Good morning. My name is James Davis, and I am the prosecutor representing Jane Smith, age 36 of Raleigh, North Carolina. Our honorable judge, I trust that you will engage in the entire judging process in a rational, complete way, just as you would as the chief evaluator of any other case under your jurisdiction. After applying relevant rules and significant precedents to our current case, you will undoubtedly arrive at a solution where you will inevitably side with either the husband, the wife, or remain neutral and keep the government out from locked doors and closed curtains. Bear in mind, however, that many precedents in the past may look the same on paper, but are vastly different from what we are due to discuss in this particular courtroom.
…show more content…
Joyner (NC 1862) the Supreme Court held that the woman is subject to the proclivities of the husband’s behavior. Therefore, the court wrote, “every man must govern his household, and if by reason of an unruly temper, or an unbridled tongue, the wife persistently treats her husband with disrespect, and he submits to it, he not only loses all sense of self-respect, but loses the respect of the other members of his family, without which he cannot expect to govern them” (Joyner v. Joyner, 1862). The court reasoned their holding that the husband has the discretionary power to discipline his wife because it is the only way for him to maintain control over the family. They continued, “such have been the incidents of the marriage relation from the beginning of the human race” (Joyner v. Joyner, 1862). Therefore, they justified the brutality of domestic abuse because it has always been accepted. Just because a particular tradition was customary in the past, however, does not mean that it should be upheld as the standard as humans and our moral standards evolve over time. The court’s verdict in Joyner v. Joyner should not be used as a precedent for our case because it upholds an immoral precedent, similar to State v.
Joyner (NC 1862) the Supreme Court held that the woman is subject to the proclivities of the husband’s behavior. Therefore, the court wrote, “every man must govern his household, and if by reason of an unruly temper, or an unbridled tongue, the wife persistently treats her husband with disrespect, and he submits to it, he not only loses all sense of self-respect, but loses the respect of the other members of his family, without which he cannot expect to govern them” (Joyner v. Joyner, 1862). The court reasoned their holding that the husband has the discretionary power to discipline his wife because it is the only way for him to maintain control over the family. They continued, “such have been the incidents of the marriage relation from the beginning of the human race” (Joyner v. Joyner, 1862). Therefore, they justified the brutality of domestic abuse because it has always been accepted. Just because a particular tradition was customary in the past, however, does not mean that it should be upheld as the standard as humans and our moral standards evolve over time. The court’s verdict in Joyner v. Joyner should not be used as a precedent for our case because it upholds an immoral precedent, similar to State v.