<table valign="TOP" style="border-collapse: collapse;" align="right" border="0" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="300"> <tbody><tr><td width="275"> <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" id="AutoNumber6" border="0" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right" width="100%"> <!-- SiteSearch Google --> <form method="get" action="http://www.google.com/custom" target="_top"> <input name="domains" value="www.AbsoluteAstronomy.com" type="hidden"> <input name="q" size="31" maxlength="255" value="" type="text"> <input name="sa" value="Search" type="submit"> <input name="sitesearch" value="www.AbsoluteAstronomy.com" checked="checked" type="hidden"> <input name="client" value="pub-2057283477293842" type="hidden"> <input name="forid" value="1" type="hidden"> <input name="ie" value="ISO-8859-1" type="hidden"> <input name="oe" value="ISO-8859-1" type="hidden"> <input name="cof" value="GALT:#008000;GL:1;DIV:#000000;VLC:663399;AH:center;BGC:FFFFFF;LBGC:000000;ALC:0000FF;LC:0000FF;T:000000;GFNT:0000FF;GIMP:0000FF;LH:121;LW:248;L:http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/images/logo2.jpg;S:http://www.absoluteastronomy.com;FORID:1;" type="hidden"> <input name="hl" value="en" type="hidden"> </form> <!-- SiteSearch Google --></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right" width="100%"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-2057283477293842"; google_ad_width = 300; google_ad_height = 250; google_ad_format = "300x250_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_ad_channel =""; google_color_border = "FFFFFF"; google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; google_color_link = "3333FF"; google_color_url = "003300"; google_color_text = "000000"; //--></script>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><iframe name="google_ads_frame" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-2057283477293842&dt=1129907620608&lmt=1125552568&format=300x250_as&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.absoluteastronomy.com%2Fencyclopedia%2Fs%2Fsk%2Fskinner_v._oklahoma.htm&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_text=000000&color_link=3333FF&color_url=003300&color_border=FFFFFF&ad_type=text_image&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dskinner%2Bv%2Boklahoma%26sourceid%3Dmozilla-search%26start%3D0%26start%3D0%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&cc=100&u_h=1024&u_w=1280&u_ah=994&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-240&u_his=13&u_java=true&u_nplug=17&u_nmime=68" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"><img></iframe></td></tr></tbody> </table>
Skinner v. Oklahoma
[Categories: 1942 in law, Eugenics, Birth control, Fourteenth Amendment case law, Equal protection cases, U.S. Supreme Court cases]
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) was the (The highest federal court in the United States; has final appellate jurisdiction and has jurisdiction over all other courts in the nation) United States Supreme Court ruling which held that (Click link for more info and facts about compulsory sterilization) compulsory sterilization could not be sentenced as a punishment for a crime.
Under (A state in south central United States) Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935, the state could sentence (Click link for more info and facts about compulsory sterilization) compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted two or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." The defendant, Jack T. Skinner, had been convicted twice for chicken-stealing and a third time for armed robbery.
The motivation behind the law was primarily (Click link for more info and facts about eugenic) eugenic: to try and weed "unfit" individuals from the (Click link for more info and facts about gene pool) gene pool. Criminal sterilization laws like the one in Oklahoma were designed to target "criminality," believed by some at the time to possibly be a (Click link for more info and facts about hereditary) hereditary trait. Most punitive sterilization laws, including the Oklahoma statute, prescribed (Surgical procedure that removes all or part of the vas deferens (usually as a means of sterilization); is sometimes reversible) vasectomy as the method of rendering the individual infertile (which, unlike (Surgical removal of the testes or ovaries (usually to inhibit hormone secretion in cases of breast cancer in women or prostate cancer in men)) castration, does not affect sexual urge or function) in males, and (Surgical removal of one or both Fallopian tubes) salpingectomy in females (a relatively invasive operation, requiring heavy sedation, and hence with more risks to personal well-being).
In section 195 of the act, it was specifically outlined that "offenses arising out of the violation of the prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement, or political offenses, shall not come or be considered within the terms of this Act."
This particular exception is what was chiefly behind the ruling. The Court unanimously held that the Act violated the (Click link for more info and facts about Equal Protection Clause) Equal Protection Clause of the (An amendment to the Constitution of the United States adopted in 1868; extends the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as to the federal government) Fourteenth Amendment, because (Click link for more info and facts about white-collar crime) white-collar crimes like (The fraudulent appropriation of funds or property entrusted to your care but actually owned by someone else) embezzlement were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction. Justice (Click link for more info and facts about William O. Douglas) William O. Douglas concluded that:
<dl> <dd>Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. We have not the slightest basis for inferring that that line has any significance in eugenics, nor that the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses. In terms of fines and imprisonment, the crimes of larceny and embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn.</dd> </dl>
Furthermore, because of the social and biological implications of (The act of making copies) reproduction, and the irreversibility of sterilization operations, Justice Douglas also stressed that compulsory sterilization laws in general should be held to (Click link for more info and facts about strict scrutiny) strict scrutiny:
<dl> <dd>The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.</dd> </dl>
The effect of the ruling
Skinner v. Oklahoma is often erroneously attributed for ending all (Click link for more info and facts about compulsory sterilization) compulsory sterilization in the (North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776) United States. In reality however the only types of sterilization which the ruling immediately ended were punitive sterilizations—it did not directly comment on compulsory sterilization of the mentally deficient and is not a strict overturning of the Court's ruling in (Click link for more info and facts about Buck v. Bell) Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Furthermore, most of the over 64,000 individuals sterilized under eugenic laws in the USA were not criminals; punitive sterilizations made up only negligible amounts of the total operations performed, as most states and prison officials were nervous about the legal status of punitive sterilizations (which were not affirmed in Buck v. Bell specifically, either) as possible violations of the (Position eight in a countable series of things) Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. Compulsory sterilizations of the mentally deficient in the USA continued until the early 1960s, though many of their laws stayed on the books for many years longer (though they were scarcely used).
