INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT review activity
INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT 430 U.S. 651, 97 S. CT. 1401 (1977)
GENERAL RULE OF LAW: The disciplinary use of corporal punishment in public schools is not barred by the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.
PROCEDURE SUMMARY:
Plaintiffs: Ingraham and other parents of children in Dade County, Florida, public school system (P)
Defendant: Wright, principal of Drew High School, Dade County (D)
U.S. District Court Decision: Held for Wright (D)
U.S. Court of Appeals Decision: Affirmed
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Affirmed (6-3 vote)
FACTS: Children enrolled in Drew High School in Dade County, Florida, were subjected to paddling or corporal punishment as a means of maintaining student discipline. In a class action suit filed in federal district court, Ingraham (P) and other parents alleged that paddling violated the students’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and violated due process. The district court found that the paddling in Dade County schools was not particularly severe and that Florida’s common law actions for battery were sufficient to protect the children against excessive force. Its dismissal of Ingraham’s (P) action was affirmed by the court of appeals, and Ingraham (P) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Is the disciplinary use of corporal punishment in public schools barred by the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (Powell, J.) No. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” does not apply to school paddling. The Eighth Amendment, which also prohibits excessive fines and bail, was designed to protect those charged with crimes and was intended to limit the discretion of law enforcement agencies in inflicting bodily injury. Justice Powell noted that the derivation of the language "cruel and unusual punishment" clause goes back to the English Bill of Rights of 1869. Unable to find any case laws outside the criminal process where the Court has ruled the Eighth Amendment to be applicable, Powell acknowledged that the Court has on several occasions stated that the meaning of the cruel and unusual punishment clause may evolve "as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice" but cautioned that any such evolution should not take the Eighth Amendment beyond the realm of criminal punishment.
Public schools are relatively open and subject to scrutiny, and traditional common law remedies are available to those subjected to excessive force. These afford adequate protection to children who might be disciplined through paddling. Further, the risk of violation of children’s substantive rights is low enough that prospective procedural safeguards are unnecessary; thus, paddling does not offend the children’s due process rights. Affirmed.
COMMENT: Justice White, in a dissenting opinion, would have extended the Eighth Amendment’s ban on inhumane punishment to corporal punishment in public schools. White, along with Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens in a challenging dissent to the majority's opinion, pointed out that nowhere does the Eighth Amendment state that its limitations apply only to criminal punishment.
...." if the framers had intended such a meaning, the simple insertion of the word criminal would have accomplished that purpose." In White's view, application of the Eighth Amendment does not turn on whether the behavior of the alleged wrongdoer is labeled criminal or not, but on whether the sanctions are applied as punishment. This can be determined by asking if the sanctions are aimed at retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. If so, the sanctions are subject to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.He also would have accorded children greater due process rights, such as a discussion in advance, perhaps informally, between the student and disciplinarian concerning the reasons for and against paddling. Justice White noted quite persuasively that corporal punishment, once inflicted, is final and irreparable; precautions such as an informal “hearing” are a small burden given this reality. (
Some states, such as Pennsylvania, found Justice White’s argument convincing and limited or prohibited paddling. Today’s growing concern with child abuse must also be considered. In a corporal punishment situation, it is entirely likely that a child abuse charge will be filed (in those states where child abuse is not a specific crime, a specific criminal charge would be substituted). Even more likely would be an action through an area human services division that would take prompt investigatory action, regardless of the criminal nature of the activity.
Discussion Questions
1. At the time of the INGRAHAM decision, there were 5 majority justices. What decision would you expect the these same justices to use in deciding whether paddling can be banned as a "cruel and unusual punishment" TODAY (over 35 years after the INGRAHAM decision?
2. There were 4 diseenting justices, What decision would you expect these dissenting justices to come to TODAY?
3. In your view, did the actions of the defendant school district violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment? If so, how? If not, why not?
4.Absent the Eighth Amendment claim,what recourse do parents have if they believe that their child is receiving excessive corporal punishment in school?
5. Suppose the facts of this case were the same, but the boys who were paddled were attending school in a juvenile corrections school they had been sent to because of crimes committed. Would the Supreme Court analysis have been the same as it was in INGRAHAM?
