The Case Buck Versus Bell

Eugenics essentially began as a good thing. Early genicists had the intention of improving the quality of the human population by selecting desired traits. Because of the limited knowledge available in the early nineteen-hundreds this approach to changing the gene pool seemed reasonable. The researchers believe that by controlling human “reproductive” conditions like mental retardation psychiatric illness and physical illness / disabilities could be destroyed. The scientific data to prove these statements would never surface.

Could the killing of an unborn disabled child be considered acceptable in today’s society? Selective infanticide is a very controversial topic that many have argued about over past years. In her article “Unspeakable Conversations” disabilities activist and lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson demonstrates her viewpoint on this issue. She writes this article as a story, with herself being the narrator. It follows her journey as she feuds with Peter Singer, a Princeton University professor, who has an opposing perspective regarding the killing of unborn disabled children. With this in mind, Johnson reveals her point of view using the strategy of a Rogerian argument and the rhetorical elements of

Once the Eugenics Board of North Carolina was eliminated, the sterilizations stopped. For many though, the damage had already been done. One victim said “I think my rights have been revoked in a way, it’s just like if you go to prison for something that you ain’t done”(Gannon para. 3). This theme of regret and injustice carries on for most victims still alive today. In recent efforts to right the wrongs of the past the state has started the process to compensate the victims of sterilization. Once a legitimate case has been established and approved, victims could potentially receive up to $50,000 from the State of North Carolina. This in no way reverses the tragedy that they dealt with but it is a start to apologize and attempt to make

The idea of eugenics made it possible for involuntary sterilization. In order to improve the human race, it meant regulating reproduction. 1907 Indiana passed to sterilize the mentally insane and inmates. Their plan was to eliminate “defective” genes. By 1960 63,000 people were involuntary

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 central issue upon which the Supreme Court based their decision was in regard to the best interests of the child. They looked closely at the nature v. nurture argument, ruling that her psychological parents, the Racine’s, were capable of providing a healthier environment than her biological mother, Mrs. Woods. When looking at this case from a solely legal perspective, it is clear that the Court made the correct choice, considering Mrs. Woods’ ongoing battle with substance abuse coupled with her abusive relationship. However, this case, as with many could not be looked at simply from a legal perspective. Complex cultural aspects are embedded within the case that had to be considered in order to properly gauge the decisions and the effects of that decision. In the past, children were automatically placed with their biological parents or relatives, which, was viewed as standard procedure within the legal framework. Societal norms have progressed in such a way that allow for a more activist

Carrie Underwood is considered to be one of the most well known and popular female artists in the country music industry.  She was born in Muskogee, OK on March 10, 1983.  Not only is she a singer, she is also a famous singer -songwriter and actress.  Growing up and being raised on a farm she loved doing things outside, going on adventures and singing.  Immediately after graduating high school, she attended NSU (Northeastern State University) which is located in Tahlequah, OK.  In college, she put her dreams on hold of becoming a singer and majored in broadcast journalism.

Harris’ argument uses supporting data to help support his conclusion. His conclusion is that if individuals can use a form of science that saves a potential life from leading a “harmed” life, then we should be in favor for it. In order to provide stability for his conclusion, he uses a number of premises or supporting data to help prove his point. First, he believes that it is morally wrong to produce children who will get hurt by their genetic constitution. Second, he stresses that there is no difference between individuals who want to “cure” their offspring’s dysfunctions, and individuals who use Eugenics as a way

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.

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.

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

Later the Circuit Court had supported the law and filed for the sterilization of Carrie. In 1925 Carrie’s lawyer Irving Whitehead supported the decision of the Circuit Court at the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. So after all of this Dr. Priddy had passed away in which Dr. J.H. Bell had replaced him at the Colony. The case now became Buck v. Bell; Dr. Bell had sterilized Carrie in 1927 which then was released from the Colony (Buck v. Bell, 2006).

In contrast to the "negative" eugenics position of the state of Virginia, involuntary sterilization laws emphasizing breeding restrictions for society's "unfit" neither benefit the welfare of the individual nor that of society for several moral and legal reasons. The legal validity of these involuntary sterilization laws would be challenged within the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell. In September of 1924, at the age of eighteen, Carrie Buck, an illegitimate daughter of an allegedly feebleminded woman, was admitted to the Virginia's State Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded. Six months earlier, the Virginia State Legislature decisively passed their involuntary sterilization bill authorizing the Superintendents of five state institutions to petition for the permission to sterilize inmates. Buck, who had a mental age of nine and an I.Q. of about fifty, had already given birth to an illegitimate child herself, who was allegedly feebleminded as well. At the time, the Superintendent of the State Colony, Dr. A. S. Priddy, petitioned for permission to sterilize this woman for fear that Buck would have more mentally defective children. The statute had provided that each Superintendent needed to receive permission from a special Board of Directors of that institution, who would hear the grounds for sterilization and determine whether or not to follow through on the operation. Priddy faced immense pressure from state officials to petition for sterilization, as

There is much bias and confusion surrounding the topic of eugenics. Many times the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the term means, where it states “In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar, and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning ‘well-born.’ (Genetics Generation, 2015).” This term has evolved to encompass more than just “well-born” as can be seen in the encyclopedia. “The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as ‘the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.’ (Court, 2004).” The meaning of the word eugenics, due to the way it has been used, confuses many people.

Under this law, no recorded sterilizations occurred. In 1929, a modified eugenics law was adopted. Under this law, 49 people were sterilized under the authority of the administration of the institutions. The supreme court ruled this law unconstitutional in 1933 citing the absence of a public hearing notice or standards for appeal. The law was modified and also called for the creation of a North Carolina Eugenics Board. It consisted of three state officials, one representative of a mental health institution and one representative of the State Hospital in Raleigh. The board’s duties were to “review all cases involving the sterilization of mentally diseased, feeble-minded, or epileptic patients, inmates, or non-institutionalized individuals” (North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources). Over the next forty-one years, more than 7,500 sterilizations were carried out under this law. The state ceased this process in 1974 and the Eugenics Commission was subsequently abolished in 1977 ("Eugenics Board of North Carolina", 2017).