The first case that caught my attention was Ingraham v. Wright (1977) because the Supreme Court ruled against James. James was accused of being rowdy in the school auditorium by his teacher. Which lead him to the principal’s office where he was suppose to receive 5 swats, but he refused to be punished for something he says he didn’t do. Eventually, he was held down while he received 20 swats instead of 5. These corporal punishment lead James him to seek medical attention because of the bruises that kept him out of school for 10 days. James and his mother sued the principal and other school officials, but the Supreme Court ruled against James because the Court said that reasonable physical discipline at school doesn’t violate the Constitution. …show more content…
Doe (2000) because I didn’t know that public schools could not sponsor religious activities. In my opinion I think if schools want to have religious activities they should because it’s freedom of expression, but also respect other people and their beliefs. If they don’t want to take part in the event then they shouldn’t be forced to.
The third case that shocked me was Kent v. United States (1966) because I thought that all juveniles were to have their trial in a juvenile court. Morris Kent was tired and punished as an adult because of how serious his crimes were. He had three home burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape in Washington, D.C.
Which two cases did you most agree with the ruling? Why? Use direct examples to support your answer.
I agree with the ruling of Kent v. United States because Morris Kent was a 16 year old that had committed serious crimes, which are three home burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape in Washington, D.C. He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in