Ingraham v. Wright: Justices Ignore Reality Regarding Corporal Punishment (sic) In Schools

When I was writing the Substack version of yesterday's entry on the Eighth Amendment, Justice White's dissent in Ingraham v. Wright again came to mind. It adds some context to his Harmelin dissent. 

The oral argument and opinion also still offend me. A contemporary law article adds more details, including how another student admitted the wrongdoing one of the punished students allegedly did. 

The case involved corporal punishment in public schools. The students were seriously harmed, including one boy having his hand broken. Fifty "licks" with a paddle would be likely to cause problems even if it is done on a sizable butt. 

The oral argument needed more bluntness and less hairsplitting or asinine comments like a justice punching another justice. The bottom line for five justices was that CORPORAL PUNISHMENT of students is not "punishment" for Eighth Amendment purposes. The amendment only applies to punishments obtained by criminal trials.  

I place the words in caps since the dissent is right to be bothered by the majority's denial of the basics. The students were punished. School punishment was involved. It wasn't just some assault by a government agent. It is ridiculously formalistic to ignore this. 

If a person is punished in the open, they retain the same constitutional rights. OTOH, it was supposed to be different for students. They go home, which provides a check. It didn't help the students here much. They were still harmed.  

We can argue that corporal punishment of all kinds is not unconstitutional. Appeals to the past, however, only go so far. We do not think the types of corporal punishments (whipping, ear cropping) acceptable in earlier days are unacceptable now. 

(Some think all corporal punishment in schools, or maybe even out of schools, is wrong.) 

The question was if the corporal punishment here was "cruel and unusual." We should also mix in that school punishment is unlikely to be applied evenly. Certain students, including those of a particular race or class, are likely to be treated differently than others. 

The other issue was the need for a hearing before someone was corporally punished. It is telling that Justice Powell wrote the opinion. He opposed past efforts to provide a hearing when suspensions were involved. Justice Stewart did not provide him with a fifth vote. He silently did so in this case.  

(Note that Powell appealed to history to uphold traditional school discipline. A few years later, he dissented and spoke of a "living constitution," when a habitual criminal was involved.)  

Justice Stevens during the oral argument proposed a situation where a student is confined in a school basement. Stewart answered that was clearly a deprivation of "liberty." Where was that here?

Again, the oral argument did not seem to be blunt enough. The students did not just willingly submit to being hit. They were held down. Their bodily integrity was violated. The government deprived them of "liberty." This is not a complicated issue. 

Rehnquist sneered when the advocate listed various bodily integrity and privacy-type interests. Where was this in the Constitution? Case law honors such interests. I would also reference the Fourth Amendment. People have the right to be secure in their persons. Being held down and being corporally punished is not something to handwave. 

If a student obtains a hearing of sorts before being suspended, they should receive one before being paddled. How could they obtain true relief after the fact? The boy's hand cannot magically be unbroken. 

The only thing offered is an after-the-fact possibility of financial relief. The dissent notes that if the school acted reasonably, even if mistakenly, the student would not receive even that. 

And, it is not like the child gets money for a new bike. The parents get the money. The oral argument was more concerned about so-called trivial (just one smack with a ruler?) corporal punishments (again, sic) requiring some sort of hearing. 

These days any type of touching of students, even a sympathetic hug, can cause problems. Teachers should carefully follow state and federal guidelines. 

I am open to a simple rule that corporal punishment should not be allowed. Do we still give lashes to sailors? Why should we similarly give licks to preteens and teens? It's barbaric on a basic level.

I understand that setting in place a national rule, especially in the mid-1970s, might not have allowed us to go that far. Nonetheless, there was cause for basic safeguards. And, basic acceptance of real life.

This opinion saw fit to do neither. Thus, even forty years later, I am outraged by the whole thing.