This is far too commonplace in the American public education system. It won't be until school administrators are targeted by prosecutors, and taken to court, that things will likely change.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I used to live in South Hadley, and it is a great community. I still have friends who live there.
I went though some stuff like that while in high school, without any sexual involvement though, and it sucked. However, what should teachers do most of the time when this stuff goes on? There really isn't much you can do. If the teacher intervenes, it just makes it worse after school.
Trust me, I know.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Report the behavior to the teachers -- then they should report it to the administrators. If they are powerless to do anything, then the admin needs to contact the police. If a child is being touched innapropriately by classmates then the law requires that the police be contacted by the teachers when they discover this. The same should apply when the kid is getting shoved around or hit. Assult and battery is a crime and when the juvenile authorities get involved then you will see fewer bullies making problems.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"It won't be until school administrators are targeted by prosecutors"
You mean charged with a crime? Can you be more specific?
I'm pretty sure lawsuits against schools over bullying are already happening regularly.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
Did the girl ever report the behavior to the administrators, or was some of the behavior simply viewed by the administrators? If its the former, and no action was taken, then they are clearly partly to blame for this situation. But in the latter, blame cannot be so easily applied, and this incident is one where it was merely viewed, not reported. Teacher intervention often makes it much worse for the child, rather than better.
The idea that administrators always need to intervene to prevent any altercation between students is frankly quite foolish. It is not practical to assume this, largely because it would require constant monitoring of every single child all the time to stop it. The prosecutors in this case themselves feel that that the adults did no harm in this situation by their inaction - the article terming things like "physical abuse was witnessed by the teachers" simply fans fire onto the adults when it has been determined already that there is no real cause to blame them.
There are two real problems with stopping bullying. The first is that there is a tremendous amount of social pressure to remove adults from the equation. Children who do go to authority to solve their problems often face serious social repercussions. Its not as simple as saying "children should report more", the real question is how to make them report more.
The second issue is how to prevent "indirect bullying". Its a term I've heard tossed around, and the idea here is how to stop the social damage that bullies inflict. A teacher can't easily stop a student from putting up on her facebook page "XYZ is a whore", yet thats often much more damaging than a punch to the face in making someone go to suicide. When a child is ostracized from a group it causes much more damage than when a child faces physical action.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What a horrific tragedy. Teenagers can be so incredibly cruel. Certainly the adults involved (parents and teachers) should bare some responsibility for failing to civilize these bruits, but ultimately its the kids who are responsible for this and not the adults.
Teenagers are mature enough to understand that physical and sexual assault are unacceptable behavior and its simply unimaginable that these kids didn't understand the consequences of what they were doing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: This is far too commonplace in the American public education system. It won't be until school administrators are targeted by prosecutors, and taken to court, that things will likely change.
I can't imagine what good it would possibly do to target school administrators on this. Do you really think that the teachers and administrators don't do anything about bullying because they don't care and won't care unless they are made personally liable?
That certainly doesn't describe any school teacher or administrator that I've ever known. Most adults are hesitant to intervene when kids are bullying someone because they know that it can make matters even worse. What's needed is for state legislatures and school boards to provide adequate funding and training so teachers and administrators know how to respond effectively to bullying. That training doesn't occur most of the time because schools don't have the resources to do it. Or at least, they have to choose between spending the resources on bully intervention training or other things like teacher salaries and textbooks.
If you want to target someone, target the people who hold the purse strings.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think it's pretty clear they didn't understand the consequences of what they were doing.
If I had to guess, they probably thought they were teaching her a lesson, or some such thing. Or they were venting their own insecurities by targeting someone vulnerable. That's something I've done myself, it shames me to admit, though not over the course of months. Most likely it was a combination of both.
It's unimaginable to me that these kids weren't capable of understanding what they were doing, but that doesn't mean they understood it. They do now, I'm sure.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What a horrific tragedy. Teenagers can be so incredibly cruel. Certainly the adults involved (parents and teachers) should bare some responsibility for failing to civilize these bruits, but ultimately its the kids who are responsible for this and not the adults.
Teenagers are mature enough to understand that physical and sexual assault are unacceptable behavior and its simply unimaginable that these kids didn't understand the consequences of what they were doing.
The kids shouldn't have done what they did to this poor girl, but the responsibility ultimately falls to the girl herself and her parents.
What the kids did was horrible, but they are not responsible for her death. She made the decision to kill herself, and while the bullying may have been the main factor, SHE made the decision to do it.
From what I have read on the charges, the kids aren't being charged with anything related to bullying. Statutory rape charges are being brought up since one of them slept with the girl in question.
The mother of the girl knew that the bullying was happening, and (imo) did not go far enough to make sure her daughter was not subject to the abuse. When her mother found out this was happening, she should have gotten the school, the PTA, the parents, even the school board if she had to involved in getting this stopped. A zone variance could have been issued allowing her to attend another school.
I'm not defending the kids that bullied her at all, but blaming her for the decision of another to take her own life is wrong. Ultimately it was her decision.
I was bullied quite a bit in middle school. Not because I was short, fat, ugly, etc. but because I would let it happen. There are two ways to handle a bully. Ignore it until it goes away, or do something that I like to call "Pulling a Stilson."
I got into one fight with a bully in middle school. He ended up with a fat lip and a bloody nose, and I was never messed with again.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:From what I have read on the charges, the kids aren't being charged with anything related to bullying.
Criminal harassment?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
They are....and they should be. But the girl killed herself, they didn't do it.
There are a lot of nasty people in the world. You DO have to learn to deal with them sooner or later.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You shouldn't really blame the victim. I think bullying should be considered a severe mental disease. It's just totally wrong. It can't be considered a rite of passage that every child goes through when it's driving people to suicide. This case isn't the only case like this, or the only thing like this that's going on. It has to stop. There should be no tolerance for bullying at all.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: If the teacher intervenes, it just makes it worse after school.
Trust me, I know.
I wish I knew. I think it would have helped to know that there was someone on my side at least.
I'm not sure what the role of teachers and administrators need to be. I'm kind of with Rabbit on this one -- the teens should have known better. Their actions clearly constituted criminal assault and I hope some justice is done, little good it will do the victim.
We do have to learn to deal with horrible people, but that doesn't mean we need to just let teens work this out among themselves. Even the ones who survive often have soul-deep scars that never quite heal.
There has to be another way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ultimately its the kids who are responsible for this and not the adults.
Teenagers are mature enough to understand that physical and sexual assault are unacceptable behavior and its simply unimaginable that these kids didn't understand the consequences of what they were doing.
I'm not sure they understood the direct consequences were likely to include suicide. But surely they understood they were deliberately torturing the poor girl.
And those of you blaming the victim -- and her parents! -- astound me.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:I was bullied quite a bit in middle school. Not because I was short, fat, ugly, etc. but because I would let it happen. There are two ways to handle a bully. Ignore it until it goes away, or do something that I like to call "Pulling a Stilson."
I got into one fight with a bully in middle school. He ended up with a fat lip and a bloody nose, and I was never messed with again.
It's just that simple, is it? And you think this applies to every bullied child?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:I was bullied quite a bit in middle school. Not because I was short, fat, ugly, etc. but because I would let it happen. There are two ways to handle a bully. Ignore it until it goes away, or do something that I like to call "Pulling a Stilson."
I got into one fight with a bully in middle school. He ended up with a fat lip and a bloody nose, and I was never messed with again.
It's just that simple, is it? And you think this applies to every bullied child?
It didn't apply in my case. I was bullied by a group of girls in my gym class. One day the were pushing me (physically) back and forth between them, so I lost it and hit one girl and broke her nose. People were back to bullying me the next day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What the kids did was horrible, but they are not responsible for her death. She made the decision to kill herself, and while the bullying may have been the main factor, SHE made the decision to do it.
They are surely partially responsible for her death, or at least assuming the details are correct so far as we've heard, and nothing else comes out to contradict it. They worked hard at making her life miserable for their own enjoyment. One possible and far from unforeseen outcome of making someone's life miserable is that they will do themselves harm. She did herself the most harm possible. Thus they bear some responsibility. It's really a very simple chain, Geraine, and every link rings true.
quote:I got into one fight with a bully in middle school. He ended up with a fat lip and a bloody nose, and I was never messed with again.
That's a charming story of good triumphing over evil in what sounds like a fair fight. I'm just guessing, though, but maybe these bullies were worse than the classic family drama style bullies you're describing, like something out of A Christmas Story. Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
Physical abuse does not often tend to drive children to suicide. I believe this is largely because physical abuse, if repeated enough, will often result in some sort of intervention. When a teacher sees a kid with a black eye repeatedly over a long period of time, it raises flags in all but the most disinterested teachers. The common view is that the primary force that drives children to suicide is the emotional attacks. Ostracization is a large factor, coupled with destroying a child's self-esteem. There is a reason that suicide in children has risen over the last few years, and its definitely correlated with the rise of incidences of cyberbullying(Though I haven't seen any studies that indicate a causative link). Suicide rates have been increasing in youth since around 2003 or so, which correlates with the rise in internet useage. I haven't seen any data since 2007, but it it all shows a stark rise in suicide and suicide attempts over the course of this decade.
But of course, this is clearly the children's fault. Its not like depression, a medical condition, leading to suicide was caused by outside forces that should bear some responsibility. Also, when I start swinging my axe around, its not my fault that someone made the decision to walk under it. They chose to do it, clearly I'm free of blame.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't say often. I said that when you make someone's life miserable, one of the predictable outcomes is that that person will do harm to themselves. Maybe they'll get really terrible self-esteem. Maybe they'll turn to cutting. Maybe they'll overeat. Maybe they'll just shrug their shoulders and think the world's a cold, cruel place.
Or maybe they'll kill themselves. We don't get to look at consequences and say, "Well, that wasn't likely, so it wasn't my fault." It's not a civil trial.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
My point was not to to make the claim that physical violence does not lead to suicide; rather, it was to challenge the idea that simply standing up for oneself in a court of schoolyard violence is likely to significantly change whether or not a child is driven to suicide, because the primary causes for increased youth suicide stems from non-physical bullying, or at least cases where physical bullying is coupled with heavy emotional attacks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Reading about this sort of thing cuts into me too deeply, I can't be objective about this topic. What an utter waste of a life.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:The mother of the girl knew that the bullying was happening, and (imo) did not go far enough to make sure her daughter was not subject to the abuse. When her mother found out this was happening, she should have gotten the school, the PTA, the parents, even the school board if she had to involved in getting this stopped. A zone variance could have been issued allowing her to attend another school.
While I think this idea is sound in the general sense, it's worth it to note that in this particular case the girl's parents were very recent immigrants from Ireland. They likely did not understand the school system enough to know how to work it (or even that they could), nor have the general life stability and confidence to pursue this kind of aggressive action. Coupled with the fact that they likely didn't understand the full extent of the emotional effect on their daughter of this bullying, I don't think the parents are to blame here.
As for the other kids, they certainly bear some of the moral responsibility for what happened. They shouldn't be legally culpable though.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Could be a factor sinflower -- here is a story detailing severe bullying against Asian students in Philadelphia schools:
I have read before about tensions between black and Asian communities but this is absolutely horrific.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't say often. I said that when you make someone's life miserable, one of the predictable outcomes is that that person will do harm to themselves. Maybe they'll get really terrible self-esteem. Maybe they'll turn to cutting. Maybe they'll overeat. Maybe they'll just shrug their shoulders and think the world's a cold, cruel place.
Or maybe they'll kill themselves. We don't get to look at consequences and say, "Well, that wasn't likely, so it wasn't my fault." It's not a civil trial.
Suicide is not all that uncommon. However, I will note that most seriel killers were victims of bullying when they were kids and I cannot think of one kid snapping and going on a shooting rampage in a school that was not a victm of bullying.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually, it is that uncommon. Particularly as a response to bullying. Usually there are other triggers.
