State Vs Tendergrass Case Study

In lecture we discovered that the precedent adopted in the State vs. Pendergrass case was Stare Decisis, which stands for “stand by what has been decided”. Stare Decisis, in further detail, means when determining the outcome of a court decision, judges look at similar cases dealt with in the past to help determine the outcome of the case presented. Another precedent that could be appropriate for this case is the maintenance of hierarchical relationships. Thinking that children need discipline is the only way this could be made precedent in this court decision. “one of the most sacred duties of the parents, is to train up and qualify their children,” which may deem whipping necessary. The sole reason to whip a child is in best interest for him/her
with the belief that whipping will help children obey superiors and their rules. I think that a non-hierarchical education is possible. One every day example is a teacher’s assistant known as a TA. Both the student and TA are around the same age but the TA has the maturity and proper mindset when making decisions.
I think that the law can require non-hierarchical because law can require about anything. With the dispute, I would advise the student to listen because most teachers have reasoning for their actions and words. My advice to the teacher would be to put stay open minded when dealing with students because understanding different viewpoints is beneficial to you and beneficial to the class as a whole.
These cases are similar because force was used in both situations to make another individual obey a superior. In the Pendergrass case it dealt with children and in the Joyner case it dealt with a wife trying to leave her husband for whipping her. They are similar to the Black case because a student could be considered a child and the husband used a similar whip with a switch. The differences are who the defendant was in each case. Those differences are important because that determines if a situation can be determined off precedent. The result for the State v. Black case was both preordained and unavoidable because law “will not invade the domestic forum or go behind the curtain”. First the precedents changed because the court decided to question the wife as a
suitable witness. Another change was in this case, in comparison to the others, violence was not provoked. The new scope of the precedent is if there was no reason for the husband to hurt his wife he should not put his hands on her. The only similarity is that these cases are both dealing with a husband and wife. The differences are the item used, one was a whip with a switch and the other was a deadly knife. Adding on, the intent of the husband was different as well. The husband in the State v. Mabrey case has full intentions of killing his wife unlike the other case where the husband just wanted his wife to listen and obey him. The main difference in this case is that there were witnesses that heard the husband’s threats. The judge decided that the previous case could not apply to this one because of religious ideals. In the 1800’s they people believed that a husband should have complete responsibility over the wife and if the wife disobeyed him they would be punished. Types of punishments at this time were never set, they were determined by how the husband felt at the time. Along with that society believed in the Vegas rule, what happens in the house stays in the house. Today if a husband abused his wife they could possibly go to jail. Abuse in today’s society to any member in a family is unacceptable. The judge would probably see the abuser as guilty and determining on extent of abuse and the actual facts of the case will determine the punishment.