Skinner v. Oklahoma

Last updated

Skinner v. Oklahoma
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued May 6, 1942
Decided June 1, 1942
Full case nameSkinner v. Oklahoma ex. rel. Williamson, Attorney General
Citations316 U.S. 535 ( more )
62 S.Ct. 1110,
86 L.Ed. 1655
Case history
PriorSkinner v. State, 139 Okla. 235 (Okla., 1941),
115 P.2d 123
SubsequentSkinner v. State, 195 Okla. 106 (Okla., 195),
155 P.2d 715
Holding
A statute of Oklahoma provides for the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy, of "habitual criminals" — an habitual criminal being defined therein as any person who, having been convicted two or more times, in Oklahoma or in any other State, of "felonies involving moral turpitude," is thereafter convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Oklahoma for such a crime. Expressly excepted from the terms of the statute are certain offenses, including embezzlement. As applied to one who was convicted once of stealing chickens and twice of robbery, held that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
James F. Byrnes  · Robert H. Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceStone
ConcurrenceJackson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amendment XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Buck v. Bell (1927) (in part)

Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), is a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling [1] that held that laws permitting the compulsory sterilization of criminals are unconstitutional as it violates a person's rights given under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. [2] [3] [4] The relevant Oklahoma law applied to "habitual criminals" but excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties.

Contents

Background

In 1935, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in favor of the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, which allowed the state to impose a sentence of compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted three or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." [4] Exceptions to that ruling were those who committed what are considered white-collar crimes.

All defendants were provided with a jury trial organized by the State Attorney. The jury was asked whether the defendant was a habitual criminal according to the definition of the act and, if so, to conclude that sterilization would have no other negative effect on the defendant's health; if the jury so determined, the defendant would be punished by sterilization. [4] Most punitive sterilization laws, including the Oklahoma statute, prescribed vasectomy for males and salpingectomy for females as the method of rendering the individual infertile. [4]

The Sterilization Act was first put to use in May 1936. Hubert Moore, a five-time convict, was the first individual the state had given an approved petition for sterilization. When other prisoners heard the news of the approved petition, they rioted and attempted to escape. Hubert Moore escaped from prison in June 1936. [4]

The second petition approved was for Jack T. Skinner, convicted once for stealing chickens and twice for armed robbery. In October 1936, he was convicted a fourth time and sentenced to sterilization. Skinner's lawyers, Heba Irwin Aston and Guy Andrews, took their appeal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, claiming jeopardization of Skinner's rights as given under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled against the appeal 5-4 and maintained the sentence of sterilization. [4]

Skinner's lawyers challenged the ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by bringing an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The oral arguments were heard May 6, 1942, and the decision was given on June 1, 1942. [4]

Decision

The Court held unanimously that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because those convicted of white-collar crime, such as embezzlement, were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction.

Justice William O. Douglas concluded:

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 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. [5]

Furthermore, because of the social and biological implications of reproduction and the irreversibility of sterilization operations, Justice Douglas also stressed that compulsory sterilization laws in general should be held to strict scrutiny:

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. [5]

In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone stated that while he concurred with Justice Douglas's opinion, he believed that in his opinion, the Act violated the Due Process Clause, specifically procedural due process, more than it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. His main argument was that for legislation to convict and sterilize the defendant, there needed to be proof that criminal behavior could be inherited genetically, which the court had none at the time. He cited Buck v. Bell and said that because it has been proven that feeblemindedness is inheritable, sterilization was acceptable, but in the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, it was not. [4] [5]

Aftermath

The only types of sterilization that the Court's ruling immediately ended were punitive sterilization. It did not directly comment on compulsory sterilization of the mentally disabled or the mentally ill and was not a strict overturning of Buck v. Bell (1927). Furthermore, most of the over 64,000 sterilizations performed in the US under the aegis of eugenics legislation were not in prison institutions or performed on convicted criminals. Punitive sterilizations made up only negligible amounts of the total operations performed, as most states and prison officials were nervous about their legal status, which was not affirmed in Buck v. Bell specifically, as possible violations of the Eighth ("cruel and unusual punishment") or Fourteenth Amendments ("Due Process" and "Equal Protection Clauses"). Compulsory sterilizations of the mentally disabled and mentally ill continued in the US in significant numbers until the early 1960s. Although many state laws stayed on the books for many years longer, the last known forced sterilization in the United States occurred in 1981 in Oregon. [6] Federal law prohibits use of federal funds to sterilize "any mentally incompetent or institutionalized individual," [7] but states including California use state funds for tubal ligations. A 2013 report showed that between 2006 and 2010, at least 148 women were sterilized after childbirth while incarcerated in two California prisons. In violation of state rules passed in 1994, none of the cases were reviewed by a state oversight committee. [8]

