User:Maitep1/sandbox

Background
In 1935, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma passed 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." Exceptions to this ruling were those who committed what are considered white-collar crimes.

 Background 

The history of eugenics in America dates back to the late 1800's. This tragic moment in history led to the sterilizations of many that were deemed to be feebleminded or those seen as unfit to be able to function and integrate into society. "As the concept of eugenics took hold, prominent citizens, scientists and socialists championed the cause and established the Eugenics Record Office." In a bid to create a more uniformed society, those ranked at the bottom of the hierarchy in terms of intelligence were sterilized against their will. Eventually, thirty three states enacted policies that would allow for sterilizations to be performed on those that the government concluded were not deemed fit.

Considering the country's history in regards to the eugenics movement, it's important to note how the following case of Buck v. Bell impacted future cases about sterilization that would come against the Supreme Court. The case of Carrie Buck set a precedent for Skinner v. Oklahoma as it was one of the most famous cases involving involuntary sterilization of the "feebleminded." The outcome of Carrie's case resulted in the Court upholding the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 in which it was argued that it violated the Constitution. After the decision of Buck v. Bell, states began to perform sterilizations of the feebleminded at higher rates than seen before. "According to historian Edwin Black, between 1907 and 1927, the year the Court decided Buck v. Bell, approximately 6,000 people were forcibly sterilized. In just the 13 years after Buck, there would be 30,000 more." The decision in this landmark case played a big role in the outcome of Skinner v. Oklahoma.

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

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 Due Process Clause, specifically procedural due process, more than it violated the 14th Amendment. His main argument was that in order for legislation to convict and sterilize the defendant, there needed to be proof that criminal behavior could be inherited genetically, which the court had no proof of at the time. He cited Buck Vs. Bell, saying that because it has been proven that feeblemindedness is inheritable, sterilization is acceptable, but in the case of Skinner vs. Oklahoma, it was not.

Opinion of the Supreme Court

Because Skinner was not given the opportunity to introduce an expert witness at his trial, the Court had no evidence to support his sterilization based on claims that he was 'feebleminded' because he was a repeated offender. In the 1990's, medical images such as radiology and CT scans were used in the courts as a way to convince juries that mental health issues--which then led to criminal acts and behaviors-- could be seen on scans. For example, in the trial of John W. Hinckley, his defense team introduced an expert witness, Dr. David Bear, to testify that scans showed how Hinckley's brain was affected by his insanity. At the time, it was believed that criminal behavior and feeblemindedness could be shown on CT scans and x-rays. According to Cornell Law, "An intelligent evaluation of facts is often difficult or impossible without the application of some scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge." If Skinner's defense team had introduced an expert witness at the beginning of his original trial, the decision might've concluded earlier. Having an expert witness is important in helping determine how a case will be decided. It is possible that if a medical expert had testified for him, he/she could've argued that 1) Skinner's scans show no signs of a distressed brain therefore barring a sterilization on the bases of punishment or 2) theoretically, no brain scan can actually determine or diagnose a mental health issue that would lead to criminal behaviors. Carrie Buck