In Roberts v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court upheld a decision to increase a defendant's sentence based on his refusal to cooperate with law enforcement officials. The case involved petitioner, Jack Gilbert Roberts, who was convicted of federal narcotics violations and sentenced by the District Court for Southern California to 15 years imprisonment. He appealed this sentence claiming it was unduly harsh because he refused to provide information about other individuals involved in drug trafficking activities during his pre-sentence interview with probation officers. The Supreme Court ruled that while cooperation or lack thereof can be considered when determining sentencing, it cannot be used as punishment for asserting one’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Roberts v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a harsher sentence for a defendant who refused to cooperate with law enforcement was fundamentally unfair and violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He contended that it is not within the purview of courts or judges to punish someone more severely because they choose not to assist in their own prosecution or implicate others in criminal activity. According to him, this approach effectively penalizes individuals for exercising their constitutional rights and undermines principles of justice and fairness at its core. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by prosecutors who could use threats of increased punishment as leverage over defendants.