Buck v. Bell: Difference between revisions
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
#With regards to procedure, the rights of the individual are carefully considered and protected from abuse by the Virginia law. | #With regards to procedure, the rights of the individual are carefully considered and protected from abuse by the Virginia law. | ||
#Extreme care was taken, in the immediate case, to comply with the procedure established by the Virginia law. | #Extreme care was taken, in the immediate case, to comply with the procedure established by the Virginia law. | ||
#With extreme care taken, the appellant's right to due process of law under the fourteenth amendment | #With extreme care taken, the appellant's right to due process of law under the fourteenth amendment had not been violated. | ||
#The idea that the public welfare may request an individual's life, as well as lesser sacrifices "in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence." | |||
#"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." | |||
#The Virginia law avoids violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment because it is applied "to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow." | |||
=Additional Opinions= | =Additional Opinions= | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 28 April 2009
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 71 L. Ed. 1000, 47 S. Ct. 584 (1927)
Appellants:
- Carrie Buck
Defendant:
- Bell, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded
The Court's opinion was given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Facts of the Case
Carrie Buck was a feeble minded, 18 year old, white woman, who was the daughter of a feeble minded woman and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. In 1924, an Act of Virginia is created that allows for the sterilization of those with mental defect in cases where the welfare of the patient and society may be promoted. The defendant ordered the sterilization by salpingectomy of the appellant Carrie Buck, who then brought this case to the Circuit Court of Amherst County.
Issues Involved
The issues involved in this case include, but are not limited to:
- Whether the Virginia law, which authorizes the sterilization of the mentally disabled, violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
- Whether the Virginia law, which authorizes the sterilization of the mentally disabled, violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the Virginia Court of Appeals decision to affirm a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County, which validated the order by the defendant to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck.
Holding and Rationale of the Court
The Virginia law, which authorizes the sterilization of the mentally disabled in no way violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment.
The rationale of the Court was:
- With regards to procedure, the rights of the individual are carefully considered and protected from abuse by the Virginia law.
- Extreme care was taken, in the immediate case, to comply with the procedure established by the Virginia law.
- With extreme care taken, the appellant's right to due process of law under the fourteenth amendment had not been violated.
- The idea that the public welfare may request an individual's life, as well as lesser sacrifices "in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence."
- "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."
- The Virginia law avoids violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment because it is applied "to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow."
Additional Opinions
Justice Butler dissented with the Court's opinion.
Additional Links
The American Eugenics Movement
