The study of genetics is undoubtedly important and when utilised selectively and carefully can engender positive change in society. In this paper I consider the concept of eugenics within the context of the case of Buck v Bell and further argue against the propriety of such scientific information in making legal decisions with far reaching consequences.
The term ‘eugenics’ first gained notoriety in the year 1883 when it was used by Sir Francis Gaiton to mean ‘well-born’ (Lombardo, 2008). Eugenics encompasses a set of beliefs that aim at improving the genetic quality of human populations through means such as selective breeding, sterilization, and so on. The concept of eugenics itself is however believed to precede the said coinage, since it is similar to the ‘selective breeding’ thesis of Plato at around 400 BC as well as the ‘natural selection’ thesis of Charles Darwin (Lombardo, 2008). The proponents of this concept usually advocate for positive eugenics which entail encouraging higher reproduction rates amongst individuals with desirable traits, while equally discouraging the same amongst persons with undesired characteristics such as imbecility and idiocy, otherwise known as negative eugenics. This concept is closely related to the anthropological theory of criminology which holds that crime is caused by anthropological traits of the criminals, passed down genetically, as well as the positive criminology school of thought which posits that a person’s behaviour is influenced by extrinsic factors, either cultural or biological (Lombardo, 2008).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The case of Buck v Bell (1927) is considered a landmark case for the Eugenics Movement. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Carrie Buck, had been involuntarily sterilized in the State of Virginia by dint of a state sanctioned programme backed up by a sterilization law of the State. The matter was appealed to the State Supreme Court, with the plaintiff alleging that the sterilization law was unconstitutional for breaching the 14 th Amendment, specifically the provision for due process. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the Statute, necessitating a further appeal to the US Supreme Court which equally restated the constitutionality of the Statute, with their reasoning being that it was in the interest of society that propagation of undesired traits be halted. In doing so, the Court set a precedent that allowed the enactment of laws permitting the sterilization of individuals held in institutions in many other states in the US (Antonios & Raup, 2012).
The decision emboldened the proponents of the concept and led to the widespread of the philosophy, evidenced in the decision by close to 30 States enacting legislation that permitted the sterilization of close to 65,000 American citizens without their consent nor that of their family members. By the time the State of Virginia as well as many other states were suspending the practice of involuntary sterilization in the 1970s, 8,300 Virginians had fell victim of it. Although the practice has since ceased to be carried out, the precedent set in the Buck v Bell case has never been overturned which in effect means that enforced sterilization is legal in the US.
To conclude, it is undisputable that science has contributed greatly to the advancement of man since the enlightenment period. The study of genetics in particular has broken ground on the anatomy of human beings in ways not anticipated before. However, science is not sufficiently fail-safe as to make it the primary basis for making legal decisions with far reaching consequences such as in the case of Carrie Buck. Science is based on observation and thus there is possibility of human error. For instance, in the case of Buck it later emerged that her teenage pregnancy was a result of rape as opposed to feeblemindedness inherited from her mother. Therefore jurists should take caution not to overly rely on science in making decisions especially when the scientific information is still in its formative stages.
References
Antonios, N., & Raup, C. (2012). Buck v. Bell (1927). In Embryo Project Encyclopedia . Arizona State University. https://doi.org/1940-5030
Lombardo, P. (2008). Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
