Related to this question: What happens if a muggle-born wizard doesn't want to learn magic?
If the muggle-born child isn't tutored in magic, is he/she still subject to wizarding laws?
Are they going to be bound by the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery if they don't have a wand and are never properly trained in magic? Tom Riddle and Lily Evans had varying degrees of control over their magic even without wands and training. They intuitively were able to control the force within themselves. They had the advantage of attending Hogwarts, but what if they hadn't?
Are they going to lock up a kid who doesn't / can't attend school but is still using their magical abilities?
Answer
The answer has nothing to do with Harry Potter but with a vast majority of human Judicial systems which inherited Roman legal concept of "ignorantia legis non excusat", or "ignorance of the law is no excuse". (quote source is Yahoo answers).
Therefore, whether a student who was Muggleborn attended Hogwarts, or did not, the only difference is that the former would be aware of the laws, and as we know from above, being subject to their jurisdiction would NOT be affected by the distinction.
We know that underage wizards who accidentally cause magical events are not subject to punishments (see Harry's incident with Python at the zoo) as they can't control their magic, which is the main distinction.
But once a wizard is shown ability to control it, they will be equally subject to the restrictions whether they are muggleborn or not, went to Hogwarts or not.
The main reason for posssibly confusing this is the following correllation: presumably, Muggle-born kids who went to Hogwarts can no longer claim they were producing magic by accident, as they were taught about magic; whereas a "feral" Muggle-born could use that defense, as Tom Riddle probably would have done had he needed to. But if the Ministry could prove that "feral" wizard was using magic on purpose, then they would be subject to the Laws.
Comments
Post a Comment