Why Do Criminals Violate Equal Protection Clause Violations?

He was constantly high on heroin, and when he was not, he was grumpy and abusive towards her. Eventually in times of lonesome, Baby got a hold of drugs on her own. First, she tried magic mushrooms. At first, getting high was a way for Baby to entertain herself. However, she eventually tried her father’s drug of choice, heroin. She quickly becomes addicted to the feeling she gets when high off this drug. Heroin entwines itself into Baby’s day-to-day life and begins to impair her normal decision making, “There wasn’t much, but there was enough to make all my anger dissipate. As soon as I was high, I couldn’t even remember what my escape plan had been (569).”Her quick addiction allows Baby to find an escape from her reality. Turning to drugs to fill the void her parents left within her childhood is not only temporary, but it is dangerous. People close to Baby demonstrate first-hand the dangers that this coping mechanism can pose. Her pimp, Alphonse, even died of an overdose with her in the room, “As soon as I looked at Alphonse’s face, I knew that he was dead, even though I had never seen a dead body before (604).” Baby’s method of coping from her father’s negligence is to turn to the exact thing that she witness ruin him, heroin. However, as a child of her age, she would not know any better. Her father is happier and more affectionate towards her while he is high, so it would only make sense to her to think that she would be the

Lauren’s mother succumbed to the troubles of the world and was addicted to drugs while she was pregnant. Her mother’s addiction caused the severity of Lauren’s

When women conceive a baby, immediately, thousands of responsibilities are placed in her hands. Whether you want to have a human being to take care of or not, you will, with no other choice. Say, a women becomes pregnant and truthfully cannot afford a child, that situation does not matter. If living on the streets is necessary, then she should take the initiative and do so. If drugs are merely

Jim, a high school all-star basketball player becomes addicted to heroin. He tries to hide his addiction, but it becomes quite prevalent when it begins to overtake his life entirely. To begin with, Jim reflects on his first experiences with heroin and refers to it as a “chippy” habit. He isn’t aware of the addictiveness of this potent drug, which shortly becomes habitual. His addiction leads to him being kicked off the basketball team, out of his own house, and then desperate on the streets of New York City alongside of his friends. This substantially progresses his addiction, resulting in him passing out in the snow one night. Thanks to Jim’s former basketball friend, Jim is forced to withstand from heroin. Jim become extremely agitated from withdrawal and escapes to look for some more. Jim later finds himself in a six-month rehab, which he notes “the

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

In the past thirty years, the incarceration of women has risen exponentially. Poverty, lack of access to education, abuse, addiction, mental health and parenting issues all impact women’s criminality and health before, during and after they are incarcerated (Hannaher, K., 2007). By 2010 there were nearly 206,000 women currently serving time in the criminal justice system. As the years go by, the numbers are constantly increasing (Women Behind Bars, 2015). The number of pregnant women incarcerated has also been on the rise. Most incarcerated women do not receive proper prenatal care before entering the criminal justice system. Because these women are from mostly poverty neighborhoods, they are more likely to endure domestic violence, poor

Since the 1980’s, debate about how society should deal with the problem of criminalizing pregnant women who abuse drugs or alcohol has become a nationwide issue. Many states argue that the primary concern is making sure women have healthy pregnancies and healthy children. However, policies that threaten women with criminal prosecution and the potential loss of parental rights drive women away from pregnancy-related care. Constitutionally, enacting states to create these laws is unsound and places women in situations of risk. Less than a week ago a bill was sent to the governor of Tennessee after being approved by both the house and the senate, that would allow for women to be prosecuted if she takes an illegal drugs while pregnant. Although this bill is made to seem like it is promoting healthy pregnancies, many groups are urging the governor to veto it.

The data showed that between 2009 and 2010, 16.2 percent of women between the ages of 15-17 years old, 7.4 percent of women between the ages of 18-25 years old, and 1.9 percent of women between the ages of 26-44 years old had used illicit drugs while pregnant. The data also showed substance abuse during pregnancy among different ethnic and racial groups. African Americans had the highest percentage in 2010 at 10.7 percent. The next highest was the White population at 9.1 percent. Hispanics or Latino’s percentage was 8.1 percent and the Asian population had the lowest percentage at 3.5 percent (“Results from”, 2011).

