Cruel, as Usual: Application of the Eighth Amendment to the Use of Juvenile Criminal Records in Higher Education Admissions

Authors

Rabab AlAjmi

Document Type

Note

Abstract

(Excerpt)

This Note addresses the systemic barrier to societal reintegration faced by juvenile offenders applying to enroll in higher education. Specifically, this Note will examine whether, in light of the Fifth Circuit’s recent Hopkins v. Hosemann decision, Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments should be extended to college applicants with juvenile criminal records who have completed their sentences. This Note argues that the Eighth Amendment reasoning in the Hopkins decision should be applied to higher education institutions who consider an applicant’s juvenile criminal record where the applicant has already completed their sentence. While the Hopkins decision concerned “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” in the context of limiting the voting rights of formerly convicted felons, it can be argued that the same reasoning can be applied to the shifting national rhetoric on the consideration of juvenile criminal records in college admissions.

Part I of this Note provides background information on the scope of the Eighth Amendment’s application to juvenile criminal offenders, how juvenile offenders’ criminal records are treated by the criminal procedural system, the social treatment of juvenile criminal records, and the emergence of “ban-the-box” movements and their expansion into the realm of college admissions. Part II of this Note discusses the recent Fifth Circuit decision in Hopkins v. Hosemann, focusing on the Fifth Circuit’s Eighth Amendment reasoning. Part III of this Note argues that the Eighth Amendment should be applied (1) to limit the consideration of juvenile criminal records in higher education admissions and (2) to the procedural treatment of juvenile records.