RSS
Ohio man sentenced to 180 days for daughter’s failure
I saw this story on one of the news channels the other day and thought of LTG. We have had a number of sparring bouts over the role of parents versus the role the of the State. This story is interesting because the State is recognizing the rights of the parent (and every right carries with it a corresponding duty) to provide for his child’s education. Unfortunately for Mr. Gegner, he was found in dereliction of his duty to educate his daughter when she failed the mathematics section of her General Education Development exam. Mr. Gegner was charged with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” after the court had ordered him to see that his daughter passed the exam. She had a previous history of truancy.
If, as LTG likes to point out, a child’s education is entirely within the purview of the parents, isn’t this an appropriate ruling? With the right, comes the responsibility. Of course, the flipside is: If the onus were on the State to educate the child, would then the delinquency of this minor fall upon her public school teachers? As tempting as it is for me to endorse that outcome, I find both results absurd. After all, the world needs ditch diggers too.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
This is crazy! Also, I think you have missed LTG’s points regarding parental powers. According to LTG (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong here), the power rests solely with the parents, none of which enures to the State. Therefore, only the parent could determine whether he, she or the child is subjected to punishment. Otherwise the State still would have ultimate authority over education.
Personally, I tend to agree with Karl. I can’t believe that a person would be sent to jail for having lazy or dumb children. Add to the fact that the student is over the age of majority and you have a real cause for concern about yet another judge overstepping his/her bounds.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:24 am
This man should thank his lucky stars that Buck v. Bell isn’t good law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
May 15th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Thank you Bill.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I mean, is not a life of flipping burgers punishment enough? Boy am I glad my parents didn’t go to jail over some of the dumb stuff I did!
May 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
What was it that Holmes said as the capitulation of his legal reasoning-something like “Three generations of idiots is enough”?
Bastard.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).
May 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Close enough.