Poll: Ohio mom jailed for sending kids to a better school district. Your thoughts?

[Arluza]

I am more Chaotic Good, so I would do what is right regardless of what the law says; so I would say YES she was in the right for getting her children into a good school. If the law says not to, in this case I say ignore the law and work to change it WHILE ignoring it because it is morally wrong. that gets into the source of morality argument which I am not prepared to make here.

I think that laws are supposed to ensure the rights of people, not ever take rights away.

As for the arguments against her, I am not convinced by them.

 

[Tanis]

Justified? Yea, probably. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Whether or not a law is right or wrong does not dictate whether it should be followed or not. There are many laws I do not agree with but if I break one of them and get caught, I expect to be punished. It may lead to me trying to change the law in the future but that does not excuse past crimes.

This post is bad and you should feel bad.

It is the DUTY of the citizens to challenge, and even ignore, 'bad laws'.
The government isn't perfect and many laws are passed out of brown-nosing and law makers being full-on-retarded.

 

[solidstatemind]

Personal morals and ethics absolutely do not supersede the law. To paraphrase something Kant said in 'Critique of Pure Reason': what would be the result if everyone ignored the law? (it may actually have been Practical Reason, but Kant said it.)

Plus, she's not even morally in the right here: she, in essence, stole $30,000 for her kids to be educated. Just because it was tax money and she didn't stroll into a bank with a gun and take $30,000 doesn't mean it's not still grand theft.

Yes, there are plenty of stupid, outrageous, and obsolete laws out there, but you don't ignore them: you petition to have them stricken from the books, protest them, or you move.

To do otherwise is to promote anarchy... and trust me, as much as people may say they are anarchists, they aren't-- nobody wants true anarchy, they just want an excuse to be completely self-interested and not get in trouble for it.

 

[BrionJames]

Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-mom-jailed-sending-kids-school-district/story?id=12763654

Is the mom justified in doing this? What she did seems unquestionably illegal, but at the same time, she had a responsibility to give her kids the best quality of living that they could get, and education is a vital aspect in that regard. On the other hand, if people who don't abide by the law don't get punished, then real criminals will be able to manipulate the system more easily. There's no definite answer.

Here's a few arguments from both sides. Feel free to add your own in the comments below.

She was justified:
-She had a responsibility to her childrens' education
-Her kids should not have been denied a better education simply because of where they lived
-If she really had equal opportunity, one school district would not receive priority to another.

She wasn't justified:
-What she did was illegal. If you want this type of thing to change, advocate the changing of the law itself.
-Residents of the other better district paid higher taxes and consequently received a better education. The mom paid less taxes and still got her kids a better education, which is unfair.

So what do you think? Is the mom justified in what she did?

who gives a shit about fair? Honestly, shouldn't everyone be receiving the same level of education everywhere in the country? When it comes to education it shouldn't matter what taxes you paid but the fact that every child needs to be taught in a school that actually gives a shit about educating children.

 

[ninja51]

Your saying its wrong because the government says its wrong and they made it illegal. Im proud of her for trying to get her kids a better education, I dont fully believe in the current education system and I think it has serious flaws, but she should be commended for so much dedication. Somthing thats "illegal" isnt necissarily wrong, if we dont disregard the unjust established "rules" then society never changes, we get into the mindset that "thats just the way it is" "Dont break the rules at all" ect. If we didnt stand up and go against the unjust and wrong "rules" then woman's rights wouldnt exist, slavery would still exist, the Vietnam war could have gone on for much longer. Break the fucking rules people, dont condem a mother for breaking them to help her kids. We should be rallying for her release right now.

And lets all remember, the biggest problem in this situation is that one school was of a much poorer quality than another

 

[manliestofmen]

yea, here in canada our schools are funded federally, and they don't give a damn where you send your kids. as long as you can get'em there on time, they're fine with it.

 

[internetzealot1]

How about going to a private school, hm?

 

[Tanis]

How about going to a private school, hm?

Really? Did you think before you posted?

