Law

Intro to Law

Having a better understanding of precedent and legal reasoning from the laws of North Carolina, I would have to be in the defense of the husband. Precedent is need to control different outcomes for certain eases and without precedent there would not be structure for future areas. Legal reasoning is important to have because legal actions need to be separated from the common way of life.

Since the argument was in the home the husband has the right to make the home as he thinks it should be just as it states in the case States vs. Black. The husband had every right to do whatever he thinks is necessary to govern his household.

From viewing the other cases it seems as if the husband has control over his wife in every way. It does not matter what the argument is over because the husband can create a household that he thinks is suitable for his family. His wife definitely caused this because she continued to yell at him and that made matters worse.

The husband did not act out as malice; therefore he is protected by previous cases. The only way that he would have been seen as acting out of malice would have been if his wife stopped shouting and he hit her because of his anger. There was no permanent injury done to his wife and according to State vs. Pendergrass, no permanent injury was done so the hitting that occurred does not show malice or provide enough evidence to place the blame on the defendant.

With these laws it is hard to set guidelines for husbands because there are plenty of ways around them if the wife decides to take the problem to court. I believe there was not enough evidence to show that the husband was wrong. Therefore he had every right to act the way he did.