The 1942 ruling did, however, create a nervous legal atmosphere regarding these other forms of sterilizations, and put a heavy damper on sterilization rates which had boomed since the Buck v. Bell ruling in 1927. After the discovery of the (A German member of Adolf Hitler's political party) Nazi atrocities done in the name of (The study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)) eugenics—including the compulsory sterilization of 450,000 individuals in barely more than a decade under a sterilization law which drew heavy inspiration from American statutes—and the close association between eugenics and (The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races) racism, eugenics as an ideology lost almost all public favor.
:smoker2:
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><iframe name="google_ads_frame" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-2057283477293842&dt=1129907620608&lmt=1125552568&format=300x250_as&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.absoluteastronomy.com%2Fencyclopedia%2Fs%2Fsk%2Fskinner_v._oklahoma.htm&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_text=000000&color_link=3333FF&color_url=003300&color_border=FFFFFF&ad_type=text_image&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dskinner%2Bv%2Boklahoma%26sourceid%3Dmozilla-search%26start%3D0%26start%3D0%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&cc=100&u_h=1024&u_w=1280&u_ah=994&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-240&u_his=13&u_java=true&u_nplug=17&u_nmime=68" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"><img></iframe></td></tr></tbody> </table>
Skinner v. Oklahoma
[Categories: 1942 in law, Eugenics, Birth control, Fourteenth Amendment case law, Equal protection cases, U.S. Supreme Court cases]
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) was the (The highest federal court in the United States; has final appellate jurisdiction and has jurisdiction over all other courts in the nation) United States Supreme Court ruling which held that (Click link for more info and facts about compulsory sterilization) compulsory sterilization could not be sentenced as a punishment for a crime.
Under (A state in south central United States) Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935, the state could sentence (Click link for more info and facts about compulsory sterilization) compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted two or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." The defendant, Jack T. Skinner, had been convicted twice for chicken-stealing and a third time for armed robbery.
The motivation behind the law was primarily (Click link for more info and facts about eugenic) eugenic: to try and weed "unfit" individuals from the (Click link for more info and facts about gene pool) gene pool. Criminal sterilization laws like the one in Oklahoma were designed to target "criminality," believed by some at the time to possibly be a (Click link for more info and facts about hereditary) hereditary trait. Most punitive sterilization laws, including the Oklahoma statute, prescribed (Surgical procedure that removes all or part of the vas deferens (usually as a means of sterilization); is sometimes reversible) vasectomy as the method of rendering the individual infertile (which, unlike (Surgical removal of the testes or ovaries (usually to inhibit hormone secretion in cases of breast cancer in women or prostate cancer in men)) castration, does not affect sexual urge or function) in males, and (Surgical removal of one or both Fallopian tubes) salpingectomy in females (a relatively invasive operation, requiring heavy sedation, and hence with more risks to personal well-being).
In section 195 of the act, it was specifically outlined that "offenses arising out of the violation of the prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement, or political offenses, shall not come or be considered within the terms of this Act."
This particular exception is what was chiefly behind the ruling. The Court unanimously held that the Act violated the (Click link for more info and facts about Equal Protection Clause) Equal Protection Clause of the (An amendment to the Constitution of the United States adopted in 1868; extends the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as to the federal government) Fourteenth Amendment, because (Click link for more info and facts about white-collar crime) white-collar crimes like (The fraudulent appropriation of funds or property entrusted to your care but actually owned by someone else) embezzlement were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction. Justice (Click link for more info and facts about William O. Douglas) William O. Douglas concluded that:
<dl> <dd>Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. We have not the slightest basis for inferring that that line has any significance in eugenics, nor that the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses. In terms of fines and imprisonment, the crimes of larceny and embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn.</dd> </dl>
Furthermore, because of the social and biological implications of (The act of making copies) reproduction, and the irreversibility of sterilization operations, Justice Douglas also stressed that compulsory sterilization laws in general should be held to (Click link for more info and facts about strict scrutiny) strict scrutiny:
<dl> <dd>The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.</dd> </dl>
The effect of the ruling
Skinner v. Oklahoma is often erroneously attributed for ending all (Click link for more info and facts about compulsory sterilization) compulsory sterilization in the (North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776) United States. In reality however the only types of sterilization which the ruling immediately ended were punitive sterilizations—it did not directly comment on compulsory sterilization of the mentally deficient and is not a strict overturning of the Court's ruling in (Click link for more info and facts about Buck v. Bell) Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Furthermore, most of the over 64,000 individuals sterilized under eugenic laws in the USA were not criminals; punitive sterilizations made up only negligible amounts of the total operations performed, as most states and prison officials were nervous about the legal status of punitive sterilizations (which were not affirmed in Buck v. Bell specifically, either) as possible violations of the (Position eight in a countable series of things) Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. Compulsory sterilizations of the mentally deficient in the USA continued until the early 1960s, though many of their laws stayed on the books for many years longer (though they were scarcely used).
The 1942 ruling did, however, create a nervous legal atmosphere regarding these other forms of sterilizations, and put a heavy damper on sterilization rates which had boomed since the Buck v. Bell ruling in 1927. After the discovery of the (A German member of Adolf Hitler's political party) Nazi atrocities done in the name of (The study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)) eugenics—including the compulsory sterilization of 450,000 individuals in barely more than a decade under a sterilization law which drew heavy inspiration from American statutes—and the close association between eugenics and (The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races) racism, eugenics as an ideology lost almost all public favor.
:smoker2:
