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: 52259 Find in a Library
Title: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT - FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN ONLY
Journal: DRAKE LAW REVIEW  Volume:27  Issue:1  Dated:(1977/78)  Pages:137-165
Author(s): J G HIGGS
Corporate Author: Drake University
Law School
United States of America
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 29
Sponsoring Agency: Drake University
Des Moines, IA 50311
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO DISCIPLINARY CORPORAL PUNISHMENT INFLICTED UPON PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS IS EVALUATED.
Abstract: 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)
Index Term(s): Cruel and unusual punishment; Discipline; School/Student Expulsion; Student forcible control; Students
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=52259

*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.