Skinner v. State of Okl. Ex. Rel. Williamson ; Habitual Criminal Sterilization
Skinner v state of oklahoma The first case of many cases dealing with the topic of the reproductive system , the rights of an individual to have the rights to a choice in reproduction . Though Roe v Wade is the most commonly known of the Supreme Court cases regarding reproductive rights it was not the first Supreme Court case regarding this topic. Reproductive rights was in fact not Roe v. Wade , but rather this case had no element that discussed the principle of abortion or contraceptive use.Skinner V, State of oklahoma Rather this case dealt with the topic of a discipline/ punishment based forced sterilization,( the removal of the reproductive capabilities
…show more content…
The United States has also used sterilization on individuals , in the case mentioned above this also was used on the native Americans Without their consent , and also on the mentally incapable. In all cases of forced sterilization in regards of the right or wrong of it is wrong , anything that is forced is considered non consensual. just like any other item that could be done to a person without the individual 's consent it is against the law on almost all cases. As mentioned before the United States has acted in many not necessarily constitutional ways in regards to reproductive rights , another occurrence in which the United States violated the reproductive rights of many is during the time frame which the United States forces native americans onto reservations and when the native american women went to give birth at the birth clinic the medical staff would assist in the birth then after the child had been born they would unconsensually sterilized the Native American women this activity allowed the united states government to control the amount of future reproductions that could take place in given native american
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Most Americans would claim a cop killer should be put to death which is what Scott D Cheever will face if he loses in the Supreme Court of the United States. Scott D Cheever and the state of Kansas argued before Supreme Court of the United States on October 16, 2013. The question posed before the court was when a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the state violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant? The answer is no, the United States Supreme Court should reverse the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court because his fifth amendment’s rights were not violated.
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the authority to restrict the use and sale of contraceptives. Though it is not contraceptives, anymore, that is at the heart of the abortion debate, this ruling was the first step to the expectation of constitutional privacy.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
The case that I decided to write about is one of the most controversial cases that have ever happened in the United States. The Roe v. Wade (1973) case decided that a woman with her doctor could choose to have an abortion during the early months of that pregnancy. However, if the woman chose to wait until the later months of the pregnancy then they would have certain restrictions based on their right to privacy. This case invalidated all state laws which limited women’s access to abortions during their first trimester of their pregnancy which was based on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution. The Amendment states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (Cornell University Law School, 2013).
The facts presented in State v. Fischer would lead a rational trier of fact to have reasonable doubt that Fischer knowingly possessed methamphetamine. The majority concedes to the fact that the State did not offer any direct evidence to establish the “knowingly” element of possession of methamphetamine. The defendant’s knowledge was not determined on the basis of his exclusive ownership or exclusive access to the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was never identified; the passenger of the vehicle was never identified. Fischer possessing marijuana on his person and refusing to submit to a urinalysis likely because of the marijuana in his system is not enough for any rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
Abortion cannot be discussed unless you know the origin of the debate. In December 13, 1971, the argument of abortion surfaced (“Roe v. wade,”). The class action suit was brought by a pregnant single woman who challenged the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life (“Roe v. wade,”). Proceeding Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in almost every State. In 1973, the courts ruled and abortion became legal again.