GENERAL RULE OF LAW: The disciplinary use of corporal punishment in public schools is not barred by the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.
PROCEDURE SUMMARY:
Plaintiffs: Ingraham and other parents of children in Dade County, Florida, public school system (P)
Defendant: Wright, principal of Drew High School, Dade County (D)
U.S. District Court Decision: Held for Wright (D)
U.S. Court of Appeals Decision: Affirmed
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Affirmed (6-3 vote)
FACTS: Children enrolled in Drew High School in Dade County, Florida, were subjected to paddling or corporal punishment as a means of maintaining student discipline. In a class action suit filed in federal district court, Ingraham (P) and other parents alleged that paddling violated the students’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and violated due process. The district court found that the paddling in Dade County schools was not particularly severe and that Florida’s common law actions for battery were sufficient to protect the children against excessive force. Its dismissal of Ingraham’s (P) action was affirmed by the court of appeals, and Ingraham (P) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Is the disciplinary use of corporal punishment in public schools barred by the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (Powell, J.) No. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” does not apply to school paddling. The Eighth Amendment, which also prohibits excessive fines and bail, was designed to protect those charged with crimes and was intended to limit the discretion of law enforcement agencies in inflicting bodily injury. Justice Powell noted that the derivation of the language "cruel and unusual punishment" clause goes back to the English Bill of Rights of 1869. Unable to find any case laws outside the criminal process where the Court has ruled the Eighth Amendment to be applicable, Powell acknowledged that the Court has on several occasions stated that the meaning of the cruel and unusual punishment clause may evolve "as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice" but cautioned that any such evolution should not take the Eighth Amendment beyond the realm of criminal punishment.
Public schools are relatively open and subject to scrutiny, and traditional common law remedies are available to those subjected to excessive force. These afford adequate protection to children who might be disciplined through paddling. Further, the risk of violation of children’s substantive rights is low enough that prospective procedural safeguards are unnecessary; thus, paddling does not offend the children’s due process rights. Affirmed.
COMMENT: Justice White, in a dissenting opinion, would have extended the Eighth Amendment’s ban on inhumane punishment to corporal punishment in public schools. White, along with Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens in a challenging dissent to the majority's opinion, pointed out that nowhere does the Eighth Amendment state that its limitations apply only to criminal punishment.
...." if the framers had intended such a meaning, the simple insertion of the word criminal would have accomplished that purpose." In White's view, application of the Eighth Amendment does not turn on whether the behavior of the alleged wrongdoer is labeled criminal or not, but on whether the sanctions are applied as punishment. This can be determined by asking if the sanctions are aimed at retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. If so, the sanctions are subject to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.He also would have accorded children greater due process rights, such as a discussion in advance, perhaps informally, between the student and disciplinarian concerning the reasons for and against paddling. Justice White noted quite persuasively that corporal punishment, once inflicted, is final and irreparable; precautions such as an informal “hearing” are a small burden given this reality. (
Some states, such as Pennsylvania, found Justice White’s argument convincing and limited or prohibited paddling. Today’s growing concern with child abuse must also be considered. In a corporal punishment situation, it is entirely likely that a child abuse charge will be filed (in those states where child abuse is not a specific crime, a specific criminal charge would be substituted). Even more likely would be an action through an area human services division that would take prompt investigatory action, regardless of the criminal nature of the activity.
Discussion Questions
1. At the time of the INGRAHAM decision, there were 5 majority justices. What decision would you expect the these same justices to use in deciding whether paddling can be banned as a "cruel and unusual punishment" TODAY (over 35 years after the INGRAHAM decision?
2. There were 4 diseenting justices, What decision would you expect these dissenting justices to come to TODAY?
3. In your view, did the actions of the defendant school district violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment? If so, how? If not, why not?
4.Absent the Eighth Amendment claim,what recourse do parents have if they believe that their child is receiving excessive corporal punishment in school?
5. Suppose the facts of this case were the same, but the boys who were paddled were attending school in a juvenile corrections school they had been sent to because of crimes committed. Would the Supreme Court analysis have been the same as it was in INGRAHAM?