1927 U.S. Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell - Research Paper Example

?1927 U.S. Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell Buck v Bell, the notorious judgment of 1927 justified Virginia’s sterilization law izingcompulsory sterilization of those whose off-springs were genetically pre-disposed to inherit their mental retardation and such other mental disabilities. Buck, although was not a mentally retarded became a victim of conspiracy by her lawyer who colluded with the state by merely opposing procedural impropriety of Virginia law. The U.S. Supreme Court merely upheld the law as compliant of fourteenth amendment without going through the mistake of fact that Buck was a mentally retarded person. Ever since, many states have enacted promptly and many have since repealed them though after decades of injustice to the forcibly sterilized victims. The genetic pre-disposition is a debatable issue and without any conclusive evidence, it is disastrous to forcibly sterilize the hapless and vulnerable persons in prisons and asylums only. What happened to eugenics, particularly enforced sterilization, in the years following the Supreme Court’s findings in the Buck v. Bell case? What is the current legal status of enforced sterilization in the U.S.? Buck v Bell (1927) case was wrong if viewed from the angle of “mistake of fact” (Larson, 2012, p. 128) but justified within the perspectives of “Eugenics”. It was a mistake of fact because Buck was not mentally retarded nor had a promiscuous life. Her own foster parents’ relatives had raped her resulting in her giving birth to a mentally retarded child which died at the age of eight. Buck could not bear children from her subsequent marriages as she had been forcibly sterilized and she lost her case in the Supreme Court due to the connivance of her own lawyer with the lawyers defending her appeal. This mistake of fact by the Supreme Court upheld the sterilization laws of Virginia immediately after which seven states enacted forced sterilization laws. Thus, 55,000 Americans have been sterilized compulsorily sequel to Buck decision. Already 8,500 eugenic sterilizations had been carried out through 1927. About 63,000 were sterilized by 1963. Average number of eugenic sterilizations were 2273 in 1930s, 1626 in 1940s, 993 in 1950s (Larson, 2012, p. 128). Virginia’s sterilization law was due to over-reaction to the revisiting of Mendelian genetics at the time. It is a scientific fact that mental illnesses can be due to genetic predisposition of individuals concerned meaning that these diseases are hereditary in nature capable of being passed on to future generations or off-springs of an affected individual. Thus, the well-meant laws of state legislature could not but be upheld by the Supreme Court in deference to the wishes of the legislators. Virginia’s eugenic laws were defended by both conservatives and progressives. Republicans, Democrats, lay citizens, Christians and Jews also supported the bills. Supreme Court only upheld the popular will of States concerned. The notions of “like breeds like” and public policy considerations advocated in Plato’s Republic and the idea of encouraging best humans to reproduce were overwhelming as well (Larson, 2012, pp. 120-121). The Buck decision came in 1927 and by 1937 thirty two states had enacted compulsory sterilization laws and five more could manage sterilizations without passing laws to that effect. Merits of eugenics notwithstanding, the Supreme Court was placed with factual mistakes concerning the victim Buck and it therefore upheld the law as having complied with due process requirement that was the only dispute at issue consequent to 14th Amendment (Larson, 2012, p. 124). It is quite ironical that Supreme Court did not think it fit to hold the view that criminal behavior was inheritable and hence ruled against sterilization proposals for three times repeat offenders in the year 1942 while deciding in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). As such, the Supreme Court has not overruled Buck so far. Skinner was overturned for reasons of sterilization as a punishment rather than on the grounds of public health. In fact, even before the Buck’s decision, some state supreme courts had invalidated laws aimed at sterilization of criminals. In 1936, the American Neurological Association denounced sterilization of criminals while at the same endorsing the procedure for certain mental disorders such as schizophrenia, manic-depression, epilepsy and hereditary retardation. Following Skinner decision, sterilization in prisons stopped while it continued unabated in mental health institutions (Larson, 2012, p. 127). Sterilization laws have been repealed by many states though not by all. The first Act was enacted in 1919. Mississippi repealed the sterilization statute in 2008. Washington has not repealed till this day (2011). Between 1973 and 1983, ten states including Virginia repealed their compulsory sterilization laws. Consequent to Skinner decision, J.E.Coogan advocated for the reversal of Buck but it has not happened so far. American Medical Association also questioned the logic of eugenic laws and warned they could be easily abused. In 1962, however, Virginia Advisory Legislative Council declared that there was no scientific evidence or data to support the view that Eugenic laws needed to be revised. After Skinner, many courts upheld the compulsory sterilization laws of their states as constitutional. The Supreme Court of Nebraska argued in 1968 that although right to procreate was a natural and constitutional, citizens did not enjoy rights by outweighing the common welfare. Thus, it was ruled as constitutional in Cavitt (1968), (Haack, 2011). By the time of Cavitt’s decision, scientific opinion had become in favor of repealing of the eugenic laws. American Bar Association observed that the then authorities were skeptical about the so-called scientific basis for eugenic laws. South Dakota Medical Association observed that there was no established evidence that mental disease was inheritable except in rare cases (Haack, 2011). Is the study of genetics, especially heredity, sufficiently predictable to justify using it to make? decisions such as those imposed on Carrie Buck? Should genetics be used as the basis for any type of legal decision? Support your answers Indiana was the first state to pass sterilization law in 1907 with the backing of eugenic studies of defective lineages such as Jukes and Kalikkas who were predominant at that time. Further, this legislation was part of public health activism such as pure food, vaccination and occupational safety etc. California was the third state to pass sterilization law authorizing mental asylum authorities to “asexualize” an inmate or a patient if that would result in improvement of his or her physical, moral or moral condition (Sten, 2005). Mendel’s Genetic Laws rediscovered in 1900 hold the view that children and remote descendants are likely to inherit their parental or ancestral traits. In 1920s, geneticists R.A. Fischer and J.B.S. Haldane of U.K. and Sewell Wright of the U.S. proved mathematically the Mendelian process of evolution of new species without inheritance of acquired traits. Thus, these scientists were convinced of scientific justification of eugenics. They concluded that if the traits were not alterable through environmental factors or blending, then Eugenics must be a fact especially when the genes carrying the traits are characterized by Mendelian factors. It therefore follows that in the case of mental conditions and retardations characterized by Mendelian factors, individuals with such traits should not procreate. Fisher was knighted by the U.K. for his work to prove genetic factors of inheritance. Two Nobel Prize Winners in Genetics from the U.S. Thomas Hunt Morgan and Hermann J Muller championed the cause of Eugenics movement as did American Genetics Association. The most famous Hellen Keller who became blind due to an illness, advocated eugenic remedies for those born with severe disabilities (Larson, 2012).. Conclusion Eugenics laws have been repealed by most of the states that enacted them not on the basis of rejection of genetics justification but on the basis of human rights. A disturbing factor is that persons under the care state institutions alone are singled out leaving those outside their control which smacks of discrimination among the similarly placed persons. References Buck v Bell, 274 U S 200, 205-207 (1927). Haack, S. (2011). Pragmatism, Law, and Morality : The Lessons of Buck v. Bell. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy , III (2), 65-87. Larson, E. J. (2012). Putting Buck v. Bell in Scientific and Historical Context: A Response to Victoria Nourse. Pepperdine Law Review , 39 (1). Skinner v Oklahoma , 316 U S 535 (1942). State v. Cavitt, , 182 Neb. 712, 157 N.W.2d 171 (1968). (Supreme Court of Nebraska 1968). Sten, A. M. (2005). STERILIZED in the Name of Public Health. American Journal of Public Health , 95 (7), 1128-1138. . Read More