Teen suicide was the 3rd leading cause of death among young adults and adolescents 15 to 24 years of age, following unintentional injuries and homicide. The rate was 9.9/100,000 or .01%.
I'm not saying it isn't cause for worry, but it is hardly common.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In a group of 39 million, that's still 3,900 suicides.
Then there's attempts that didn't result in death and establishing a pattern of behavior in response to stress to consider. You know how people who haven't smoked in twenty years occasionally still want one after dinner? I've found myself sitting in traffic spacing out and suddenly picturing killing myself. Then there's the extra fun of worrying how bad the next bout of depression will get since you know the desire to harm yourself is locked away in your brain somewhere, waiting.
For those of us prone to depression (and I assume you'd have to be to be driven to suicide), reducing our external stressors is absolutely vital.
Edit for math. What can I say? It was always my weak subject.
[ April 02, 2010, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: As for the other kids, they certainly bear some of the moral responsibility for what happened. They shouldn't be legally culpable though.
This. What the kids did was horrible, but legally they are not responsible for her death. This is the reason there are only charges for Statutory Rape and Criminal Harrassment.
I'm sorry, but whether or not her parents recently immigrated or not is irrelevent. If your son or daughter is being harrassed, you do what you have to in order to find out what your options are. Ignorance is not really an excuse. If you moved to another country and your child was being harrassed, would you sit idly by and just say you didn't know what to do?
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
If the students have a moral responsibility in their death, why shouldn't they have legal culpability? I'm not sure if you're saying they shouldn't have it, or they currently don't, are you advocating that all legal responsibility should fall elsewhere?
Also, while the percentage of deaths out of alive people is seemingly low, in the 15-24 range suicides comprise around 15-20% of the deaths, which is hardly low. Just because on a whole teenagers don't die a lot does not mean suicide is not a problem.
Edit: Look, the actual number of deaths is misleading. 9.9/1000 may not seem like a lot, but the thing is thats comparing number of deaths to those who live. A more important statistic is the ratio of suicides to overall 15-24 year old deaths. When you look at that, suicides comprise 15-20% of all deaths in that age range, and it is very close to the homicide rate(I don't know if it ever surpasses the homicide rate, but it gets close). Of course, it doesn't hold up compared to accidental death, which is something like 40%, but suicide is the 3rd most common cause for the death of people in the 15-24 age range. The fact that people in that age range don't die much isn't as relevant.
As for suicide attempts, I believe the common number is that for every 1 suicide, there are around 10-20 attempts, but I need to look at the statistic for it. Its a hard bit of data to accurately gauge, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: In a group of 39 million, that's still 3,900 suicides.
Then there's attempts that didn't result in death and establishing a pattern of behavior in response to stress to consider. You know how people who haven't smoked in twenty years occasionally still want one after dinner? I've found myself sitting in traffic spacing out and suddenly picturing killing myself. Then there's the extra fun of worrying how bad the next bout of depression will get since you know the desire to harm yourself is locked away in your brain somewhere, waiting.
For those of us prone to depression (and I assume you'd have to be to be driven to suicide), reducing our external stressors is absolutely vital.
Edit for math. What can I say? It was always my weak subject.
With is hardly common, even statistically speaking.
That being said, it is a horrible thing, and not something any family should have to go though. My heart does out to this girls family, and those kids should be brought up on assault charges, and whatever other charges they can be charged with, short of murder. They didn't kill her, but they contributed to her death for sure.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If you moved to another country and your child was being harrassed, would you sit idly by and just say you didn't know what to do?
If I didn't know what to do, or what I could do, it's very possible that what I'd do would be characterized by others that way.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I've skimmed through this thread and there's one pattern of school response to bullying that hasn't been reported by anyone yet.
My own experiences were different than those described so far. In middle school - my worst years - any and all types of harrassment and bullying against me seemed to be invisible to school personnel.
However, on those occasions when I shoved *back*, I ended up in the principal's office, along with the bully, whose own behavior had gone unnoticed so far. "Bullying" was invisible, but a "fight" was not. And it was treated as an episode in which I shared equal responsibility as the person I was retaliating against in self-defense.
It poisoned my own attitude toward authority. I have mellowed, though. I am now someone who has no trust in authority figures. The hostility is gone, though. ;-)
(In my best John Astin voice) "I'm feeling much better now."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Statutory rape charges are being brought up since one of them slept with the girl in question.
I think its necessary to point out that "statutory rape" is not synonymous with "slept with the girl". A charge of "Statutory rape" or more accurately "rape of a minor" does not mean the sex act was consensual. It simply means it is legally irrelevant whether or not it was consensual. Without more details regarding the charges and accusations, its inappropriate to say these boys "slept with the girl" which clearly implies consensual sex.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
There seems to be an attitude that if someone who is targeted would fight back then everything will just go away. While that may be true to a degree, I don't believe this is the way things should be.
In 9th grade some guy was messing with me and a fight started. In the end, he would up with a broken arm and I was not bothered anymore. Still, is that the answer?
We need to get rid of the institutionalized attitude that targeted kids need to toughen up and teach a bully a lesson. In severe cases a kid does get to a breaking point and takes a gun to school. You know, it's not weird music or violent movies that make school shooters -- its being picked on every day you go to school -- a place you are forced to attend unless your parents can afford to home school or send you to a private school.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rabbit,
One of the boys that is being charged with Statutory rape was dating her at the time. The girl had slept with other boys as well consensually. This is one of the reasons she was bullied. She was called names that (I assume) had to do with her sexual activity.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's not an institutional attitude-- indeed, the institutional attitude, as sndrake pointed out, is even more bass-ackwards and often targets the response. As we get more and more "zero-tolerance", I think it will get worse. If the idea is that all fighting is bad, then we rob kids of the ability to defend themselves (just my opinion).
It's an axiom in sports that the second person gets the flag-- in other words, the person called for unsportsmanlike conduct is usually retaliating against something that went unobserved by the ref.
I do question the idea that serial killers were bullied or outcast. In the famous cases of Klebold and Harris, this is simply not true, but has been perpetuated (again, in my opinion) because it's easier to accept, psychologically, than the simple fact of a pair of teenagers who simply wanted to kill lots of people. Dave Cullen of Salon magazine broke down the fiction of Columbine pretty thoroughly and a search for his name or "Salon" and "Columbine" will lead to a bunch of enlightening articles.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Bullying is one of those things I'd like to bring back corporal punishment in schools for. Say, scourging with whips of scorpions; that aounds about right for a first offense.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I do question the idea that serial killers were bullied or outcast. In the famous cases of Klebold and Harris, this is simply not true, but has been perpetuated (again, in my opinion) because it's easier to accept, psychologically, than the simple fact of a pair of teenagers who simply wanted to kill lots of people. Dave Cullen of Salon magazine broke down the fiction of Columbine pretty thoroughly and a search for his name or "Salon" and "Columbine" will lead to a bunch of enlightening articles.
Klebold and Harris weren't serial killers. They were mass murderers. A none too trivial distinction.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Here is a big picture question, how do we punish bullies in a more effective way that we havent already done in the future when complaints happen?
I will agree with the argument against zero-tolerance, all it does is make self defense illegal and I even spent a day in suspension for getting punched in the mouth freshman year, because fighting is wrong.
EDIT
I feel I should also add the argument that bullying can have serendipiitous results, I was never "normal" and always on the outside and after long enough I decided that anyone who would judge me wasnt worth my time in the first place and I stopped caring about external acceptance. Also freshman year was the last time anyone ever laid a hand on me and I never retaliated, and somehow that town still tells some pretty crazy stories about me four years later, spending my days with strangers who hated me helped me learn to diffuse a threat non-verbally and non-physically instead using thier own natural mammalian responses against them. Alot of creative people would be afraid to let whats inside of thier head out if they had spent thier entire lives going with the stream, some of us fight back out of natural disposition but some others need to forced out instead.
Not all bullyed kids are victims, you never know who is waiting to push a stick in between the spokes of your bike. Atleast thats the lesson that bully learned, and he was so polite to me from then on.
[ April 02, 2010, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Assuming the details are even remotely as they appear, I think negligent homicide is a perfectly reasonable charge.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji:Klebold and Harris weren't serial killers. They were mass murderers. A none too trivial distinction.
My apologies... I was conflating two parts of M8's statement:
quote:However, I will note that most seriel killers were victims of bullying when they were kids and I cannot think of one kid snapping and going on a shooting rampage in a school that was not a victm of bullying.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Rabbit,
One of the boys that is being charged with Statutory rape was dating her at the time. The girl had slept with other boys as well consensually. This is one of the reasons she was bullied. She was called names that (I assume) had to do with her sexual activity.
Where do you get this information? It was not in the article linked in OP.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I'm very interested in the role of Facebook (and/or Myspace) in events like these. The answer could very well be "none at all", but I haven't heard of anyone studying it. No generation before this one has had something like Facebook to deal with during adolescence and I don't think anyone knows what kind of serious effects it might have.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I'm very interested in the role of Facebook (and/or Myspace) in events like these. The answer could very well be "none at all", but I haven't heard of anyone studying it. No generation before this one has had something like Facebook to deal with during adolescence and I don't think anyone knows what kind of serious effects it might have.
Have you heard of the term "cyberbullying"? There's been lots of articles and press about it.
I'm glad Facebook didn't exist until I was in college.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Cyberbulling was alive and well in the 90's, it was merely limited to instant messaging services, even before MSN, services like ICQ and AOLIM.
The internet has simply provided a means for bullies to violate even that sanctum that should be the home.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Bullying is one of those things I'd like to bring back corporal punishment in schools for. Say, scourging with whips of scorpions; that aounds about right for a first offense.
Contrary to your intuition on this, the more corporal punishment a child receives the more likely they are to become bullies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Rabbit,
One of the boys that is being charged with Statutory rape was dating her at the time.
I presume you are aware that date rape is fairly common. Dating a guy is not the same as consenting to have sex with him. Furthermore, that article does not say she dated either of the boys accused of rape so unless you have another source on this, you just making it up.
quote:The girl had slept with other boys as well consensually. This is one of the reasons she was bullied. She was called names that (I assume) had to do with her sexual activity.
All we know is that the kids who are accused of physically assaulting her and harassing her to the point that she killed herself, called her a slut and a whore. Being called a slut and a whore by people known as "the mean girls" doesn't mean its true. So once again, give us your source or I will presume you are making up lies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Bullying is one of those things I'd like to bring back corporal punishment in schools for. Say, scourging with whips of scorpions; that sounds about right for a first offense.
Contrary to your intuition on this, the more corporal punishment a child receives the more likely they are to become bullies.
This is interesting for prevention, but doesn't quite seem to connect with the problem of what to do with a child who has already become a bully.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Rabbit,
One of the boys that is being charged with Statutory rape was dating her at the time.
I presume you are aware that date rape is fairly common. Dating a guy is not the same as consenting to have sex with him. Furthermore, that article does not say she dated either of the boys accused of rape so unless you have another source on this, you just making it up.
quote:The girl had slept with other boys as well consensually. This is one of the reasons she was bullied. She was called names that (I assume) had to do with her sexual activity.
All we know is that the kids who are accused of physically assaulting her and harassing her to the point that she killed herself, called her a slut and a whore. Being called a slut and a whore by people known as "the mean girls" doesn't mean its true. So once again, give us your source or I will presume you are making up lies.
I believe that I saw this somewhere else as well. Nevertheless, if he is being charged with statutory rape, she did not give consent because she could not have given consent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Bullying is one of those things I'd like to bring back corporal punishment in schools for. Say, scourging with whips of scorpions; that sounds about right for a first offense.
Contrary to your intuition on this, the more corporal punishment a child receives the more likely they are to become bullies.
This is interesting for prevention, but doesn't quite seem to connect with the problem of what to do with a child who has already become a bully.
You are right, it doesn't. I'm sure the question of how to best handle bullies is something that has been studied, but I know very little of what's been found. From what I do know, early intervention in the life a bully is very important. Teaching the bully better social skills and helping the bully to deal with problems in acceptable ways is far more effective than just punishment of any kind. But that approach is based on fairly young children, I have no idea about what approach would work for older teenagers like these
I just thought it was important to point out that our instincts on these things are often very wrong. Bullying has been a problem among children for a very long time so it doesn't seem like its something we've evolved to take care of very well. To solve this problem, we have to use our brains rather than our instincts.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The girl had slept with other boys as well consensually. This is one of the reasons she was bullied. She was called names that (I assume) had to do with her sexual activity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All we know is that the kids who are accused of physically assaulting her and harassing her to the point that she killed herself, called her a slut and a whore. Being called a slut and a whore by people known as "the mean girls" doesn't mean its true. So once again, give us your source or I will presume you are making up lies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that if Geraine did give you his source, then it would mean that it was true? That she was somehow a slut or a whore, for having slept with boys?
[ April 03, 2010, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think that what he means is that without any kind of source, since there was no reference to the things being said in the article in question, that the assumption would have to be that it was all lies. Not that a source necessarily makes it true. Although it could be worded better.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The cruelty is common. I'm proud of my children for their self confidence. Their self confidence came from good parenting. My daughter get's picked on for having a gap in between her front teeth. She's proud of her gap because she like's being like her daddy. Although she is picked on about it, she doesn't want braces...she likes to be like me.
All children are picked on in school. The one's that are picked on the most are the one's offended the most. All kid's get negative comments. The chronically tormented have come from the worst families. If my daughter was abused, I would know and I would address the situation.
Instead of charging the cruel students for her suicide, they might consider charging the parents. The parents failed to teach her the realities of the world. Her parents weren't paying attention to her pain and didn't teach her how to be an individual. Of course, even the losing team gets a trophy and students get A's for effort these days.
Reality....my son plays in a league where everyone gets a trophy. My six year old son still knows whether his team won or lost and who is good and who sucks. My son's team sucks but he's ok with it, his parents are proud of him.
[ April 04, 2010, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
As usual, you are full of it. But it's ok, you seem fine with it.
Thank God most of the world isn't you though.
I think her parents are going though enough without charging them with anything. Not to mention having a child who killed themselves for any reason is more punishment that anyone deserves.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Neither the parents nor the students are to blame for her suicide. What if she didn't kill herself? Would you charge the others for "being mean". What if their "meanness" didn't matter because she had self confidence?
Counselors constantly remind people that no one can "make me" anything. She can no more say "You made me kill myself" than a married woman can say "You made me cheat on you". Both may be tormented and angry. The healthy woman "divorces" herself from the situation.
Abused children turn into abusers and children of victims will be victims. Who's to blame? Maybe they should charge the parents of the mean kids. The mean kids stopped tormenting the kids who refused to be victims.
My confusion in this situation is this:
It wasn't the action of the offender that resulted in the prosecution of the offender but the reaction of the offended that resulted in the prosecution.
Say a woman is married to an abusive man or perhaps an impotent man. She has sex with another man and gets a fatal STD. Is the result of her action his fault? Can you prosecute the impotent husband for his wife's fatal std? After all, if he wasn't such a jerk or he could perform sexually, she wouldn't have done what she did.
[ April 04, 2010, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, it's not that simple.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Uh, it's not that simple.
You're simple answer isn't sufficient.
Are we ready to prosecute the offender based upon the reaction of the offended?
If I say to someone, "You're a waste of oxygen and would be better off dead".....should I be prosecuted if they kill themselves?
I'm not really all that surprised. Quite convenient timing, really. Teenagers kill themselves all the time,...for this very reason. Speech is inciteful. Bullie's are to blame for suicide and Rush Limbaugh is to blame for the next Timothy McVeigh.
We need to criminalize people for "inciting" others. Glenn Beck is inciting insurrection. Of course, he isn't an insurrectionist, he just inspires the Hutaree. Of course the bullies aren't murders, they just inspire suicide. We need to criminalize speech that inspires bad things.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Malanthrop, there is a huge difference between a simple insult and behavior that involves psychological and physical torture. You seem to dismiss the actions of the perpetrators yet I think you would have a totally different attitude if, when you went to work, or out for recreational activities, you had to look over your shoulder 24/7 for fear of some bully attacking you. I fear this sugar-coating of violence is far too commonly employed by school administrators whose job it is to make everything look as if it is perfect in their little kingdoms, especially when taking action in the defense of the outsider kids will not gain you any political points in the long run.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Violence? If my child was a victim of school violence, I would be at the school the next day. 24X7? Did her parents submit her to the same tyranny? All school children spend at least 16 hours a day at home. My daughter shrugs off the words of bullies,...she spends 2/3d's her life with me.
She know's the bullies usually have the lowest grades in the class. I drive by the government housing and remind her that, this is where the bully lives. She's near the top of her class in every area. My daughter actually feels sorry for the bully. When they pick on her, she has pity for them. She understands that they have a 24X7 horrible life.
As you said, "you had to look over your shoulder 24/7 for fear of some bully attacking you".........these are the bullies. The bullies in school live in this 24X7 horrible circumstance. They live in the projects. The bully's mother is a drunk who might abuse him at any moment, 24X7. My kids walk away from and feel sorry for bully's. I've taught my kids that the bully is someone to be pitied.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Mal, read the relevant article. The bullies were using social media to continue to harass and bully the girl long after she'd already gone home. 24/7 isn't an unfair way to describe that kind of stalker-ish bullying.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Are we ready to prosecute the offender based upon the reaction of the offended?
Isn't that basically the difference between attempted murder and murder? We find that to be a resonable difference. Why not stalking that doesn't lead to harm and stalking that does as subclasses like we have for murder?
As for what other people can make you do, all I can say is if the girl suffered from depression, their actions altered her brain chemistry until death seemed like a perfectly reasonable response. Every fututre she attempted to consider would have been impossible for her. There would have been a terrifying gray fog descending over every path she could conceive - if she wasn't so far gone that she could still ask "What if".
The most recent research I've seen suggests that depression is caused by a nerve cluster being damaged. The seretonin works by regenerating the nerves. If so, that would make depression brain damage that can be inflicted by stress. And in my personal experience, always stress caused by other people who can't be easily avoided. A parent, a boss, a hacker who compromises thousands of cards that need to be reissued, a programmer who messes up a line of code that posts hundreds of transactions I have to fix by hand.
If I got out of evey situation that stressed me to depression, I'd have runaway from home repeatedly, not have married my husband, and be chronically unemployed. Unfortunately, life is something of a crap shoot. You have to guess what you can get through, and sometimes you're wrong.
Maybe the girl thought if she could hang on until summer they'd get bored. Maybe the depression got too deep before then. I don't know. But having been there, I'm perfectly comfortable saying it was a lot more other peoples' fault than hers. Suicide peopbably seemed like the last option she had to make all the pain stop.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Mal, I understand what you are saying a little better after your post. I don't agree, really, but you do have a point. Kids have to learn to be thick skinned, and how to deal with these types of people in every day life.
However, there is a difference between sexual assault and normal bullying. There is a difference between being a kid and being mean some of the time, and going through what thsi girl went through.
I am NOT saying the adults or the kids involved should be charged with murder, but just like an adult who throws a punch these kids should face assault charges.
It's time we stop letting these types of things go with a shrug and a statement of how "boys will be boys", or " she needs to learn how to deal with it".
They KNEW what they were doing wasn't right, and they knew enough to try and hide it. They went after her on multiple levels, and they showed a careless disregard for the risks involved.
This poor girl took her own life, and that was despite the fact that she had a loving family, the support of her mother, and her whole future ahead of her. Blaming her parents for not preparing her for this type of abuse is moronic. You have no idea what her mother did or didn't do, no idea what type of mental state this girl was in, and no idea exactly what was done to her.
Blame the victim if you want. It only reinforces the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Wow, mal, I don't know how you could possibly be more insulting, arrogant, and wrong all at the same time.
First of all, not all kids who get bullied at school have been parented badly. Speaking from personal experience, there is a lot more in the child's temperament, which has nothing to do with parenting. I didn't understand it at the time, but I was picked on because I was shy and because I was prone to internalizing negative messages. I actually cried in front of the bullies because I had the mistaken idea that if they saw me cry, they would realize they were hurting me and stop. At the time, I couldn't conceive of a human being who actually gets a rush off of having the power to make someone cry. I still have trouble with the idea, but I at least know, intellectually, that it's true.
I love the parents who talk about instilling confidence into their children as if it's just that easy. Oh, and if MY child were bullied, I would do....(whatever). Good for you! But your daughters, confident as they are, have NEVER been bullied. Getting teased for a gap tooth is not in any way the same thing as going to school day after day, afraid for your personal safety and sanity, praying just not to be noticed because then you'll at least have a peaceful day.
The fact that you have no concept of the difference between bullying and teasing means you are not qualified to speak on this subject, on the actions of the offenders, and definitely not qualified to talk about the matter of the girl who committed suicide.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
And while we're on the subjects of parents' role in all of this...parents are only human. Even a loving parent can only do so much. What happens when a loving parent approaches school officials and is told that this is just normal teenage behavior? Or just a phase she's going through? Do we expect all parents to be experts in psychology, when even psychologists are to blame for giving them bull**** information?
I'm not saying these kids need to be charged with murder. Ultimately, the girl did kill herself, but they were intentionally and willfully malicious. They knowingly and purposefully inflicted harm. They knew what they were doing and kept at it. That is criminal behavior. I don't know what the consequences should be, but there sure as heck should be some. Maybe next time school officials will think to inflict those consequences before it's too late.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:The fact that you have no concept of the difference between bullying and teasing means you are not qualified to speak on this subject, on the actions of the offenders, and definitely not qualified to talk about the matter of the girl who committed suicide.
Exactly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wow, mal, I don't know how you could possibly be more insulting, arrogant, and wrong all at the same time.
Ahh, so you take the wiser and more adult option of ignoring what he says as a rule, then? Because he, he's just getting started being insulting, arrogant, and wrong simultaneously. I think he's stretching getting ready for the big game, or something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:The fact that you have no concept of the difference between bullying and teasing means you are not qualified to speak on this subject, on the actions of the offenders, and definitely not qualified to talk about the matter of the girl who committed suicide.
Exactly.
This raises an interesting question. What is the difference between bullying and teasing? Is it the kind of acts or is it severity, frequency, and persistence? Is it the objectives? I've noticed that there is a tendency in recent years to label things "bullying" that would have been called "teasing", or "picking on someone" back in the day.
In my mind, bullying implies intimidation with the objective of coercing a person to do something they would not otherwise do. It doesn't really matter whether the person is using physical, emotional or other means to intimidate, the key factor is that their goal is to control through intimidation.
Taken from that perspective, one of the most common forms of bullying in schools is the use of social pressure to stop people from befriending or sticking up for the bullies main target. Lots of kids will join in the harassment because they are afraid that if they don't, they will become the target.
I think the term bullying gets used too much when harassment would be more accurate and perhaps does not get used enough to describe most of emotional bullying we sometimes call "peer pressure".
Where were all the other kids in this high school who allegedly all knew about this criminal harassment? Why didn't any of them stand up for her and befriend her? Were they caught up in their own world of friends, callous or just afraid of becoming the mean girls next target and unwilling to stick their neck out for a new girl.
When I was in middle school, I was frequently the target of various types of teasing and harassment (nothing as extreme as this story but still hurtful). One day when a group of girls was making fun of me, one boy stood up and called them out. He was a good looking, smart well liked guy. It stopped them dead in their tracks. For a minute, they tried to argue that they weren't doing anything wrong, that what they were saying was just the truth, but he stood his ground. To this day, I see it as one of the kindest and bravest things I've seen a middle schooler do.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Most of the time if is in the eye of the beholder, I think. It's a matter of degree. I say things to my friends teasing them that would be taken by other friends as horrible and mean things.....but the first group of friends have come backs that crack me up. It isn't bullying, or going too far with them because for us it can be a game, and it's funny.
But for some others it would be a nightmare....and when I was younger I couldn't always tell who understood it was teasing and who was offended. I never picked on people too bad, but my natural sense of humor is dry and sarcastic. Some people were offended easily, and part of that was more than likely my own attitude.
The fact is that there is difference between teasing and bullying, but it isn't always obvious which is which from the outside.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Agreed, Rabbit and Kwea.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The fact is that there is difference between teasing and bullying, but it isn't always obvious which is which from the outside.
True. I tend to think of bullying (on the part of the bully) as behaviors intended to inflict harm. The intent is important. Bullies want to cause pain.
But I think that people can feel bullied without this clear malicious behavior going on all the time. Junior high (or middle school) is a lousy time when everyone is trying to figure out the social game and how they fit into the big picture. I think it's possible for some people to get the blunt end of a lot of casual negativity, especially if they're "that kid" -- the nerd or outcast every school seems to have.
Actually, I think this happened to me. There were a few actual bullies I can think of, looking back, but a lot of the bullying I experienced on a daily basis was from people who echoed the nastiness of others in an attempt to fit in, who laughed at the cruelty, or who simply failed to stand up for what was right. I remember running into a girl outside of school once -- someone who had taunted and hurt me. We met at a store when no other kids were around and had a very pleasant conversation. That was a real wake-up moment for me, because I realized that she wasn't a mean person at all. She was just weak.
So I guess that's a long way of saying that yeah, there can be a fine line between teasing and bullying sometimes. I don't think there is in the case we've been discussing, however. The details made me pretty sick. I do wonder if any of the teens arrested were weak tag-alongs, afraid to stand up for what was right, but given the degree to which they were hurting this girl, I'm not sure it matters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:True. I tend to think of bullying (on the part of the bully) as behaviors intended to inflict harm. The intent is important. Bullies want to cause pain.
It's also important to remember that they want to cause pain (emotional or physical) because they like it. It doesn't make them evil sadists, necessarily (speaking generally), but...bullies like the payoff. If we're talking a 'dedicated' bully, they're not just doing it because they're bored. Therefore the 'get a thick skin and ignore them' advice...well, it seems pretty crappy to me, and I haven't known it to be very effective, ever, really. Unless the person is willing to almost completely shut down, and even then it's no guarantee.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Actually, I think this happened to me. There were a few actual bullies I can think of, looking back, but a lot of the bullying I experienced on a daily basis was from people who echoed the nastiness of others in an attempt to fit in, who laughed at the cruelty, or who simply failed to stand up for what was right. I remember running into a girl outside of school once -- someone who had taunted and hurt me. We met at a store when no other kids were around and had a very pleasant conversation. That was a real wake-up moment for me, because I realized that she wasn't a mean person at all. She was just weak.
Yes. I was bullied/teased/ostracized/whatever you want to call it quite a bit as a child, and while I didn't have an illuminating moment like you did, as I got older I came to realize that most of the kids didn't hate me, and they didn't even particularly want to hurt me. They just joined the mob mentality, and didn't think much about it. It made them part of the group to exclude somebody else from the group. There are always only a few malicious ones, and the rest are just hangers-on... not that it particularly matters, because it actually hurt more to be ignored than to be teased. But yeah. When there's a group of people ganging up against a few, I wouldn't characterize most of those people as malicious, just weak. And that's the key to not letting them hurt you or your self esteem, I think... realizing that they're just weak, and not worth your tears. That's why childhood is tough-- it's the time when less people are strong enough to avoid mob mentality, and the targets aren't experienced enough in life to shrug it off.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Wow, mal, I don't know how you could possibly be more insulting, arrogant, and wrong all at the same time.
First of all, not all kids who get bullied at school have been parented badly. Speaking from personal experience, there is a lot more in the child's temperament, which has nothing to do with parenting. I didn't understand it at the time, but I was picked on because I was shy and because I was prone to internalizing negative messages. I actually cried in front of the bullies because I had the mistaken idea that if they saw me cry, they would realize they were hurting me and stop. At the time, I couldn't conceive of a human being who actually gets a rush off of having the power to make someone cry. I still have trouble with the idea, but I at least know, intellectually, that it's true.
I love the parents who talk about instilling confidence into their children as if it's just that easy. Oh, and if MY child were bullied, I would do....(whatever). Good for you! But your daughters, confident as they are, have NEVER been bullied. Getting teased for a gap tooth is not in any way the same thing as going to school day after day, afraid for your personal safety and sanity, praying just not to be noticed because then you'll at least have a peaceful day.
The fact that you have no concept of the difference between bullying and teasing means you are not qualified to speak on this subject, on the actions of the offenders, and definitely not qualified to talk about the matter of the girl who committed suicide.
If my daughter "cried" when she was teased the teasing would never stop and become bullying. A child's reaction has an impact on it. Children can be very cruel and a victim will only be victimized. The bully is shamed when the other kid laughs and walks away and encouraged when she cries.
I know quite a bit about being bullied. My family moved from east coast to west coast numerous times. I was beat up in Rhode Island every day at the bus stop for "sounding like a snob - the news man". When we moved back to Washington, I was bullied for talking funny and put in speech therapy for having an east coast accent. As if silent R's is an impediment. Not to mention the economic reasons for being bullied.
The school and parents failed. Kids will be kids....they can be cruel. It's up to the school and families to stop the behavior. Maybe her parents didn't realize what was going on. Their daughter was too busy spending all her time on the computer. She was obviously obsessed with the bullying. She had to go to school, she didn't have to log into Face Book. Social media is also a choice. She probably responded to them online, which kept it alive.
I'm sure I am considered offensive and disagreeable to many here. If the Hatrack community wants me to go away, all they have to do is stop responding. I'll get bored and move on.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:If my daughter "cried" when she was teased the teasing would never stop and become bullying. A child's reaction has an impact on it. Children can be very cruel and a victim will only be victimized. The bully is shamed when the other kid laughs and walks away and encouraged when she cries.
That's true, but how are kids expected to know that? That kind of knowledge about human nature is gained from life experience. You can tell that to your child and she'll know it intellectually, but she won't really know it on an instinctual level until she's seen enough of life to know it through experience. And not everyone's naturally confident.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If my daughter "cried" when she was teased the teasing would never stop and become bullying. A child's reaction has an impact on it. Children can be very cruel and a victim will only be victimized. The bully is shamed when the other kid laughs and walks away and encouraged when she cries.
This is not always what happens. Your narrow personal life experiences cannot be projected onto the entire world as The Way Things Are.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I guess this is nature vs nurture. My wife and I were both shy children, yet our kids are confident. Are they naturally confident or did we instill in them confidence? All their lives we have praised them, told them they were smart and wonderful.
Teenagers are especially volatile. I remember acting like I was sick for having a huge zit on my forehead or spending an inordinate matter of time worrying that my pants didn't match my shirt or trying to figure out if I already wore this shirt this week.
Teenagers kill themselves for being dumped by their first boyfriend or not making the football team. My kids are confident now, but what is important to them will certainly get skewed later on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's one way to completely dodge criticisms that your experiences are not the way things are, I suppose.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Children are picked on in every school in the nation. The only reason we're discussing this one is, she killed herself.
The teenage girls killing themselves for being dumped far outnumber the likes of this one. In fact, the number of hormonally depressed teenagers that kill themselves for no apparent reason, far outnumber the likes of this one.
Maybe she was like the rest, with an extra straw to break the camel's back. It's the straw's fault.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No. Even if I granted your premise - and as usual, malanthrop, you have no way at all of knowing if you're right, that more teenage girls kill themselves over being dumped than being cruelly and repeatedly bullied - the suicide still wouldn't be the fault of the last thing that led to it. The responsibility would be shared.
The bullies were part of that, and thus bear some responsibility.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
What aspect of this suicide makes it news worthy?
Common news isn't news. When I lived in Chicago, babies were thrown out of high rise windows and ugly women disappeared all the time. A pretty white college girl comes up missing and it's national news, for months. Teen suicide is common. Two kids killed themselves in my high school. They were the unknown motivation kind. Of course, it might be the teacher's fault since that one last "F" drove them to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What aspect of this suicide makes it news worthy?
That's self-evident to people who don't think the solution to bullying is, "Laugh and then walk away," in all cases: in our schools, sometimes not enough is done to deal with bullying among students. Does it always result in suicide? Of course not. That's not the point. The point is that this highlights that there is a problem.
Do you have any actual objections, malanthrop? Or are you determined to earn your reputation as a hack outside political discussion, too?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There is a problem. And you illustrate where the problem lies. As you said, "in our schools, sometimes not enough is done to deal with bullying among students"
Prosecute the school. Bullies will be bullies and they are in every school. Some schools don't tolerate it. Bullying is not tolerated in my kid's school.
There's only one situation I can imagine killing myself. If I came home from work and my entire family had been slaughtered by a psycho killer, I might consider putting a bullet in my head. I guarantee the psycho killer wouldn't be charged for my death if I did it.
Bullying is horrible. There are a million kids being bullied just like her. It is a good story to highlight the impact of cruel kids. What you wont admit is it's the combination of bullying and an unstable teenager. A toxic mix. The Columbine Massacre also highlighted the influence of violent video games. Nintendo wasn't charged with murder for training the unstable kid via a first person shooter.
No one should be charged with a crime for someone else's action. She chose to kill herself. The bullies deserved expulsion before it came to that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What you wont admit is it's the combination of bullying and an unstable teenager.
Yes, I won't admit that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The bullying she received is not uncommon. It is unfortunate and needs to be addressed. 99% of the kids in her situation don't kill themselves. When mean Facebook statements lead to rampant suicide, I might agree with you. Sticks and stones may break my bones....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When mean Facebook statements lead to rampant suicide, I might agree with you.
That's what it was.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"rampant" is the key word. I talk trash against Obama on my Facebook account. I wish he would kill himself. I believe our nation would be better off if he fed himself a bullet.
Of course, Obama doesn't care what my opinion of him is, but if he killed himself on account of what Malanthrop thinks, would the secret service come knocking on my door?
Bullying is horrible. Once we set a precedent that inciting an action is a crime, free speech will be criminalized.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Bullying is horrible. Once we set a precedent that inciting an action is a crime, free speech will be criminalized.
Well that's overly dramatic. But for once I'm going to agree with you, malanthrop. The precedent that we set for prosecuting all bullying would be an uncontrollable one. The kids were awful, but what's the objective list of what they did? They insulted her, ostracized her, and mocked her. One of them slept with her-- that's statutory rape, which he was charged with. But we can't set the precedent of prosecuting people for insulting, ostracizing, and mocking others. And we shouldn't. I can see how that could threaten free speech.
Once again, I stand by the idea that the other kids bear some moral responsibility for her death. But moral responsibility is not the same as legal responsibility, and it shouldn't be in this case.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
mal, I agree that it MIGHT have been a combination of the two. But without the bullying, which you agree was out of bound and should have been stopped way before this, she probably would have been fine. Like most kids, including your own so far, have been.
Schools have to worry about a lot of things, including the rights of kids accused of bullying. It's a catch-22.
The kids involved deserve criminal charges if warranted and supported by the evidence. The school didn't bully her, the other kids did. And they damn well knew it was wrong.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The kids harassed her. The most they can be charged for is harassment.
The school failed to do it's duty to protect the students. Some cities fail to protect their citizens. Dozens of families have levied suit against sanctuary cities for releasing illegal immigrants who later killed their relatives. The suits are always dismissed. When government institutions fail to do their duty, it's someone else's fault.
Even disruptive and abusive students have a right to an education. Where I come from we had an "Alternative School" for them. My kid's school is a charter school. There's a loophole to get rid of the bad apples.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true. They could be charged with assault for threating her, as an adult can be. If they touched her it could be battery.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm sure the kids who insulted her, ostracized her, and mocked her will live with her death for the rest of their lives. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives. They won't do it again. In fact, one of them might become a potent spokesman against bullying.
Their guilt will be a lifelong burden.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Once we set a precedent that inciting an action is a crime, free speech will be criminalized.
I thought it already was? Anybody else remember anything about speach that isn't Constitutionally protected when it leads to harm? I have a vague memory of how far that goes being something of a pendulum that depended on which Supreme Court was hearing the cases.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure the kids who insulted her, ostracized her, and mocked her will live with her death for the rest of their lives. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives. They won't do it again. In fact, one of them might become a potent spokesman against bullying.
Their guilt will be a lifelong burden.
Maybe. Or maybe not. I used to think if kids knew they had made me cry they would feel guilty.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Actually, AvidReader, I remember a case where a white supremicist had given a speech that was determined to be inciteful (although he never actually called for violence if I remember right) and some of the people in the audience beat an Ethiopian man to death. The leader was taken to civil court and I believe he was sued for several million dollars.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure the kids who insulted her, ostracized her, and mocked her will live with her death for the rest of their lives. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives. They won't do it again. In fact, one of them might become a potent spokesman against bullying.
Their guilt will be a lifelong burden.
Maybe. Or maybe not. I used to think if kids knew they had made me cry they would feel guilty.
Certain kids would, I'm certain others would not.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Exactly, BB.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In fact, for some bullies, tears are a payoff.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Once again, I stand by the idea that the other kids bear some moral responsibility for her death. But moral responsibility is not the same as legal responsibility, and it shouldn't be in this case.
I'm with you on this. They do bear moral responsibility, though legally they do not.
The girl made the decision to kill herself, not the other children. The girl must have felt as though there was no hope, and this is the reason she did it.
This makes me wonder what her family life was like. Was her family poor? Was she abused at home? Was she ignored? A home should be a safe haven, somewhere where you can lay your worries and fears to rest. I'm curious to know what her life was like at home and if this played into her decision at all.
Oh and Mal....The games the two kids at Columbine played were made by ID Games. Doom and Doom 2. Nintendo didn't have anything to do with it. There was a lawsuit against ID Games after the tragedy but I believe it was thrown out.
edit: Changed the smiley face because it seemed really morbid and disrespectful.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Once again, I stand by the idea that the other kids bear some moral responsibility for her death. But moral responsibility is not the same as legal responsibility, and it shouldn't be in this case.
I'm with you on this. They do bear moral responsibility, though legally they do not.
Let's pretend for a moment that she didn't kill themselves and these people were adults.
Is it legal to threaten people? No, it's called assault.
Is it legal to inflict physical pain or injury or even to touch another person against their wishes? No, it's called battery.
There are varying legal degrees of assault and battery, depending upon the state, and I won't pretend to understand all the legalize, but I know that you are not LEGALLY allowed to do those things. It's not just a moral thing.
Harassment is also against the law, depending upon the state and the circumstances.
I do not believe they bear any legal responsibility for the girl's DEATH...in that, they only have moral responsibility, but their actions do come with real, legal consequences.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine: As many have noted already, including myself, she could have had a perfectly good home life, or at least one within an acceptable range, and still been unsafe there.
My parents were always there for me, even when I was being bullied, they asked the school to watch for my particular tormentor, but teachers can't watch one child all the time. He wasn't physically attacking me outside of the bounds of the law. Me and my friends played a game during recess called Butts Up. We played with some house rules, when you were pegged everybody who was not out got to take a shot at you. My bully started making sure that people threw the ball more often so that it would bounce towards me, knowing I could either chicken out and just let it pass, or try to get the ball every time. Obviously it meant I ended up running for the wall more than others.
We also played a game with Hacky Sacks where the sack is hit three times and grabbed mid air, whoever comes up with the sack then throws it at any of the other players as they scurry away. It was not hard for him to convince all the players to just throw it at me every single time.
I could have stopped playing, but these boys were my friends, we'd spent the night at each others houses, we played roller hockey, video games, Magic: The Gathering, Air Soft guns, we pushed each other to do complex roller blading tricks, we were in the school's media program together. I thought if I just toughed it out, things could go back to the way they used to be. But no, it just kept getting worse, this bully was simply better at manipulating people than I was. In Hockey games I got checked even when I didn't have the ball. I never got invited to their houses or parties anymore, I got worried what a bunch of boys who now hated me would do with air soft guns so I stopped going, they shamelessly posted a denigrating message about me over one of the pieces I had shot for the school news program, everybody in my school saw it. They convinced the teacher in charge of the program that the whole thing was my idea and that they had tried to talk me out of it but I just didn't belong in the program, so the teacher dismissed me. When he told me I couldn't continue in the program I was so shocked and desperate not to lose my composure and burst into tears that I couldn't speak, even in my own defense.
During a Mandarin class trip to Beijing, every single one of my former friends and my tormentor were in my group. At school I had at least some classes away from them, in Beijing, they were there constantly. They didn't miss a second during the trip without humiliating me. One of them waited until I fell asleep and let the rest of them in my room so that they could put toothpaste in my hair, I didn't wake up while they did it. When I tried to just avoid them and stick with the teacher, so that I could at least just talk to somebody who would be nice to me, they punished me for sucking up. One teacher finally noticed what was going on and told my bully to knock it off, he insisted that we were good friends, and that he was just teasing me, I was so beaten from months of abuse I was willing to say that he was my friend because I naively thought it would get me on his good side.
For my birthday that year I wanted so desperately to have my friends back, I invited some of them to my party, I even made custom invitations for them. We had a semi decent time, they only made fun of me enough for me to remember who I was now to them, even that to me was something.
The end of the year came, and coincidentally all my former friends just moved, none of them even told me. It was just me and this bully all over again, he moved on to roll with a bunch of lowlifes with ties to gangs, and he didn't feel the need to find out if I had made any new friends. It took 4 years of high school, before I think I could say I was over it.
I think back on the whole experience and am reminded that my own father was bullied mercilessly for years, maybe it's genetic. Maybe it's the fact that if you are bullied that first time and do not do what is necessary to stop it then and there, it's too late. That first time for me was going to school with my hair gelled back. My mom thought it was the cutest thing ever, it was different from everybody else. My bully latched onto that, pointed out I looked stupid, and I just didn't know how to respond. I tried ignoring him, I tried sarcasm, I tried everything I could think of. I didn't have the benefits of some book that tells you what to do when a bully just won't leave you alone and starts to systematically alienate you from all your friends.
I'm not even sure why I wrote all that, I've never gone into such detail about my bullying experiences, maybe I needed to as some sort of catharsis. Maybe this girl's experience was completely different. My bullies were my former friends as lead by one boy who didn't show up until 8th grade. They were all rich, privileged, and educated, just like me. They were for the most part White Americans, just like me.
If my son were to begin to experience the things I experienced I honestly am not sure what I would tell him to do different. I learned to survive and put myself back together when it was over slowly. Nobody can take me back in time and say, "See here is where it started, you shouldn't have done this, you should have done this." Maybe if I had pulled an Ender and beaten the tapioca out of that kid the first time it happened, but that just was not in my nature, I didn't hurt people, I certainly didn't belittle them or seek to make them feel like crap. I couldn't understand why some people do. Whatever I did wrong, it stunted my growth socially in a very significant way.
I can still recall giving an oral presentation in 7th grade, I had the entire room on the edge of their seats, and I got an A from a teacher who was very reserved about giving them as she said she felt it indicated that one could do no better. I remember giving another oral presentation in 10th grade, about a year and half after the bullying had stopped, and I had developed a speech impediment or something. I was terrified, I stuttered on my words, I couldn't remember a single thing about Harriet Tubman and I had known a ton about her since I was about 10 years old. Everyone in the class laughed at me, fortunately my teachers managed to get them to stop, and I managed to finish. Afterward I realized just how much I still needed to heal.
I'm fine now, I made new friends throughout high school, I served as a missionary for two years, I went to college, got married, I have plenty of self-confidence. But I also know that in 8th grade, every day was terrible. It was the only time in my life I was unhappy getting ready every morning. It was like knowing you were going to some special school where you get to learn fantastic new things, but at the same time be treated like a walking talking joke all day.
I wish I could go over this post and check for grammar, but I need to go, I've spent alot of time trying to revisit these demons, I just need to step away from them for now.
edit: As if this wasn't long enough.
quote:I do not believe they bear any legal responsibility for the girl's DEATH...in that, they only have moral responsibility, but their actions do come with real, legal consequences.
This is how I feel as well.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
People keep making the distinction between legal and moral responsibility. But isn't the purpose of a legal system to be a system with which moral responsibility can be upheld? What makes the two different?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There are many actions which are legal, and should be legal, which are nevertheless immoral.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Stealing your best friend's wife comes to mind. (As long as stealing is figurative, and not a literal kidnapping.) Definitely immoral. Definitely legal.
Morality is personal and not everyone even agrees on what is and is not moral. Take homosexuality, for example.
The law is there to create order and help us all live together. Ideally, it keeps people from infringing on other's rights.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I do not believe they bear any legal responsibility for the girl's DEATH...in that, they only have moral responsibility, but their actions do come with real, legal consequences.
Those of this mind, could you be more specific? In other words, what specifically makes these kids so clearly morally responsible for the girl's death and yet so clearly not legally?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote: I do not believe they bear any legal responsibility for the girl's DEATH...in that, they only have moral responsibility, but their actions do come with real, legal consequences.
Those of this mind, could you be more specific? In other words, what specifically makes these kids so clearly morally responsible for the girl's death and yet so clearly not legally?
The law can only deal in facts and the fact is, the bullies, however deplorable their actions, did not physically kill the girl. Nor is there any way to prove that they had her death in mind by their actions. (It is even unlikely that they intended for her to die.) The law can only charge them with their actual provable actions and their actual provable intentions. They actually harassed and assaulted this girl. They intended to inflict emotional and physical harm. They did not kill her.
And yet, despite all of that, their actions did drive her over the edge. Perhaps there were other things going on in her life; we may never know, but the bullying caused a great deal of harm. Perhaps they didn't know how much harm it would have caused (though they should not have done it at any rate), but it ended in a loss of life, and they are partly to blame for that. They may or may not see it this way, but it is part of my own personal moral code.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Good points, Christine. I must admit that, as a former victim of bullying, and especially given some of the responses here, it's difficult to be fully objective about this. I don't think anyone who has been subjected to bullying - especially over an extended period of time - can not take it personally when someone insinuates that the victim had any choice in the matter.
To me, the causal link from bullying to suicide is crystal clear. Level of intent isn't wholly important here for the same reason it isn't if you were to intentionally trip a person with, say, osteogenesis imperfecta, and they ended up dying as a result of those injuries. Ignorance of precondition may lesson culpability, but it doesn't eliminate it. Direct action is also not a necessity for legal responsibility. Think Manson and other similar cases (probably more relevant cases, but I think you can get my point).
Having said that, a direct causal link from bullying to suicide can not - at least at this time - be exemplified by physical evidence or universally accepted studies, and so I'll concede - for now - that even negligent homicide is not an appropriate charge in this case.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:. I don't think anyone who has been subjected to bullying - especially over an extended period of time - can not take it personally when someone insinuates that the victim had any choice in the matter.
I was subjected to bullying over an extended period of time.
Victims quite often have multiple choices in the matter.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
You're nitpicking, but I'll bite.
