Supreme Court Case: Buck V. Bell

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

A landmark case that shifted the attention to due process was Miranda vs. Arizona. In this historical landmark case the Miranda Rights got there famous name from this man Ernesto Miranda. The attention shifted to due process because of the fact that Miranda pled his rights were not read to him, therefore he did not know he could not self-incriminate himself. He claimed she was coerced to giving his confession (Miranda v. Arizona). From then on the criminal justice system new they had to do something about criminals trying to flee from the law by saying their rights were not read to them. Police departments everywhere new something had to be done. Therefore the Miranda rights were born all criminals were being arrested had to be read their Miranda Rights, therefore they could not plead that their rights were not read to them that is why the Miranda Rights is an important part of the due process. It is not fair to the suspect to arrest him and not to let them know why they are being detained, or

For centuries, the success of a democratic society has been measured by its commitment to equality, a resounding principle central to our nation’s founding. The Enlightenment-inspired language of the Declaration of Independence, namely the age-old axiom that “all men are created equal,” pervades our perception of the American creed. However, nearly a century passed before the Lockean principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence began to bear the force of law. Entitling American citizens to due process and equal protection of the law, the Fourteenth Amendment, perhaps the most transformative Amendment of all, has inspired the steady progression of American society. Nonetheless, while the Amendment serves as the chief legal force behind the democratic goal of equality, questions regarding its achievement of that goal

Written by Justice Holmes, the infamous Buck v Bell opinion, gives a summary and an analysis of how the court reached the decision to uphold Virginia’s sterilization statute. The case involved Carrie Buck, an 18 year old women in a Virginia institution for “feeble-minded” individuals, she was to be sterilized after being found to be feeble-minded. In addition to the summary of the case, Holmes raises his concerns with having more “feeble-minded” individuals and criminals parading the streets which justifies coerced sterilization.

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell in 1997 is a lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that offered the eugenic sterilization for individuals regarded genetically unfit. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Virginia’s statute regarding sterilization provided the basis for enactment of similar laws across the United States and subsequent sterilization of 65,000 Americans without their approval or that of their family members. Notably, the ruling of this case was based on the concept of feeblemindedness, which is no longer applicable in medical terminology. Actually, this case primarily involved state-enforced eugenic sterilization for individuals considered feebleminded or genetically substandard in certain ways. The case provides considerable insights concerning eugenics and enforced sterilization in the United States and significant concerns on whether genetics should be used for any king of legal decision.

One drug court is unlike any other in the country. Judge Williams’s courts in Georgia’s Glynn and Camden Counties do not honor a major component of rule of law—due process. Due process is fair treatment through the judicial system. It includes, among a few other rights, the rights to receive an impartially fair trial and subsequent reasonable punishment, to grieve or complain against the charges and government official in charge, and to appeal. Judge Amanda William’s drug court is guilty of due process violations in each of the three mentioned major categories of due process. In order to stop the due process violations and bring drug courts around the US into compliance with the rule of law, the drug court system in the US must be

This clause is often used to defend an individual’s civil liberties as it states that no state has the power to deny any person life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. In Buck v. Bell one of the key points stated that Carrie Buck’s civil liberties were not infringed as she did receive the due process of law. However, this conclusion was flawed, the Fourteenth Amendment was violated as Buck was subject to an unfair process in which she was set up to fail from the very start. The opinion of the court stated that “There can be no doubt that… the rights of the patient are most carefully considered… there is no doubt that… the plaintiff in error has had due process of law” (Buck). While it is true that Carrie Buck was notified of the petition for her sterilization, and given an opportunity to appeal the decision and be heard in court, one major piece is missing: just legal proceedings. After Ms. Buck’s appealed the decision by the court of directors, she now needed an attorney. Irving Whitehead was appointed as attorney for Buck by the Virginia State Colony Board of Directors. This is how they made sure Carrie would not succeed; Irving Whitehead had no intentions of helping his client. As a “founding member of the Colony and a primary supporter of Priddy’s sterilization campaign” (Antonios) it was in Whitehead’s best interest that Carrie Buck lost the appeal against her

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

The Buck v. Bell case began when Carrie Buck was seventeen and claimed that she was raped by J.T. and Alice Dobbs son and turn out to be pregnant. So when that happened a test revealed that Carrie had da mind of a nine year old which was consider being feeblemindedness. Her mother was also tested and considered to be feeblemindedness because her test revealed that she had the mind of an eight year old. Carrie and her mother were sent to the Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded (Buck v. Bell, 2006).

As we can see, due process has changed our justice system from hastily-prosecution to time consuming investigation of all the facts. We should stop pre-judging the accused person until all of the facts are made known unto us. Due process has given all accused citizens an equal opportunity to tell their story, and the right to question the evidence that was brought against them. Even though due process has guaranteed the accused person his or her right to be heard

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This

There is another portion of the due process in the 14th Amendment which regulates the actions of the state. This clause is put into place so that a person’s right to life, liberty, and property, will not be deprived. Due process is procedural in nature and provides safeguards making sure the and has the right to be tried by a jury, have access to a lawyer and the ability to cross-examine a witness.The creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that limited government authority will be the glue that holds the due process clause constitution together for the people of this country. The substantive law principles with particular power for the government are in the 1st, 2nd, and 8th

I found your posting enlightening and informative. Under the due process model, it seems that one is more along the line of the interpretations of the early origins of The U.S. Constitution and that is considered “the fundamental law of the land” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 32).

Reasonable treatment through the typical legal framework, particularly a resident's qualification to notice of a charge and a hearing in the witness of a fair-minded judge. Due process has additionally been much of the time deciphered as restricting laws and lawful procedures so that judges rather than officials—may characterize and ensure essential decency, equity, and freedom. This translation has demonstrated disputable, and is practically equivalent to the ideas of characteristic equity, and procedural equity utilized as a part of different locales. This understanding of due process is here and there communicated as a charge that the administration should not be unjustifiable to the general population or misuse them physical.