Over a third of all compulsory sterilizations in the United States (over 22,670) took place after Skinner v. Oklahoma.[ citation needed ] The 1942 ruling, however, created a nervous legal atmosphere regarding the other forms of sterilizations and put a heavy damper on sterilization rates, which had boomed since Buck v. Bell in 1927. After the discovery of the Nazi atrocities done in the name of 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 racism, eugenics, as an ideology, lost almost all public favor.[ citation needed ]

In Equal Protection analysis, Skinner applied the compelling state interest test to punitive sterilization, but Buck applied the less rigorous rational basis test to compulsory sterilization of the mentally disabled.[ citation needed ]

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an inmate, incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections and serving a life sentence, was not permitted to inseminate his wife artificially because "the right to procreate is fundamentally inconsistent with incarceration." The Appellate Court distinguished the case from Skinner v. Oklahoma because "the right to procreate while incarcerated and the right to be free from surgical sterilization by prison officials are two very different things." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compulsory sterilization</span> Government policies which force people to undergo surgical sterilization

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, is a government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done through surgical procedures. Several countries implemented sterilization programs in the early 20th century. Although such programs have been made illegal in most countries of the world, instances of forced or coerced sterilizations persist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carrie Buck</span> American Supreme Court case plaintiff

Carrie Elizabeth Buck was the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, after having been ordered to undergo compulsory sterilization for purportedly being "feeble-minded" by her foster parents after their nephew raped and impregnated her. She had given birth to an illegitimate child without the means to support it. The surgery, carried out while Buck was an inmate of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, took place under the authority of the Sterilization Act of 1924, part of the Commonwealth of Virginia's eugenics program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial Integrity Act of 1924</span> Virginia anti-miscegenation law

In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Racial Integrity Act. The act reinforced racial segregation by prohibiting interracial marriage and classifying as "white" a person "who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian." The act, an outgrowth of eugenicist and scientific racist propaganda, was pushed by Walter Plecker, a white supremacist and eugenicist who held the post of registrar of Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry H. Laughlin</span> American eugenicist (1880–1943)

Harry Hamilton Laughlin was an American educator and eugenicist. He served as the superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closure in 1939, and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation.

Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that counsel must be provided for the accused in order to impose a suspended prison sentence.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

The Compulsory Process Clause within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution lets criminal case defendants attain witnesses in their favor by way of a court-ordered subpoena. The Clause is generally interpreted as letting defendants present their own case at trial, though several specific limitations have been placed by the Supreme Court of the United States since this rule began.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in the United States</span>

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century. The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span> United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a challenge to a civil commitment statute for sexual predators in Washington state. The petitioner tried to differentiate this case from previous ones before the Supreme Court which upheld civil commitment statutes. The Court rejected the challenge to the law over the objection of a single Justice.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

An anticanon is a legal text that is now viewed as wrongly reasoned or decided. The term "anticanon" stands in distinction to the canon, which contains basic principles or rulings that almost all people support.

Monroe Osborn was a justice on the Oklahoma State Supreme Court from 1932 until his death on June 20, 1947. He served multiple terms as chief justice.

Compulsory sterilization of disabled people in the U.S. prison system was permitted in the United States from 1907 to the 1960s, during which approximately 60,000 people were sterilized, two-thirds of these people being women. During this time, compulsory sterilization was motivated by eugenics. There is a lengthy history when it comes to compulsory sterilization in the United States and legislation allowing compulsory sterilization pertaining to developmentally disabled people, the U.S. prison system, and marginalized communities.

References

  1. ↑ Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
  2. ↑ Maggs, Gregory E. and Smith, Peter J. (2011) Constitutional Law. A Contemporary Approach. Thomson Reuters. p. 536. ISBN   978-0-314-27355-0
  3. ↑ "The Supreme Court Invalidates Oklahoma's Sterilization Law. No. 782". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 33 (2): 163–165. 1942. JSTOR   1136423.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia". embryo.asu.edu. Retrieved November 26, 2020.
  5. 1 2 3 "Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 26, 2020.
  6. ↑ Sullivan, Julie (November 15, 2002). "State will admit sterilization past". Portland Oregonian . Archived from the original on November 18, 2008. Retrieved August 10, 2016– via People First of Oregon.
  7. ↑ "Federal rules and California law on surgical sterilizations with federal funds". documentcloud.org.
  8. ↑ "Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval". cironline.org. Archived from the original on December 22, 2014. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
  9. ↑ Gerber v. Hickman, 00-16494 (9th Cir.2002)("By no stretch of the imagination, however, did Skinner hold that inmates have the right to exercise their ability to procreate while still in prison. The right to procreate while incarcerated and the right to be free from surgical sterilization by prison officials are two very different things.").
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.