The state of Oklahoma instituted proceedings against Skinner in 1936 seeking to impose the sanctions of the Sterilization Act. The two issues triable in such a proceeding are whether the defendant is a habitual offender and whether he is able to withstand the rigors of sterilization without permanent determent to his health. The qualifying criminal acts must reflect “moral turpitude.” Criminal acts exempt by statute from consideration included offenses arising out of the violation of the prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement, or political offenses.
The Sterilization Act has been challenged on several fronts: the questionable inheritability of criminal traits; due process; cruel and unusual punishment; and, as in the instant case, unequal protection under the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court in its opinion compared side-by-side the properties of larceny and embezzlement, noting that the two types of trespass are intrinsically the same, and the punishment is comparable, but repeated larceny renders the violator subject to sterilization while repeated embezzlement does not. The main difference, the Court noted, between the two crimes is the actual time when felonious intent formed in the mind of the perpetrator. The Supreme Court ruled there was clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination in applying such a drastic, unremedied retribution to one and not the other.
The Court also noted in a concurring opinion that wholesale condemnation of a class to such an invasion of personal liberty, without opportunity to any individual to show that his is not the type of case which would justify resort to the Sterilization Act does not satisfy the demands of due process. See: Skinner v. State of Oklahoma., ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, (1942).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma., ex rel Williamson
|Cite||316 U.S. 535, (1942)|