Skinner vs Oklahoma

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Skinner vs Oklahoma by Mind Map: Skinner vs Oklahoma

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Petitioner- Skinner

1.1.2. Defendants - Oklahoma ex rel Attorney General

1.2. Procedural history

1.2.1. Trial court found skinner could be sterilized under habitual criminal sterilization act

1.2.2. Supreme court of Oklahoma affirmed

1.2.3. Supreme court of USA reversed the decision as unconstitutinal

1.3. What happened

1.3.1. Oklahoma habitual criminal sterilization act says that a person convicted of two or more crimes amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude can be subjected to forced sterilization provided it is not detrimental to his general health. Crimes involving violation of prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement or political offenses were excluded from this act.

1.3.2. The defendant Skinner was convicted of stealing chickens once and robbery with firearms twice In 1936 the attorney general started the proceedings against Skinner to which he objected as being unconstitutional

2. Issues

2.1. Whether the state can sterilize an individual against his will involuntarily if he has been convicted of two or more felonies involving moral turpitude??

3. Rule of law

3.1. The right to have a offspring is a fundamental right, requiring a states interest to interfere in it

3.2. As per the equal protection clause of fourteen amendment all states guarantee the same rights, privileges and protection to all its citizens

4. Analysis

4.1. The act clearly discriminates between larceny and embezzlement as it sterilizes parties who commit larceny but leaves embezzlers alone which is a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment

4.2. Marriage and procreation are the fundamental rights of every indiviual

4.3. The power to sterilize can cause races and people not in majority to disappear

4.4. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a diffrence in eugenics or inheritable traits between the people who commit larceny vs the embezzlers

5. Conclusion

5.1. The decision was reversed by the supreme court of USA