Of course everyone has multiple choices in any matter. I could have acquired a gun and taken out anyone who did me wrong. But you know I mean *real* choice. "Pulling a Stilson", for example, isn't a real choice for many victims.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
By "real choice" do you mean something that will make the bullying stop?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, yeah, that would be the goal, wouldn't it?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I was bullied twice. Once I elbowed the bully in the gut and he stopped. Once I befriended the bullies and they stopped.
I agree that there are often multiple solutions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm gonna take a stab at here and guess that what rollainm meant was that bullying is not the victims fault and it shouldn't be the victims responsibility to stop it.
Victims of bullying can't usually simply choose not to be bullied. That option isn't on the menu. The simple idea that if the victim would fight back, or laugh, or just ignore the bullying, the bullies would stop just isn't true most of the time. It makes cute little anecdotes, but life isn't that simple.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Thanks, Rabbit. Yeah, that's what I was going for.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In that case, I still agree with what I said. Many victims of bullying do have options that will stop or decrease the bullying.
Many, however, do not.
quote:bullying is not the victims fault and it shouldn't be the victims responsibility to stop it.
Even if the situation isn't their fault, I think we all have a responsibility to try to improve our lives where we can.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: In that case, I still agree with what I said. Many victims of bullying do have options that will stop or decrease the bullying.
Many, however, do not.
quote:bullying is not the victims fault and it shouldn't be the victims responsibility to stop it.
Even if the situation isn't their fault, I think we all have a responsibility to try to improve our lives where we can.
Of course. I agree with all of this. My issue is with the assumption that the individual victim absolutely has options, which is certainly not true. If that's not your claim, then I have no disagreement with you on this.
BTW, physical retaliation, aside from being morally questionable or just wrong for many, now carries much stronger consequences than it has in the past as "zero tolerance" is more strictly enforced. The one time I responded to bullying with significant physical force (which, fyi, resulted in only temporary relief followed by retaliation), I got detention. Had the same thing happened a year later at the same school, I would have been arrested.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My issue is with the assumption that the individual victim absolutely has options, which is certainly not true.
If by "has options" you mean "has options that will eliminate the bullying", then I am not making that claim.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Some people allow themselves to be victims. Some don't have a choice, but some simply refuse to accept that they have a choice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Some people allow themselves to be victims. Some don't have a choice, but some simply refuse to accept that they have a choice.
The attitude really pisses me off. We aren't talking about mature adults here, we are talking about kids. We are talking about people who are supposed to be immature. We are talking about kids who are not supposed to have mastered social skills and the subtleties of group dynamics and power.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Are you helpless to restst the fact that my words piss you off?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If the bullies are old enough to be responsible for their bullying, the bullied of the same age are old enough to be responsible for how they respond to that bullying.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If the bullies are old enough to be responsible for their bullying, the bullied of the same age are old enough to be responsible for how they respond to that bullying.
My initial response was to disagree, but I think you may be right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with Porter.
However, the problem here is that children own varying degrees of responsibility for their actions depending on age (and location, and crime, unfortunately, look at the young teenagers charged as adults). So when we say, "They are responsible," we do not necessarily mean totally responsible, the way an adult would be. And even adults are not always totally responsible in the eyes of the law.
The other problem is that while a bully has a responsibility not to be bullied, both morally and sometime legally, the victim does not necessarily have a moral and certainly never a legal responsibility to find a way to cope with it that doesn't bother them.
I don't think you mean it this way, Porter, but suggesting that a victim has the responsibility to respond properly to bullying has an air of claiming that if my child punches yours in the arm, hard, every day for an entire school year...well, my child has responsibility for doing it, but your child could have avoided mine, or worn a jacket to cushion the blow, or told someone, or something.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:well, my child has responsibility for doing it, but your child could have avoided mine, or worn a jacket to cushion the blow, or told someone, or something.
Are you saying that this is not the case?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nope. I'm saying pointing out that it was possible and saying, "Responsibility," smacks of...well, cruelty, however accurate it is. Yes, it's true and yes, parents ought to teach (it's a very important lesson, in fact) their children what to do when things go badly, especially when there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that telling someone that they have a choice in how they respond to the crap they can't control is the opposite of cruel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Telling that person, yes. In fact it's very helpful. Doing so while pointing out that both parties had responsibility - equating both of them, or at least that's how it looks - will lead to confusion, is all.
Put another way, which responsibility is greater? The responsibility not to victimize others, or the responsibility to respond to being victimized in an effective way?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The only equating I've done is equating the capacity of like-aged people to be responsible for their own actions.
Of course it is more important to not be cruel. But that is only tangentially related to what I was talking about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I realize that, I'm just commenting on how it comes off.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, you're saying that if you read something I didn't say into what I wrote, it comes off like something I didn't mean? Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
This thread seems to have this very large assumption that physical violence = bullying. But that's hardly the important factor here. Many people here have experience with bullying that was only physical, and then have a hard time understanding exactly how that can lead to depression and how it can be allowed to continue for long periods of time. This is largely understandable.
The problem here is cyberbullying. This is a beast of an entirely different nature. Its nigh impossible to avoid cyber-bullying. There are next to no laws to protect people from it. You can't simply "avoid" the bully to avoid cyber bullying, as they're going to continue to defame you regardless of how you interact with them. The dangerous thing here is social ostracization, as this has been shown to lead to depression. When a child is turned into a social outcast, it is far more likely that it will cause depression, and it is not nearly as easy to assign any responsibility to the bullied. There simply isn't anything they can do when the children who hold the power in their school want them gone and use the internet to make it happen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If the bullies are old enough to be responsible for their bullying, the bullied of the same age are old enough to be responsible for how they respond to that bullying.
Not true, you are comparing apples and oranges. The level of maturity needed to understand that bullying someone for fun is wrong is not the same as the level of maturity needed to be able to control ones emotions and actions under extreme provocation.
The level of maturity needed to understand that pulling a girls hair is likely to make her scream, is not the same as the level of maturity needed to understand that screaming when a bully pulls your hair may entice the bully to pull your hair more often. The level of maturity needed to control whether you pull someones hairs, is not the same as the level of maturity required to control whether or not you scream when your hair is pulled.
The level of maturity needed to know its wrong to join in when a group is harassing someone, it not the same as the level of maturity needed to know how to persuade the group not to do it.
The level of maturity required to not pressure your teenage girl/boyfriend to have sex, is not the same as the level of maturity needed to say no to sex under extreme pressure from a girl or boyfriend.
Controlling how you respond when deliberately attacked by others requires a much greater level of maturity than controlling whether or not you attack others with out provocation. These things are simply not equivalent.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:well, my child has responsibility for doing it, but your child could have avoided mine, or worn a jacket to cushion the blow, or told someone, or something.
Are you saying that this is not the case?
It is the case, though of course that has the stink of putting some of the blame on the rape victim for wearing a skirt that's too short.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It is the case, though of course that has the stink of putting some of the blame on the rape victim for wearing a skirt that's too short.
So, you're offended by reality? I can't help you there.
quote: The level of maturity needed to understand that bullying someone for fun is wrong is not the same as the level of maturity needed to be able to control ones emotions and actions under extreme provocation.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with everything you just wrote, but there is definitely some truth there. I'll have to think about this more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It is the case, though of course that has the stink of putting some of the blame on the rape victim for wearing a skirt that's too short.
So, you're offended by reality? I can't help you there.
Now, just a second.
Leaving the rape issue aside for a moment (and I sincerely hope you were not saying that a girl who wears a short skirt is "asking for it"), there are lots of things kids do -- or ARE -- that attracts bullies that are either not in their control, or barely so. Or are you suggesting that bright kids act dumb to avoid getting other kids mad, or that socially inept kids magically become ept?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No. I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. I'm not suggesting anything. What I've said has been, I think, pretty clear, if only people would stop assuming that I'm suggesting something else.
In regards to what you quoted -- the "reality" that I referred to is the fact that something that jeb thinks is true "stinks of" something he finds repugnant. I can't help him there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:there are lots of things kids do -- or ARE -- that attracts bullies that are either not in their control, or barely so.
When I was in middle school I was picked on because I was shorter and less physically mature than most of the other kids. I guess I should have just chosen to be taller and have bigger breasts.
My husband was bullied because his family was poor. He should have chosen to be born to wealthier parents.
And this completely ignores the fact that many of the character traits that attract bullying, are character traits I'd want my kids to have like being smart, following the rules, being sensitive.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:nod: I had similar experiences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Trust me. Bigger breasts are not helpful. They just make bigger targets.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've read that girls who develop earlier tend to get teased more and have lower self esteem, while the same tends to be true for boys who develop later.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
mr_porteiro_head, I think I understand what you are trying to convey but it is tricky. Instead of giving us the sparsest possible information and having us guess, it would be helpful if you were just explicit.
ETA: Not about breasts. About responsibility. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: I don't know what to say beyond what I've already said. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
You say I should be explicit -- I'm not hinting around or suggesting anything. I meant what I said, and that's it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I guess you mean is that every person has the ultimate responsibility when it comes to how to feel about what others do to them, how much they let it affect them. Is that right?
If so, saying that "no, what I do mean is x" is often more helpful than just, "no, I don't mean that."
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've read that girls who develop earlier tend to get teased more and have lower self esteem, while the same tends to be true for boys who develop later.
Sort of.
Girls who develop earlier get teased and tend to be the target of older boys' sexual interests.
Girls who develop late also get teased, although not in the same way. I was in this last group...and to make matters worse in my case, I went away one summer, begrudging the fact that I didn't even need a bra when all the other girls did, and came back the next year in a C cup. So that fall I had to put up with endless talk about my having stuffed my bra.
The best thing is really to develop when everyone else does.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What I guess you mean is that every person has the ultimate responsibility when it comes to how to feel about what others do to them, how much they let it affect them. Is that right?
Close, and partially.
Close:
While I am a big proponent of the idea that we get to control our own feelings, I don't think that control is absolute. But yes, we are all responsible for how we emotionally react to crap that happens to us. (Part of that emotional reaction is what we do to influence and control our own feelings.)
It's kinda like riding a horse. Depending on the temperament and training of the horse, your skill as a rider, and the situation at hand, you can have anywhere from total to zero control. Most riders, on most horses, in most situations, can get the horse to do generally what they want.
I think that most people underestimate the amount of control they have over their own emotions.
Partially:
I many situations, people do have options that can reduce the bullying they're subjected to, or its effect. In this realm too we are responsible for how we react to the crap life throws at us.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've known short and tall, fat and skinny, smart and dumb, rich and poor, kids who have and have not been bullied. Not every short kid or every nerdy kid, or every uncoordinated kid gets bullied.
So what is it that keeps some kids from being bullied, or lets them turn the bullying around? Luck? Some action or attitude on their part?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks. That helped me understand.
I think that teenagers "riding" emotions are often the equivalent of novice riders on very skittish stallions attempting dressage.
Bullies, though, are riding tractors on autopilot and trying to hit anything and everything.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So what is it that keeps some kids from being bullied, or lets them turn the bullying around? Luck? Some action or attitude on their part?
All of the above?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that teenagers "riding" emotions are often the equivalent of novice riders on very skittish stallions attempting dressage.
I think that most teenagers riding emotions are just holding on, trying not to fall off.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is all many are able to do but that controlling ones emotions is a delicate business that requires some skill, some apptitude, and a lot of practice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So, you're saying that if you read something I didn't say into what I wrote, it comes off like something I didn't mean? [Razz]
Yup. Welcome to the English language on the Internet! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think the most important part of controlling one's emotions is the awareness that it's possible.
Most people don't seem to think that it really is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So, you're saying that if you read something I didn't say into what I wrote, it comes off like something I didn't mean? [Razz]
Yup. Welcome to the English language on the Internet!
I choose to interpret that as a slander against my clan. Now, you must die.
