PACE
v.
ALABAMA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Pace v. Alabama, the Supreme Court upheld an Alabama statute that imposed different punishments for adultery depending on whether the parties were of the same or different races, rejecting the plaintiff's claim that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the law did not discriminate based on race because it applied the same punishment to both white and Black offenders within each statutory provision, reasoning that the discrimination was directed at the offense itself rather than at persons of a particular race.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court, and after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows: —
The counsel of the plaintiff in error compares sects. 4184 and 4189 of the Code of Alabama, and assuming that the latter relates to the same offence as the former, and prescribes a greater punishment for. it, because one of the parties is a negro, or of negro descent, claims that a discrimination is made against the colored person in the punishment designated, which conflicts with the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting a State from denying to any person-within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The counsel is undoubtedly correct in his view of the purpose of the clause of the amendment in question, that it was to prevent hostile and discriminating State legislation against any person or class of persons. Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice he shall not be subjected, for the same offence, to any greater or different punishment. Such was the view of Congress in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of May 81, 1870, c. 114, after the adoption of the amendment. That act, after providing that all persons within the jurisdiction of the. United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, declares, in sect. 16, that they “shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind and none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The defect in the argument of counsel consists in his assumption that any discrimination is made by the laws of Alabama in the punishment provided for the offence for which the plaintiff in error was indicted when committed by a person of the African race and when committed by a white person. The two sections of the code cited are entirely consistent. The one prescribes, generally, a punishment for an offence committed between persons of different sexes; the other prescribes a punishment for an offence which can only be committed where the two sexes are of different races. There is' in neither section any discrimination against either race. Sect. 4184 equally -includes the offence when the persons of the two sexes are both white and when they are both black. Sect. 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black. Indeed, the offence against which this latter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving the persons of both races in the sainé' punishment. Whatever discrimination is made .in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offence designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
McLAUGHLIN v. State, 153 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1963)…gro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.” . 106 U.S. 207, 1 S.Ct. 637, 27 L.Ed. 207 (1883). . Ala.Code of 1876, § 4189 (now Ala.Code, Title 14, § 360 [1958]). .Ala.Code of 1876, § 4184 (now Ala.Code, Title 14, § 16 [1958]).…
-
McLAUGHLIN v. State, 172 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1965)…ite man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.” . 106 U.S. 583, 1 S.Ct 637, 27 L.Ed. 207 (1883).…
-
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1965)…ear in other areas, where the course of decision has not been so uniform, that the States may not discriminate on the basis of race. Compare Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, with Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483; compare Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583, with McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184. Regrettably, however, the Court today while referring with approval to Strauder and the cases which have followed, seriously impairs their authority and creates additional barriers to the elimination of j…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence