Adam Cohen has a new book out on "Supreme Inequality" as in Supreme Court and just read his book on Buck v. Bell. Pretty good though a bit repetitive on the eugenics stuff and a bit too thin on cases that came before (author studied law). Recall reading Paul Lombardo's book years back and Victoria Nourse's article and book on Skinner v. Oklahoma (restraining eugenics applied to some criminals as a violation of equal protection) which discusses the case too is also good. And, Marlee Matlin portraying her in the film. Nourse was an Obama court of appeals pick, filibustered.
As things go, the Virginia eugenics law was better than some (applied only to institutions, limited categories and procedural protections). A basic problem was the bastardization of the process applied to someone not an "imbecile" (or "moron") and not applying basic due process (her lawyer was basically a stooge to help authorize the law in the courts; she and her sister both didn't realize they were sterilized) even if they were technically required. This was a reflection of the basic inequity of the process including open-ended vague terms like "feeble minded." It important to note that not only was eugenics starting to be disfavored (including challenges to dubious intelligence testing) by the 1920s, but most court battles led to the laws being struck down on a variety of grounds (bill of attainder, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection).
As Nourse notes, though substantive liberties were starting to be recognized (see, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, liberty to marry and raise children), something like body integrity was not the usual concern though at times disgust at the nature of the procedure was expressed. Instead, we had findings only sterilizing those in institutions or certain types of people were illegitimate class legislation. The law here was not of that type, but a few courts also deemed it as illegitimate criminal punishments.
And, even after Buck v. Bell, a few state courts found such and such law procedurally inadequate. There was some concern for civil liberties here, if at times expressed in a different fashion. This makes Holmes' opinion and all justices but one (who dissented without an opinion) that much offensive. As the book notes, eugenics seemed to be the one cause Holmes liked, so the brief opinion (unlike his norm) was actually gung ho about the policy (cf. the Brandeis approach). Even the infamous "three generations of imbeciles is enough" is more slogan than reality -- the record did not label Carrie Buck's child (a baby at the time) an "imbecile."
And, the numerous lower court opinions that ruled the other way underlines that even if the law was upheld, the case against it warranted a bit more attention. Buck's so called advocate didn't help matters here, but even his half-hearted effort provided something warranting more than the opinion. About fifteen years later, a criminal eugenics law that applied to some crimes was struck down on equal protection grounds (one justice was on both courts), but Buck v. Bell itself was never overruled. I would think, however, there is enough law in place to at least restrain the process including reliance on vague standards like "feebleminded."
OTOH, people who aren't monsters might debate some extreme case such as sterilizing someone severely mentally disabled who was raped [it later came out by her own account that Carrie Buck herself was raped] or the like. Plus, a range of issues including science, bodily integrity, institutional controls, equal protection and others still remain. Nourse' book, e.g., raises some interesting questions in its conclusion.
As things go, the Virginia eugenics law was better than some (applied only to institutions, limited categories and procedural protections). A basic problem was the bastardization of the process applied to someone not an "imbecile" (or "moron") and not applying basic due process (her lawyer was basically a stooge to help authorize the law in the courts; she and her sister both didn't realize they were sterilized) even if they were technically required. This was a reflection of the basic inequity of the process including open-ended vague terms like "feeble minded." It important to note that not only was eugenics starting to be disfavored (including challenges to dubious intelligence testing) by the 1920s, but most court battles led to the laws being struck down on a variety of grounds (bill of attainder, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection).
As Nourse notes, though substantive liberties were starting to be recognized (see, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, liberty to marry and raise children), something like body integrity was not the usual concern though at times disgust at the nature of the procedure was expressed. Instead, we had findings only sterilizing those in institutions or certain types of people were illegitimate class legislation. The law here was not of that type, but a few courts also deemed it as illegitimate criminal punishments.
And, even after Buck v. Bell, a few state courts found such and such law procedurally inadequate. There was some concern for civil liberties here, if at times expressed in a different fashion. This makes Holmes' opinion and all justices but one (who dissented without an opinion) that much offensive. As the book notes, eugenics seemed to be the one cause Holmes liked, so the brief opinion (unlike his norm) was actually gung ho about the policy (cf. the Brandeis approach). Even the infamous "three generations of imbeciles is enough" is more slogan than reality -- the record did not label Carrie Buck's child (a baby at the time) an "imbecile."
And, the numerous lower court opinions that ruled the other way underlines that even if the law was upheld, the case against it warranted a bit more attention. Buck's so called advocate didn't help matters here, but even his half-hearted effort provided something warranting more than the opinion. About fifteen years later, a criminal eugenics law that applied to some crimes was struck down on equal protection grounds (one justice was on both courts), but Buck v. Bell itself was never overruled. I would think, however, there is enough law in place to at least restrain the process including reliance on vague standards like "feebleminded."
OTOH, people who aren't monsters might debate some extreme case such as sterilizing someone severely mentally disabled who was raped [it later came out by her own account that Carrie Buck herself was raped] or the like. Plus, a range of issues including science, bodily integrity, institutional controls, equal protection and others still remain. Nourse' book, e.g., raises some interesting questions in its conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!