Skinner v. Oklahoma

[A18]

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

The Supreme Court invalidated an Oklahoma law that ordered the forced sterilization of individuals convicted of three violations of certain laws.

[Emsworth]

A horrendous ruling. The Supreme Court invalidated the Oklahoma law on the grounds that it prescribed sterilization for burglers but not embezzlers. Supposedly, this distinction violated the equal protection clause. The very idea that a state is not allowed to punish different crimes differently is simply repugnant. It is the state legislature, not the Supreme Court, that must weigh different crimes, and determine the appropriate penalties. This decision utterly distorted the Fourteenth Amendment, and further muddled equal protection clause jurisprudence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What is your opinion on Stone's concurrence based on due process instead of equal protection?

[Emsworth]

What is your opinion on Stone's concurrence based on due process instead of equal protection?

Skinner's sterlization was authorized by Oklahoma law (the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act). Since the deprivation of property was in accordance with the law, the due process clause was not violated.

[Bono]

Do you think this would fit under cruel and unusual punishment?

[Emsworth]

Do you think this would fit under cruel and unusual punishment?

An Eighth Amendment argument is certainly much more reasonable than an argument under the due process clause or equal protection clause. However, I don't think that sterlization is cruel and unusual, because it does not involve torture or excessive barbarity.