NCJ Number
44865
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 68 Issue: 4 Dated: (DECEMBER 1977) Pages: 634-642
Date Published
1977
Length
9 pages
Annotation
THE BACKGROUND OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION THAT THE PADDLING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN DOES NOT VIOLATE THEIR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS IS ANALYZED.
Abstract
THE SUPREME COURT'S 1977 RULING IN INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT THAT THE PADDLING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE EITHER THEIR RIGHTS AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OR REQUIREMENTS FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW EFFECTIVELY LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO INSTANCES OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE OPENNESS OF THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT, ALONG WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF SUBSEQUENT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES, WAS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. THE COURT, IN ITS OPINION ON THE CASE, ANALYZED THE TEXT OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND FOUND THAT BECAUSE BAIL, FINES, AND PUNISHMENTS WERE TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, APPLICATION OF THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS. THE COURT THEN DETERMINED WHICH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO AFFORD DUE PROCESS. IT CONCLUDED THAT THE COST OF ANY ADVANCE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FAR OUTWEIGHED THE MINIMAL RISK OF ERRONEOUS OR EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT; THEREFORE, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DID NOT COMPEL A HEARING BEFORE ADMINISTERING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT TO STUDENTS. (VDA)