015). Punishing the Wrong Criminal for Over Three Decades: Illinois’ Drug-Induced Homicide Statute. Available at SSRN 2662312.
Caldwell, H. M. (2017). Everybody talks about prosecutorial conduct, but nobody does anything about it: A 25-year survey of prosecutorial misconduct and a viable solution. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1455.
Caldwell, H. M. (2013). The Prosecutor Prince: Misconduct, Accountability, and a Modest Proposal. Cath. UL Rev., 63, 51.
Carroll, J. J., Ostrach, B., Wilson, L., Dunlap, J. L., Getty, R., & Bennett, J. (2021). Drug-induced homicide laws may worsen opioid related harms: An example from rural North Carolina. International Journal of Drug Policy, 97, 103406.
Crews, F. T., & Boettiger, C. A. (2009). Impulsivity, frontal lobes, and risk for addiction. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 93(3), 237-247.
Emerich’s Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (April 5, 1887). Transcript of, published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907). https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
Gershowitz, A. M. (2008). Prosecutorial shaming: Naming attorneys to reduce prosecutorial misconduct. UC Davis L. Rev., 42, 1059.
Helm, R. K., Reyna, V. F., Franz, A. A., Novick, R. Z., Dincin, S., & Cort, A. E. (2018). Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: Attorney perspectives on guilt, innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(9), 915-934.
Henning, P. J. (1999). Prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional remedies. Wash. ULQ, 77, 713.
Koester, S., Mueller, S. R., Raville, L., Langegger, S., & Binswanger, I. A. (2017). Why are some people who have received overdose education and naloxone reticent to call Emergency Medical Services in the event of overdose?. International Journal of Drug Policy, 48, 115-124.
Jakubowski, Andrea MD, Kunins, Hillary V. MD, Huxley-Reicher, Zina and Siegler, Anne (2018). Knowledge of the 911 Good Samaritan Law and 911-calling behavior of overdose witnesses. Substance Abuse, 39:2, 233-238, DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2017.1387213
Jacques, S., Allen, A., & Wright, R. (2014). Drug dealers’ rational choices on which customers to rip-off. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(2), 251-256.
Jalain, C. (2021). Punishing the Powerful: A Study of Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Era of Ethics Reforms. Scholarly Open Access Repository. https://soar.usi.edu/handle/20.500.12419/8.
Joy, P. A. (2006). Relationship between Prosecutorial Misconduct and Wrongful Convictions: Shaping Remedies for a Broken System. Wis. L. Rev., 399.
Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (1998). Persons with severe mental illness in jails and prisons: A review. Psychiatric services, 49(4), 483-492.
Levy, N. (2011). Addiction, responsibility, and ego-depletion. Addiction and responsibility, 89-111.
Lopez, German (2017, Jan 27). Mass incarceration doesn't do much to fight crime. But it costs an absurd $182 billion a year. A new report suggests mass incarceration costs even more than we previously thought. Vox.
Mallgrave, A. (2020). Purely Local Tragedies: How Prosecuting Drug-Induced Homicide in Federal Court Exacerbates the Overdose Crisis. Drexel L. Rev., 13, 233.
Mauer, M. (2010). The impact of mandatory minimum penalties in federal sentencing. Judicature, 94, 6.
Naqvi, N. H., & Bechara, A. (2010). The insula and drug addiction: an interoceptive view of pleasure, urges, and decision-making. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5-6), 435-450.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2020, June 25). The Science of Drug Use and Addiction: The Basics. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-guide/science-drug-use-addiction-basics.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2021, June 1). Fentanyl Drug Facts. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl
National Institutes of Health (2015, Oct). Biology of Addiction: Drugs and Alcohol Can Hijack Your Brain. NIH News in Health. https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2015/10/biology-addiction.
National Institutes of Health (2020, Sept 16). White Matter of the Brain. U.S. National Library of Medicine: MedlinePlus.
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2000-2020). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/data-we-collect/nsduh-national-survey-drug-use -and-health
Neily, C. (2019). Jury Empowerment as an Antidote to Coercive Plea Bargaining. FED. SENT’G REP., 31, 284-286.
Peterson, M., Rich, J., Macmadu, A., Truong, A. Q., Green, T. C., Beletsky, L., Pognon, K., & Brinkley-Rubinstein, L. (2019). One guy goes to jail, two people are ready to take his spot.”: Perspectives on drug-induced homicide laws among incarcerated individuals. International Journal of Drug Policy, 70, 47–53. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.05.001.
Phillips, K. S. (2020). From overdose to crime scene: The incompatibility of drug-induced homicide statues with due process. Duke Law Journal, 70, 659–704.
Pitzer, P. (2013). Federal Overincarceration and Its Impact on Correctional Practices: A Warden's Perspective. Crim. Just., 28, 41.
Schoenfeld, H. (2005). Violated trust: Conceptualizing prosecutorial misconduct. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(3), 250-271.
Scott, L. E. (2019). Federal Prosecutorial Overreach in the Age of Opioids: The Statutory and Constitutional Case Against Duplicitous Drug Indictments. U. Tol. L. Rev., 51, 491.
Snoek, A., Levy, N., & Kennett, J. (2016). Strong-willed but not successful: The importance of strategies in recovery from addiction. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 4, 102-107.
Turner, J. I. (2020). Transparency in Plea Bargaining. Notre Dame L. Rev., 96, 973.
Varner, H. (2019). Chasing the Homicide Statutes. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1799.
Verdejo-García, A., Bechara, A., Recknor, E. C., & Perez-Garcia, M. (2006). Executive dysfunction in substance-dependent individuals during drug use and abstinence: an examination of the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional correlates of addiction. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12(3), 405-415.
Wagner, K. D., Harding, R. W., Kelley, R., Labus, B., Verdugo, S. R., Copulsky, E., & Davidson, P. J. (2019). Post-overdose interventions triggered by calling 911: Centering the perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUDs). PloS one, 14(10), e0223823.
Wagner, Peter and Bertram, Wanda (2020, Jan 16). “What percent of the U.S. is incarcerated?” Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/01/16/percent-incarcerated/.
Weintraub, J. N. (2020). Obstructing Justice: The Association Between Prosecutorial Misconduct and the Identification of True Perpetrators. Crime & delinquency, 66(9), 1195-1216.
Wells, Diana (2018). “White Matter Disease.” Healthline, Updated on September 29, 2018. Medically reviewed by Seunggu Han, M.D.