[ April 07, 2010, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that is it important to know that is usually true and that many people don't even try. I think it is also important to realize that it isn't something everyone can just do without at least some help.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*nods in agreement*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: :shrug: I don't know what to say beyond what I've already said. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
You say I should be explicit -- I'm not hinting around or suggesting anything. I meant what I said, and that's it.
Well since we pretty generally don't understand what you meant by the words you said, that's not particularly helpful. The only way I know of to determine whether or not I've understood someone is to rephrase what they've said and see if they agree that I understood their intent. If they don't, its very helpful to me if they will try to rephrase the original to help clarify their intent rather than getting snippy about being misunderstood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think I've gotten snippy.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:So what is it that keeps some kids from being bullied, or lets them turn the bullying around? Luck? Some action or attitude on their part?
All of the above?
Definitely all of the above. I was never successfully bullied in school, though I occasionally had bullies give it a shot. I largely avoided bullying and diffused it when attempts at it happened by being a pretty affable guy who completely ignored social cliques. I was on good enough terms with enough other students that most people didn't want to bully me, and those who did were generally afraid that if they did they'd either be ostracized from their social group or beaten up by people who liked me a lot.
That was great for me, but most of it was due to factors beyond my control. I was a genuinely kind person who was reasonably intelligent, fairly skilled socially, and moderately physically attractive. Those are four things that I really didn't have any control over (except, arguably, the social skills), and without them I'd have been up the same creek that many of my peers were.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think even if kids are made aware that influencing their own emotions is possible, most of them would have no clue how to do it successfully.
I wonder if it can be taught without some kind of individualized therapy.
(I also wonder if the difference between those who control their own emotions and those who don't is a little bit more innate than a different level of cognitive/behavioral skill. How crucial and how immutable is aptitude?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: :shrug: I don't know what to say beyond what I've already said. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
You say I should be explicit -- I'm not hinting around or suggesting anything. I meant what I said, and that's it.
Well since we pretty generally don't understand what you meant by the words you said, that's not particularly helpful. The only way I know of to determine whether or not I've understood someone is to rephrase what they've said and see if they agree that I understood their intent. If they don't, its very helpful to me if they will try to rephrase the original to help clarify their intent rather than getting snippy about being misunderstood.
Concise responses, I think, can often sound snippy in writing when they don't mean to be and wouldn't if we were hearing them instead.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For us, growing up, bullying wasn't much of an issue, but that was for cultural factors that I don't know are easily replicable.
Basically, I grew up in a culture (for boys) where fighting was an accepted way of determining respect and social hierarchy. I have an inherent distaste for weakness inculcated into me.
Bullies set that off, so we became sort of bullies of bullies. If someone was willing to stand up to once and fight you in a fair fight, that was the end of it. You kept picking on him after that and other people would be lining up to fight you, and we were the ones who didn't need to pick on people weaker than us.
It was by no means a perfect system but it was one that instilled respect for each other (although largely based on a limited definition of someone "acting like a man") into the people inside it.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Squick, where and when was that?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
In da hood, yo.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blue collar, white Catholic neighborhood in Philly 80s-mid 90s. I think it had a lot to do with going to an all male high school as well.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Interesting. It sounds a lot like the culture that Geoffrey Canada found himself in when his family moved to The Bronx in the 50s (as recounted in his Fist Stick Knife Gun).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not really. Using a weapon would be considered cowardly. Also, violence wasn't an ever present thing. What I'm describing is maybe more akin to dueling.
Honestly, I think how I grew up had more in common with the idealized 50s that certain sections of the country seems to believe in than with inner city ghettos.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
The culture that he describes as being in place when he moved to The Bronx didn't involve the use of weapons. It was the introduction of weapons that destabilized that culture, if I recall correctly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: For us, growing up, bullying wasn't much of an issue, but that was for cultural factors that I don't know are easily replicable.
Basically, I grew up in a culture (for boys) where fighting was an accepted way of determining respect and social hierarchy. I have an inherent distaste for weakness inculcated into me.
Bullies set that off, so we became sort of bullies of bullies. If someone was willing to stand up to once and fight you in a fair fight, that was the end of it. You kept picking on him after that and other people would be lining up to fight you, and we were the ones who didn't need to pick on people weaker than us.
It was by no means a perfect system but it was one that instilled respect for each other (although largely based on a limited definition of someone "acting like a man") into the people inside it.
Are you saying that in your middle school, there were no outsiders who everyone picked on?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was just going off the Amazon description, which is likely not fully accurate. It sounded like they were all using knives on each other.
The neighborhood I grew up in kinda fell apart (a lot of the people moved away) and this culture doesn't really exist there anymore. I think it is fragile, where introducing people using weapons or an influx of people who don't understand it or view manhood differently would disturb and possibly destroy how it works.
It was the acceptance of violence, but only to a certain point, along with the high value put on respect or a certain sort that was probably the central thing.
---
To be sexist, bullying, especially saying nasty things about people or trying to sabotage them seems like such a girl thing to do. I think that our culture has gotten to a point where these sort of indirect, open ended method of approaching people you have disagreements with is seen as much better than an out and out fight, which is direct and, if done in certain ways, brings the issue to a close.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Are you saying that in your middle school, there were no outsiders who everyone picked on?
I also grew up in a very homogenized environment. It's hard to say if a true "outsider" showed up, what my reaction to them would have been. But in my experience in that environment, I (and others) would have beaten the crap out of them if they did.
I got into fights in high school specifically with that purpose.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Physical bullying is manly, but talking bad about someone is cowardly and girly?
I knew people who thought that fighting was the way to go, but to me it was not the right thing, even if you could win. Throwing your weight around because you can doesn't make you right, clear the air, or prove your point. It just means you can beat me up.
And it's a good thing that I didn't have access to a gun, because after going though some of the things I went though I probably would have killed someone. I was hit with a car, with dirt bikes, snowmobiles, threatened with knives, and beat up.
All for not wanting to take a free sample of pot and smoke it. And for not letting them intimidate me into becoming something I didn't want to be.
I actually grabbed a guy by the inside of his shirt and jumped off a stairway balcony at one point. I figured if I hurt one of them bad enough the rest would either escalate to something I could prove in a court of law (by that time they were being watched by the school and law enforcement) or they would leave me alone. I didn't even care if I got hurt, or died, myself.
I just wanted it to be over.
Standing up to a bully only works if he is a coward. Not all of them are cowards. Some of them just like hurting people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To be sexist, bullying, especially saying nasty things about people or trying to sabotage them seems like such a girl thing to do. I think that our culture has gotten to a point where these sort of indirect, open ended method of approaching people you have disagreements with is seen as much better than an out and out fight, which is direct and, if done in certain ways, brings the issue to a close.
I agree that your first example sounds very fifth grade girl, but your counter proposal sounds very fifth grade boy, and I'm not seeing how it's a productive way of settling any question other than "is this new kid manly enough that we shouldn't pick on him or let other people do so."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, I think it depends on how you see the problems that kids have with each other. From my perspective, they usually come from a lack of respect on one or both sides. Fighting, in the context I'm talking about, addresses this respect issue.
It's not all about winning. Losing a fight but standing up for yourself like a man and fighting well for your ability was something that got you respect.
There was also a strong aspect of a dominance hierarchy to it as well. If someone was bothering you, it was likely that they didn't respect you. Fighting them, especially if you won, established that you were someone that they should respect and also that if they kept bothering, you could just beat them up again.
I'm not saying that this is a perfect solution, but it worked, more or less, in dealing with the conflicts that inevitably arose.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Physical bullying is manly, but talking bad about someone is cowardly and girly?
I have no idea where you are getting that from. I started out talking about specifically how bullying was regarded as not manly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Since I'm sure you see the less than perfect aspects, I'm not going to point them out.
I really mis-addressed your post anyway -- I think part of your larger point was that we now punish kids for using the "boy" way of addressing difference and not the "girl" way, yes? If so, I agree with you, but I don't think it's because we as a society think that indirect sabotage is "much better" than an out and out fight, it's just a lot harder to make/enforce specific rules about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: They are not equivalent in terms of levels of maturity, but then even as adults if a person insults another person's character, the level of maturity in owning up to that is still not equal to the person being insulted refusing to play that game. It's never going to be equal.
But a person being bullied while perhaps unable to maturely address the bullying directly should still be expected to contact parents, teachers, administrators, and ask for help.
The bullied may not stop the bully no matter how mature he/she is, but they are still taking responsibility for their actions.
I wish I could have worded that better but, I don't think I have the patience or time right now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was a very shy kid. My avoidance of bullying had very little to do with my lack of self confidence. My father taught me things that I was afraid to use. The same things my mother protested as things a ten year old shouldn't know. My father showed me where to stick a knife to kill silently. He taught me how to defend myself. Knowing how to defend yourself doesn't jive with junior high school fisticuffs. I was very shy and timid. I talked my way out of fights. Fighting was life or death. I'll sound like a coward to save your drunk ass life.
I've taught my children the same. My daughter was pushed to the ground and picked on. The boy who did it to her warns the others......"She's a girl who hurts boys."
She knows more than most how to defend herself. She won't do it unless she absolutely has to. Bullies are mean children. My children know how to defend themselves. Words won't make them do what they know how to do. They'll take the abusive language to avoid hurting the abuser. Bullies are to be pitied.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Physical bullying is manly, but talking bad about someone is cowardly and girly?
I have no idea where you are getting that from. I started out talking about specifically how bullying was regarded as not manly.
Fighting is bullying, unless both want to fight. It's a physical example of it. All fighting does is prove who is faster or stronger, or who has more experience in fighting.
See, I had a different view. I won't fight unless I am willing to kill someone. Beating me to a pulp only makes me that more likely to do so. I don't start fights, and I try to walk away from them when possible.
But the second you swing your fist at me, you ARE risking my life. I once watched a guy get hit one time, fall down and hit the back of his head on a curb. He died.
I don't see a lot of difference, in theory, between beating the crap out of someone and shooting them. Guns just make fighting more dangerous, but they don't change what the fundamental objective of a fight is, to force someone to yield due to physical threats or pain.
Not that I recommend carrying a gun, or using one. They are a last resort, for sure. But if someone beats me up, the next time we meet I'll damn well be carrying one. I don't start fights, but I'll end one before I let anyone hurt me again.
I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm afraid I have to put some of the blame onto the administrators. The article describes that this girl's face was scribbled out on pictures on the school's walls. That's pretty hard for teachers or administrators to not see, so they must have known. At a good school, even if teachers were not initally aware of the perpetrators, it should have launched a schoolwide alert to determine who it was: look out for this girl, someone's got it in for her.
It sounds like they explicitly knew, though, and just forgot.
However, if I was a parent and I knew, I would probably pursue this case to the bitter end, including moving my child against her express wishes to a different school.
The schools where I am added bullying-- in all its forms-- to the list of suspendable offenses in 2008. Violence and sexual assault are on the expulsion list.
I was never bullied, despite having a lot of reason to be (geeky, poorly dressed, socially awkward, early developer etc.) I think it was because I simply did not view myself as a target of bullies or even realise how geeky, poorly dressed and different I was until I started to change my image as an older teenager and young adult.
I remember a few incidents of jibes that, looking back, could have been an attempt to initiate something, but I remember-- with some embarrassment-- that I had some excessively geeky responses because I simply didn't get that I was a possible target.
But this is not the usual experience and children, even fifteen year olds, are not responsible for figuring out how to stop systematic bullying with no adult intervention.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top.
So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bullying the "bullies" is definitely a lower kind of law. It is very easy and very common for someone who goes around attacking people to imagine that he is the "good" kind of violent monster.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Some kinds of bullying? Absolutely violence is an acceptable means of ending it.
Though the way you describe it, it is much easier to get on on high horse named outrage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Bullying the "bullies" is definitely a lower kind of law. It is very easy and very common for someone who goes around attacking people to imagine that he is the "good" kind of violent monster.
Going around attacking people does not necessarily make one a 'violent monster' good or bad. That is an accurate description, after all, of police officers, boxers, and soldiers depending on context. Context matters.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top.
