skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 48574 Find in a Library
Title: INGRAHAM DECISION - PROTECTING THE ROD
Journal: TRIAL  Volume:13  Issue:10  Dated:(OCTOBER 1977)  Pages:25-27,37
Author(s): N K SPLAIN
Corporate Author: Assoc of Trial Lawyers of America
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 4
Sponsoring Agency: Assoc of Trial Lawyers of America
Washington, DC 20007
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION BEARING ON THE LEGALITIES OF THE USE OF CORPORATE PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS IS DISCUSSED.
Abstract: IN REVIEWING CASES INVOLVING THE CHALLENGE TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE SCHOOLS PRIOR TO THE INGRAHAM CASE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT WHILE COURTS WERE NOT READY TO BAN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PER SE OR FAVOR PARENTAL DESIRES OVER SCHOOL PRACTICES WITH REFERENCE TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THEY WERE SHOWING AN INCLINATION TO PROVIDE REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WAS CHALLENGED ON 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS GROUNDS. THE COURT HELD THAT THE 8TH AMENDMENT PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO PUNITIVE ACTION FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, AND WAS, THEREFORE, NOT APPLICABLE IN A SCHOOL CONTEXT THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT, WHILE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IMPLICATED A 14TH AMENDMENT LIBERTY INTEREST IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO BE FREE FROM BODILY RESTRAINT AND PUNISHMENT, THE COMMON LAW TORT ACTION TO REMEDY UNREASONABLE PUNISHMENT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PROTECTION. THE MINORITY OPINION POINTS OUT THAT TORT ACTION IS UTTERLY INADEQUATE TO PROTECT AGAINST ERRONEOUS OR EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF FLORIDA LAW PROTECTING THE TEACHER FROM CIVIL ACTION IN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CASES. IN ADDITION, IT IS ARGUED THAT CIVIL REMEDIES AFTER THE FACT OF AN INJURY, PARTICULARLY TO A CHILD, ARE HARDLY SUFFICIENT. THE AUTHOR SUPPORTS THE MINORITY OPINION AND ARGUES FOR MORE SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL STRUCTURES BINDING UPON SCHOOL OFFICIALS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS CONSIDERED INSENSITIVE AND REGRESSIVE. (RCB)
Index Term(s): Case studies; Child abuse; Education; Laws and Statutes; Privacy and security; Punishment; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=48574

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.