John Porter Family Law 1646 Analysis

563 Words3 Pages
In 1646, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay had enacted a law that required parents to educate their kids, and children to obey their parents on pain of death. In other words, the law had authorized putting to death any child older than sixteen years, if any sufficient evidence could be proven that he was " a stubborn or rebellious son of a sufficient year of understanding, viz. sixteen, which will not obey the voice of his father/mother"( Puritan Family Law 40). The son would be brought to the magistrates in Court, getting punished depending on how they behaved, and death penalty was the highest punishment. However, there were some exceptions. A child would not be put to death if there were any proofs showing that parents were so careless…show more content…
He appears to have been a very wicked and incorrigible person. Specially, he violated the Massachusetts law 1646 by carrying himself as a stubborn and rebellious son; he did not listen to the voice of his natural parents “who are persons of good repute for piety, honesty, and estate”. He had committed many crimes such as using unacceptable words to call his parents, frequently threatening to burn his father's house, killing his cattle and horse, busing and beating his father’s servants imperiling one’s life, etc. However, his parents still accepted his behavior, loving him with an excessive indulgence which made him, unable to be improved person, become more cruel. He was finally punished to stand on the ladder of the gallows with a rope around his neck for an hour. Fortunately for the accused, he was not put to death due to his mom. If his mother had not been over moved by her tender affections to forbear appearing against him, the Court must necessarily have proceeded the punishments as they had intended. He then got whipped, not allowed to leave the house without a special order from the Court, and fined for two hundred

More about John Porter Family Law 1646 Analysis

Open Document