IN THE CASE OF INGRAHAM VERSUS WRIGHT, FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DETERMINED THAT PROHIBITION OF THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE WAS MEANT TO PROTECT ONLY THOSE CONVICTED OF CRIMES AND DID NOT PROTECT PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS UNDERGOING DISCIPLINARY CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. A STRONG DISSENT BY THE REMAINING FOUR JUSTICES REACHED AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSION. RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN DISCIPLINARY CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, INCLUDING THE CHILD, PARENTS, AND THE SCHOOL CONFLICT. THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF COURTS TO INTERFERE IN EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS BECAUSE IT IS FELT JUDGES LACK THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE TO DEAL ADEQUATELY WITH THE SPECIALIZED ISSUES PRESENTED. A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY ARISES WHEN A PERSON PERFORMS AN ACT THAT RESULTS IN HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON, WITHOUT THE RECIPIENT'S CONSENT. THE IMPOSITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT UPON PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS MAY BE BASED UPON CONSENT OF THE PARENTS OR THE CHILD, THE DOCTRINE OF IN LOCO PARENTIS, OR STATUTORY AUTHORITY. IF THE CHILD, OR THE PARENTS ACTING AS GUARDIAN, PROVIDE CONSENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THE POTENTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION IN TORT FOR BATTERY IS NEGATED. STUDENT BEHAVIOR MAY BE CONTROLLED BY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, PERSONS OTHER THAN SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, AND STUDENTS THEMSELVES. PUNISHMENT IN THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT MAY TAKE THE FORM OF DETENTION, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, REPRIMANDS, SUSPENSION, OR EXPULSION. THE SUPREME COURT'S TREATMENT OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ISSUES IN THE INGRAHAM VERSUS WRIGHT CASE, ASIDE FROM THE OBVIOUS RESULT OF IMMUNIZING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF STUDENTS FROM THESE GROUNDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, RAISES SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE FUTURE TREATMENT OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. IN HOLDING THAT THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT ONLY EXTENDS TO PUNISHMENT IN THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, THE COURT NARROWS THE APPLICATION OF THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)