GOSS v. LOPEZ, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42, L.Ed.2d 725 deals with students that were suspended. The Columbus Ohio Public School System (CPSS) was sued by students. Nine students claimed that they were suspended without being given a hearing before their suspension, or even after their suspensions were over. Ohio law requires that the parents of suspended students are to be notified within 24 hours of the suspension, and the principal must state the reasons for the suspension. Six of the nine students attended school at Marion-Franklin High School. They were suspended for disruptive and disobedient behavior. Two others, Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, attended Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School. They were suspended for an incident in the school lunchroom that caused some property damage. Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations. …show more content…
They were all suspended without being given a hearing prior to their suspension, or they weren’t given a hearing within a reasonable time after their suspension. Federal court mandated that the suspensions of the students be removed from their cumulative record. The Columbus Public School System and school board appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th amendment had been violated. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in favor of the students of the Columbus Public School
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.
This case doesn't only affect the tinkers but also the students at school. If the school district took back the Tinker’s suspension, it would be exposed to the other students which would tell them that there is freedom. By letting them being exposed to more freedom there would be a better community and they would have a better future. Schools are supposed to help students become better at what they do, help them prepare for the future, including college, and teaches students to be "better citizens” and make a better community. In order to do that, school should give students, including the Tinkers, freedom in order for them to succeed in their future.
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
This case Tinker v. Des Moines Schools was a very interesting case argued in 1968. A lawsuit was filed against the school after three students, Two of which in high school and one in middle school were suspended from school. The school suspended the students for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam war. Two other students wore armbands, but were in elementary school and weren't suspended. The students were fifteen year old John Tinker, sixteen year old Christopher Eckhardt, and thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker.
The wore black armbands in a protest against the government policies during the Vietnam war. The Tinkers tries to fight the suspension with the district court but the district court was in favor with the school so the Thinkers had to take it further. The next step was to take it to the supreme court. The tinkers took it to the Supreme court and the majority vote wat that it was unconstitutional for the school to
The students believed that in appealing to the rulings of the separate courts they were protected under the 1st Amendment to show their freedom of speech and symbolic freedom as well. This particular case began on November 12, 1968. The three minors charged Iowa with multiple accusations. Kids Laws.com says, “They believed they were suspended for simply stating their opinions on the war.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects any person within their jurisdiction of their due process and equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment requires the states to apply their laws equally to any person within their jurisdiction. The equal protection clause aims to provide equal application of the law. It is also crucial to the protection of civil rights. There should be no discrimination in its application.
It was required that the student's parents be informed of the suspension within 24 hours with given reason. If the student were expelled, they would allowed to appeal to the Board of Education. The principal gave the students suspension without holding a hearing, it was okay because Ohio law did not make it required to do so. But they were also later expelled without a right to have due process. The federal courts believed that the students rights were being violated.
The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Primer for Social Workers, a study by Susan McCarter (2017), was written to give a summary of the School-to-prison pipeline in an attempt to break down the factors surrounding children being funneled into this path by their respective school systems around the country. The author explains the correlation between the School-to-prison pipeline and its disparate outcomes for students of color, students with disabilities, and students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (p. 54-55). McCarter presents implications for social workers and multiple specific strategies to reduce the detrimental effects of the School-to-prison pipeline. Susan McCarter, PhD, MSW, is an associate professor
It may seem a little invasive, but schools are permitted to use drug dogs to sniff out contraband during unannounced, random searches and it becomes a controversial problem for all. The use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools is permitted because students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school and school search did not go against the Fourth Amendment, which is the right of people to be secure in their personal spaces houses and papers. While drug dogs are becoming more and more commonplace in our public schools and to maintaining a drug-dog program can cost district estimates $12,000 and $36,000 every year. Drug dog must go through a long period of time of training and drug dogs are not dangerous to people, but instead it protects people. Without reservation, we must know the history background, advantages, and disadvantages of having a drug dog searches.
The due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary of life, liberty or property by the government outside the sanction of law. One of the pros of the Due process is that accused gets to enjoy all Constitutional protections of law and the entire process is fair and well balanced. However the con is that it takes the time, hardship on the victims and their families in having to be at every hearing.
This isn 't the first time that "bureaucratic determinism," where administrators declare themselves powerless to exert discretion and end up punishing students for infractions that even they agree didn 't contain any elements of threat or aggression, has triggered calls for a more lenient approach. Public outrage and media exposure have succeeded in reversing sanctions in cases such as suspensions when a student makes a "finger gun" (some schools interpret any such displays as threats). It 's an uphill battle, though, and the stone rolls down as soon as it reaches the top. A 13-year-old girl received a three-day suspension from a Texas middle school for a finger gun in 2010, making headlines; in December 2012, the hammer of justice came down on a 6-year-old, who received a one-day suspension from a Maryland elementary school for the same reason. That incident made the Washington Post, with over a thousand comments lambasting the school administrators for overreacting; nonetheless, in October of 2013, an 8-year-old was suspended for a day in Florida, also for making a finger