Реферат: Mitchell V Wisconsin Essay Research Paper On

Supreme Court is granting selective protection of First Amendment

rights, in Mitchell v. Wisoconsin, and is yielding to political

pressure to suppress bigoted views.

Mitchell¹s second constitutional argument is that the statute

violates the Foruteenth Amendment as well as the First. The

Foruteenth Amendment contains the ³equal protection clause², which

states that no state shall ³deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws². The Wisconsin statute punishes

offenders more seriously because of the views they express, and

punishes more leniently those whose motives are of an ³acceptable²

nature (Gellman, 379). This seems to be a clear violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment, but again, Rehnquist (and the entire Supreme

Court), sees things quite diiferently.

Rehnquist argues that, ³The First Amendment… does not prohibit the

evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime and to

prove motive or intent². Motive, however, is used to establish guilt

or innocence, and is not in itself a crime. Undeniably, however,

those that express bigoted views are punished more severely than those

who do not.

Rehnquist, however, never specifically mentions the Fourteenth

Amendmeent because they were not developed by Mitchell and fell

outside of the question on which the Court granted certiorari.

Rehnquist also argues that ³Traditionally, sentencing judges have

considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing

on guilt in determining what sentences to impose on a convicted

defendant… The defendant¹s motive for committing the offense is one

important factor.²

This is a compelling argument, but I would argue this practice is

itself of questionable constitutionality, in that it allows the