Skinner V. Oklahoma Case Summary

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

The Equal rights Amendment was proposed to set equality for every citizen no matter the sex. The amendment has three sections. The first one states “equality of rights under the law should not be denied by the U.S on the account of one's sex.” Section two says that “congress has the power to enforce this law.” Last but not least, section three says the amendment will take effect two years after ratification.

Sterilization legislature was enacted on the state level with the goal of physically preventing the procreation of individuals deemed to be unfit, mainly handicapped persons or criminals. Though the nature of these laws did not outright target certain races or social classes, a disproportionate amount of the individuals sterilized were non-white or of immigrant background. Prominent eugenicists and eugenic organizations in the U.S. played a key role in lobbying for state sterilization laws. Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office, drafted the American Model Eugenical Sterilization Law in 1922, which served as a model for many sterilizations laws in the states (Berenbaum, 1998). By 1926, 23 states had passed sterilization laws that were voluntary and/or involuntary in nature (Sofair, 2000). Laughlin and other eugenicists called for the sterilization of institutionalized individuals under the assertion that their “genetically inferior” traits would be passed to their progeny and be an economic drain on the state. Many states complied, and by 1935 over 30 states had some form of sterilization law with over 21,000 compulsory sterilizations performed (Allen 1997). Though the eugenic nature of these laws was stressed by eugenicists, it was acknowledged that the political support of such laws were greatly financially motivated. Another important legislation passed by the U.S. was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which was the first immigration quota

Because of this language, the Fourteenth Amendment appears to be — and to some extent is — simply the application of the Fifth Amendment, and through selective incorporation, the rest of the Bill of Rights. To that end, the Fourteenth Amendment possesses a fortuitous expansion to the simple due process right: the right to equal protection of the laws. Laws that appear to violate the Equal Protection Clause thusly receive the same kind of scrutiny that other fundamental rights are given.

Buck versus Bell 274 U.S. 2000 (1927) was the United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statue instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded “for the protection and health of the state.” (Holmes) It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics which is the attempt of science to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives” from the gene pool. (Elof) Paul Lombardo argues (in N.Y.U. Law Review, April 1985, 60(30):30-62) that the Buck case was a milestone in government power over individual rights. (Lambardo) In his essay “Carrie Buck’s Daughter: a popular, quasi-scientific idea can be a powerful tool for injustice,” Stephen Jay Gould attacks

The fourteenth amendment is also known as equal protection clause. Under the fourteenth amendment, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from denying a person that lives in the state the equal rights of the law (LII, 2017). The fourteenth amendment applies to education, especially those that are English language learners (ELL), this means that these students cannot be denied the same rights as non-English language learners. In the Supreme Court case of Lau v Nichols in 1974, this case involved a Chinese American student that attended the San Francisco Unified School District, this student was placed into a general education classroom despite the lack of being proficient in English (Wright, 2010). The school in which this student attended was found in violation, the school was giving ELL students the same material as all other students who speak proficient English and expected the Chinese American student to be able to comprehend the information that is being taught. School districts need to provide the same material, but in a modified form where the student’s will be able to access the information to learn it in the same manner as those non-English language learners.

Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause): For one to file an equal protection claim, one has to prove that the “government intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff by classifying him or her for different treatment under the law than one similarly situated.” For the equal protection clause to be violated, a government has to group individuals in such a way that denies them certain rights or provides different treatment on the basis of traits they have no control over.

In the state of Kansas between 1913 and 1961, Kansas practiced forced sterilization on mentally unstable women.” In addition to laws regarding sterilization, several marriage restriction bills were proposed in Kansas as part of the eugenics movement. Although they were never enacted as state law, marriage bills were proposed in 1915, 1917, and 1927, demonstrating the popularity of eugenic ideals.” (University of Vermont…Kansas). Dr. F. Hoyt Pilcher performed 150 sterilization in the Kansas State Home of the Feebleminded. Between the years 1913 and 1916 there were 1,274 women sterilized in Kansas. In the year 1921, sterilization in Kansas was at its all-time lowest. Between the years 1950 and 1963, sterilization in Kansas was at its peak. It is

Chapter 8 of Kitcher's novel, Inescapable Eugenics, identifies past abuses of eugenics resulting from inaccurate, misleading information; abuses that include dominant groups using eugenics to discriminate against other undesirable groups.

“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Dudley 21.)

These "science"-based eugenic influences break through the lines of science in to the world of politics, promulgating anti-humanistic views of poor women of colour in the form of legislation fraught with bigotry and baseless generalizations. This political view flows through the judicial system, as courts apply eugenic philosophies in determining who should be sterilized and for what reasons.

Sterilization "on eugenic grounds" (Lombardo 1) was not legalized until 1907 in Indiana, but doctors across the nation practiced the procedure illegally before even then. Generally, the patient didn't know about the sterilization until after the act was done, at which point they were informed of their "feeblemindedness" or other social disorder. Within 17 years of the law being instated, a recorded 3000 people were sterilized, and thousands more suspected off the record. The range of reasons for being sterilized was infinite, ranging from genuine mental disorders such as schizophrenia, to things as pointless as "excessive masturbation" (Selden

have been made over the course of history. In early 20th century Virginia, lawmakers tried to justify a law for the sterilization of those unfit for society. The backing of their argument included: budget, a humanitarian approach, and control over social disturbances. By implementing a sterilization policy, the state of Virginia would be saving money in the sense that state hospitals would have less “defective” people to take care of. By using government funds to sterilize a person one time, they would save money in the long run versus paying to house them for the entirety of their lives. Next, the law stated that “’both the health of the individual patient and the welfare of society would be promoted…by the sterilization of mental defectives”’ (Lombardo 97). Though this sounds ironic to most, there was a select group of individuals who felt as though by sterilizing people who needed it, they would be doing those people and the rest of society a favor. Finally, sterilization seemed to be a possible control for social disturbances such as the poor and the prostitutes. By sterilizing the unfit, there would be less poor people, weak people, and prostitutes; and people considered this a positive (Lombardo 97-99). These “benefits” of sterilization were part of

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws". Two landmark 14th Amendment cases are Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. However, each case treated the 14th Amendment differently and this caused a different outcome for each court case.

The mentally retarded, mentally ill, epileptic, blind, deaf, and physically deformed would not be required for fixing, I merely propose that men who fall under a specific income and intelligence criteria be sterilized through the means of a vasectomy. Money and intelligence move society forward, making them the two perfect standards to base required sterilization off of. At first glance, this solution may appear too complicated, but dictating it would hardly be something the national government could not easily execute. Tests no different from any other