According to the Women In The World Staff, on Racial Stereotypes: Asian American Women’s Reproductive Rights are Being Targeted, Says Advocate, they announce the fear of Asian American’s pro-choice decisions as becoming a criminal liability. The WITW staff describes, “The fetal homicide laws, on the books in 38 U.S. states, were originally passed to protect pregnant victims of violent crime, but may end up exposing women to criminal liability, depending on how an attempt to terminate a pregnancy is interpreted (WITW 3).” Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai’s cases of attempted abortion, both occurred in Indiana, brings the thought that quite possibly, a simple attempt could result in life in prison depending on how the abortion is carried out. With the 2% of Asians in Indiana and two Asian-American women being put behind bars for their fetal homicide, it questions a number of racial stereotypes being demonstrated against Asian-American women’s reproductive rights (WITW 2). The WITW states, “Asian American women’s reproductive rights are being challenged and their family-planning decisions are being policed based on racial stereotypes held by anti-choice activists and officials (WITW 2).” In my opinion, if women are being judged for how their abortion is being carried out, the

The question about whether pregnant women are liable for subjecting their unborn children to risk has yet to be properly addressed. One state South Carolina has been on the forefront of this issue. The Supreme Court in South Carolina in 1997 in the case Whitner vs. South Carolina decided that pregnant women who exposed their viable fetuses may be persecuted under the state child abuse laws. This action was specifically targeting women who use illegal drugs during pregnancy. Since this decision, other states like Arizona and Florida are following suit. In South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina Hospital routinely tested the urine of pregnant women for

These strategies continue to undermine the choices that the Women of Color have in deciding whether or not they want to have children because they do not want to be stigmatized with poverty. Obviously, the adverse and psychological effects of the various interlocking forms of oppressions that limits Women of Color’s reproductive rights makes it very important to understand them.

The rationality of those who support the punishment of addicted mothers focus on the idea that maternal conduct could lead to potential detrimental effects upon the fetus and that prosecution of such behavior would serve as both retribution for the fetus and as a deterrent. Whereas those who advocate for the pregnant women view this rational as not only impermissible but also unconstitutional as in current legal standing the fetus has no rights that usurp those of the pregnant woman (Stone-Manista, 2009, pp.823-856). Advocates also suggests that the breadth of forces that lead to drug use in pregnant women have a prevalent cultural and social foundation that the proponents for deterrence and retribution ignore in favor of strict scrutiny. This conflict between women’s rights and fetal rights has caused a paradigm in the prosecution of pregnant drug users as the interpretation of criminal sanctions argues over the definition of ‘child’ as encompassing fetuses in the definition would then lay the foundation for punishment for a woman’s conduct during pregnancy (Stone-Magnets, 2009, pp.823-856). Though currently it is unconstitutional and legally impermissible to prosecute women with state child abuse statutes in regards to drug use during pregnancy; advocates of fetal rights continue to follow

At 11 years old she saw her mother deceased in a casket. She gave birth to her first baby at the age of 16 and had five more children to relieve issues of feeling empty and alone. As the pressures of teen pregnancy, poverty and motherhood mount Diane turns to crack cocaine and neglect her then young children. Her eldest daughter reports her drug use to her teachers which results in the removal of all six of Diane’s children into foster care for a period of 10 years. During that time Diane turns to her community drug rehabilitation center, Child welfare services, her religion and her therapist for help in recovering from her addictions and for help in reuniting with her children.

Many women, including teens, abuse drugs while they are pregnant. This rate is especially high to those who are homeless, underprivileged, or live in a broken home. In order for drug abusers to even have a chance at beating their addiction they have to have support whether it’s family, friends, or boyfriend/spouse. They must also let the abuser now all the consequences to themselves and the unborn child. There are many consequences when using drugs during pregnancy such as miscarriage, health risks to baby, and health risks to the mother. And learning disabilities and brain damage to the fetus.

Once this girl started with the drugs, she could not stop. As soon as she tried the first drug, it lead to all of the other drugs and things that she did. Her first time doing the drug was an accident, and she did not know, but she made the wrong choice in continuing to do them. She said it gave her a feeling of belonging and love that she had never felt before. If her parents or her close friends had paid more attention to her, then some of the events that happened would not have happened. Her heavy drug use lead to her runaway from home to the streets, involvement in crime, her prostitution, and her visit to the insane asylum. She found a "best friend" (Chris) - one that would give her drugs - and they decided to runaway and leave their family and friends to start their own shop in San Francisco. They thought they could not handle their parents telling them what is right and what is wrong, but that is what they needed to hear. They were naive in thinking they could live their lives alone without any rules or any authority.