 

[Saulkar]

That is why I am glad I live in Canada. No fees what-so-ever (still pay taxes though) and I can go to whichever MutherPH!cking school I want to to get what I need to succeed. I know what it is like to go to a poor school. Out of date text books, low income teachers with no ambitions to help you improve, out of date teaching methodology, out of date equipment, out of date everything needed to aquire trade or technology related skills, out of date existence. Seriously? Your income affecting wich education you have access to? That makes as much sense as paying to have your life saved! I would not have done what she would have done though. I would have gotten the hell out of the country rather than face this stupidity! Honestly, given how hard it is to get a good education at a poor school NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT IT OR HOW HARD YOU TRY, they should just make it illegal for low income families to reach a higher standard of living. Interestingly enough, even though there are no rules, laws, and regulations for limiting students to schools within their districts, a couple where I live tried to pull this same bullshit

 

[Saulkar]

yea, here in canada our schools are funded federally, and they don't give a damn where you send your kids. as long as you can get'em there on time, they're fine with it.

True that, on the other hand a few schools here in Yorkton tried to pull this bullshit with me. It is only after we threatened to get the school board involved that they yielded, made my life a living hell on the personal level though.

 

[esperandote]

I was rejected of a high school because it was outside my area, their loss.

 

[Kadoodle]

I understand her deciding not to wait indefinitely for the law to change or for the idiots in power to fix the school systems, what she did was justified, no breaking the law would jeopardize the lives and educations of her children. But now the ass-crumbs running the district decide to plop her in jail and fuck her children's lives up further. Nice going, idiots. This is simply unbelievable.


When the law doesn't work and won't change, you break the law. That's what built America, it's why people have a right to bear arms and vote.

 

[Sutter Cane]

Personal morals and ethics absolutely do not supersede the law.

YES, because as we all know, there have NEVER been unjust or stupid laws before. If someone thinks a law is wrong they should just shut up and deal.

 

[bob1052]

She doesn't live in the district, and therefore doesn't pay taxes toward that school. She has no right to enroll her children there. If she wants to get them into a better school, move somewhere so that you can.

It costs the school a lot of money for each student to go there. Her children went to the school but her money didn't. If everyone living in a poorer area who wanted something better for their children did that, the school would hardly be able to sustain itself.

She was obviously wrong legally in both the choice of school and the falsified documents, but morally its slightly more difficult to judge. She did what was best for her children, but she completely ignored what is best for every other child who went to that school.

 

[Davey Woo]

If they spent less money on court cases and more money on improving the district/schools, this whole situation wouldn't have happened anyway.

 

[Bad Jim]

I think having a system where rich areas get well funded schools, and poor areas get bad schools, completely undermines the whole point of government funded education - that even poor kids get a decent education.

That said, I do not think the appropriate response is to defraud the system. The correct response is to get political, rally support and make it clear to the elected representative that his next term depends on a fairer school system.

 

[zehydra]

So I think everyone deserves an equal opportunity, but of course that would be COMMUNIST! and it will bring DEATH to the almighty USA!

Damn.. he's on to us.

I lol'd.

 

[BrassButtons]

-Residents of the other better district paid higher taxes and consequently received a better education. The mom paid less taxes and still got her kids a better education, which is unfair.

Isn't the entire point of publicly-funded education that everyone gets the same quality of education regardless of income/how much they can pay?

Morally, this woman has every right to send her children to a different school. Legally, it depends on what options are in place for doing so. If there's no legal method for sending children to a different school, then I still side with the woman--she pays the government to give her children a quality education, and if the government fails to hold up its end of the bargain then I don't see why she should be held to it.

 

[newwiseman]

So I think everyone deserves an equal opportunity, but of course that would be COMMUNIST! and it will bring DEATH to the almighty USA!

The first time today that I can tell that that is a joke. Poe's Law is offline.

But yes, education, right, CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE.

I work in education. The crux of the problem is that federal, state, county, and city, equal district money. It all gets pooled together to fund the schools. Every year cities and counties vote on measure to fund their schools from local money, and if someone moves out of said city to avoid said tax then they shouldn't get the reward of better funded schools.

I'd be nice if federally every school received money based on number of students with no other money added in and that was enough to actually fund education, sadly it isn't.

I blame the lobbyists, and really stare at "no child left behind" (pulled funding for schools that tested low) for bankrupting the future.