So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Once all other avenues have been tried. Including involving the authorities (and dealing with the loss of face that comes with that), running away, and avoiding the people involved.
It's one thing to be made fun of, and pushed around a bit. Once it goes PAST that, it isn't bullying, it's violence, plain and simple.
I had tried to let the system take care of it for literally years. Violence was the last possible reaction possible, other than literally letting this guy put me in the hospital or kill me.
We aren't talking about saying bad things about me, or pushing me around in the halls. We are talking about sneaking into my house, attacking me with weapons, and terrorizing my family.
I swear to God that if one more person said "Boys will be boys" to me I would have hit them myself. I heard that from parents, police officers, other kids....pretty much any adult that heard about it in passing.
I don't call trying yo run someone over bullying. I call it attempted murder.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top.
So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Once all other avenues have been tried. Including involving the authorities (and dealing with the loss of face that comes with that), running away, and avoiding the people involved.
It's one thing to be made fun of, and pushed around a bit. Once it goes PAST that, it isn't bullying, it's violence, plain and simple.
I had tried to let the system take care of it for literally years. Violence was the last possible reaction possible, other than literally letting this guy put me in the hospital or kill me.
We aren't talking about saying bad things about me, or pushing me around in the halls. We are talking about sneaking into my house, attacking me with weapons, and terrorizing my family.
I swear to God that if one more person said "Boys will be boys" to me I would have hit them myself. I heard that from parents, police officers, other kids....pretty much any adult that heard about it in passing.
I don't call trying to run someone over with a care, no matter what the age of the driver, bullying. I call it attempted murder.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We aren't talking about saying bad things about me, or pushing me around in the halls. We are talking about sneaking into my house, attacking me with weapons, and terrorizing my family.
That's not bullying, that's stalking and assault with a deadly weapon. If you did kill that guy, I'd call it justified.
Like Rakeesh said, context matters.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Bullying the "bullies" is definitely a lower kind of law. It is very easy and very common for someone who goes around attacking people to imagine that he is the "good" kind of violent monster.
Going around attacking people does not necessarily make one a 'violent monster' good or bad. That is an accurate description, after all, of police officers, boxers, and soldiers depending on context. Context matters.
Your exceptions are ridiculous. Don't point to institutionalized exceptions to pretend what I said isn't true for the self-appointed meta-bullies.
The people who proudly trump how they are the vigilante bullies to the bullies are self-deluded - they are monsters, and "I'm the good kind" that is the fiction they tell themselves to imagine themselves to still be good.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Your exceptions are ridiculous. Don't point to institutionalized exceptions to pretend what I said isn't true for the self-appointed meta-bullies.
My exceptions were ridiculous to point out that your description was vague to the point of uselessness.
quote: The people who proudly trump how they are the vigilante bullies to the bullies are self-deluded - they are monsters, and "I'm the good kind" that is the fiction they tell themselves to imagine themselves to still be good.
Who are we talking about here, anyway? The people now bullying the bullies online with threats and such? Well, I'd certainly agree they're wrong but perhaps not monsters. Other than that, I don't know who you're talking about.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Context matters was pretty much MY point as well. I don't think that violence works most of the time, except as a last resort.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
Why has this thread been so focused on physical violence? Physical violence, while regrettable, is not the real issue with bullying. Children don't commit suicide as a result of being pushed around. The issue here is when a child faces depression due to the actions of the social group around him or her.
Everyone here is talking about how to stop physical violence, but how do you stop emotional bullying? How do you stop a group of people from using the internet and tools like Facebook to make it impossible for a child to make any friends? The physical violence is much more likely a result of the child being ostracized, rather than the cause. Does punching the girl who started the rumor that one is a slut do anything?
The advent of the internet allows rumors and slander to cause much more damage than they did in the past. Isolation is the real danger here - its what causes depression to emerge. When a child feels that he has no one to turn it, it manifests itself in depression. So why does it matter what actions a person needs to take to not be beaten up for lunch money? That's largely irrelevant to the bigger issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was not limiting my definition of bullying to physical violence. I completely agree with you, Jenos. There is such thing as intentional emotional violence.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The real question is, did she suffer depression as a result of their actions or did they target the depressed weird kid. Of course it only makes the situation worse. I would wager, the depression and lack of self confidence came before the bullying.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Did anyone else notice that the reporter used the word 'tortuous' instead of 'torturous'? Silly Brits, they really need to learn English.
Sorry, just trying to lighten up the mood. Seriously though, this is a horrible situation. That having been said, I don't really understand this anti-bullying push. I was the subject of bullying, but I am still opposed to legal intervention. The reason is inconsistency. That is to say, if one can be charged as a minor due to someone committing suicide as a result of one's behavior, then we ought to examine all suicides and see what influenced that individual's decision. If it turns out that it was caused by, say, negative actions by one's coworkers, then ought those coworkers to be charged with murder or something of the sort? This seems clearly absurd, yet we entertain the thought with minors. In all other cases, minors are generally ascribed less responsibility, not greater. Why is it different here?
All that having been said, the school is full of twits.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The unintended consequences of laws based upon good intentions. Some people vote with feelings and some with logic. Will your grandchildren have to take their shoes off when entering an airport? What if 911 occurred in a football stadium with bombs? There wouldn't be a TSA, we'd have and NFLSA.
Bullies get prosecuted, speech will be criminalized. It will be illegal to post mean words on facebook.
Someone's words lead to someone else's action and the speaker is liable. There are nutjobs on the right and left that are inspired by words.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Bullies get prosecuted, speech will be criminalized. It will be illegal to post mean words on facebook.
Yup, that's what'll happen. Not a slippery slope at all.
The thing about hacks like yourself is that slippery slopes only ever seem to work when they're opposition slippery slopes. Death panels work, for example, but putting old people on cat food doesn't work.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Charging someone who made a Face Book statement for murder isn't a "slippery slope".
Better watch what you say. I'm not defending bullies but murder? If they charged them for slander I would understand.
They didn't murder. Words are not bullets.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Exactly who is charging them with murder, and to what extent is that charge linked to their comments on Facebook?
Hack.
ETA: I'll be interested to see how you weasel your way out of this, malanthrop. Will you ignore this post completely? Suggest you were misinterpreted? Claim that that's what some people want to charge them with?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The bullies weren't charged with murder. They were charged with criminal harassment. The decision to charge them was undoubtedly made because of the eventual consequences. Arguably, the crime was the same regardless of the suicide. Perhaps, these students should have been charged earlier, before the death occurred and that should be the standard. But that is a different discussion. Either way, the kids did harass the girl and so the charge is appropriate. A charge of harassment is not the same thing as a charge of murder.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Exactly who is charging them with murder, and to what extent is that charge linked to their comments on Facebook?
Hack.
ETA: I'll be interested to see how you weasel your way out of this, malanthrop. Will you ignore this post completely? Suggest you were misinterpreted? Claim that that's what some people want to charge them with?
You are correct. They were charged with "violations of civil rights, criminal harassment, and stalking". Felony charges.
The teens will be felons if they lose. It isn't murder, but a felony nonetheless.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, I see. One part completely ignoring the post, one part implying that what you said was in the neighborhood of what is accurate, when it's pretty plain it isn't.
Here's a question: should someone be permitted, legally, to continually insult someone on their own piece of the Internet? You're not permitted to mail insults to someone's physical mailbox if they object.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: That is to say, if one can be charged as a minor due to someone committing suicide as a result of one's behavior, then we ought to examine all suicides and see what influenced that individual's decision. If it turns out that it was caused by, say, negative actions by one's coworkers, then ought those coworkers to be charged with murder or something of the sort? This seems clearly absurd, yet we entertain the thought with minors. In all other cases, minors are generally ascribed less responsibility, not greater. Why is it different here?
Is this a response to the actual charges or to the sentiment that the kids should be charged for the girl's death? If the latter, I think most would agree with you. If the former, note that the charges are for specific actions that are clearly criminal on their own. The girl's suicide simply helped bring them to light.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It's a bit of both. I suspect that the reason they are being charged is because of the girl's death, and they would not have been charged if not for the suicide, even if authorities were well aware of the situation. This implies that the real reason they are being charged is the girl's death, despite the actions being illegal and mala in se.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Did anyone else notice that the reporter used the word 'tortuous' instead of 'torturous'? Silly Brits, they really need to learn English.
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: It's a bit of both. I suspect that the reason they are being charged is because of the girl's death, and they would not have been charged if not for the suicide, even if authorities were well aware of the situation. This implies that the real reason they are being charged is the girl's death, despite the actions being illegal and mala in se.
Perhaps. But I don't see this setting a bad precedent. Harassment and violence should be taken more seriously. If, in your example, the coworkers are found to be guilty of these crimes, it doesn't really matter that the victim's suicide is what brought them to light. Now, there may be a heavy bias in sentencing, and that I don't really have an answer for.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
A good question to ask might be if the girl had not killed herself, would these charges still feel justified? I am inclined to say yes. What the kids did was wrong and even if the girl had not committed suicide, they were cruelly and selfishly inflicting pain on another. Ideally, I think the school should have dealt with this early on, but with their failure, the police stepping in seems appropriate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with both rollainm and scholarette.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
To a certain degree, I feel like a bad person defending these kids, but...
If these kids are being charged solely on the basis of their actions, and not the results of their actions--and they ought to be... it seems to me that somewhere between 30-90% of high school students ought to be prosecuted.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I think your estimations are a bit high, especially of what the kids in this particular case are being charged with.
But regardless, we're talking about law here, not morality. The action is exactly the basis of the charge. Harassment, assault, and battery are explicitly against the law.
But even all that aside, and even if we assume your estimations are correct, as much as that would suck it wouldn't change the law. We could only hope that deterrence from the prosecution of some would bring those numbers down some.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Do you also think that because not every person who speeds gets ticketed, no one should be?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be charged. I'm saying exactly what I said: If these kids are charged, we ought to charge many more people. This is a valueless comment. Perhaps my estimations are high, but if we include middle school, dear lord.
Perhaps I misspoke when I said I was defending them. I am just making clear what we need to do to be consistent. Personally, I am in favor of a form of Kantian retributivism, which entails that the state has an absolute duty to punish all those who are guilty of crimes. So yes, these children should be punished, but so should many others. I am more concerned with the fact that they are children than anything else. I was unclear on this in my previous posts, and I apologize if it seems that I am trying to say that these actions are not deserving of contemn.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: To a certain degree, I feel like a bad person defending these kids, but...
If these kids are being charged solely on the basis of their actions, and not the results of their actions--and they ought to be... it seems to me that somewhere between 30-90% of high school students ought to be prosecuted.
Without necessarily accepting your numbers, I would have no difficulty with this. Our schools are uncivilised; Lord of the Flies, had it been written today, could easily have been set in one. This is an injustice unworthy of a developed nation, and must be fixed.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Bingo. Lord of the flies. They are children who do not fully understand their actions--they don't recognize other people AS people. It is the adults who should be preventing such action from taking place in the first place. It is not like we blame a baby for shitting himself. Nor do we blame a 6 year old for being selfish and whiny. It is a stage of natural progression that the adults need to prevent. If, however, they are competent enough to be tried, then try them. Also try many more people.
ETA: When I read Lord of the Flies, I do not think these children are horrible. I think they are just children who are put in a tough situation and are acting the way they know how. I feel sorrowful as a result.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I'm not saying that they shouldn't be charged. I'm saying exactly what I said: If these kids are charged, we ought to charge many more people. This is a valueless comment. Perhaps my estimations are high, but if we include middle school, dear lord.
Perhaps I misspoke when I said I was defending them. I am just making clear what we need to do to be consistent. Personally, I am in favor of a form of Kantian retributivism, which entails that the state has an absolute duty to punish all those who are guilty of crimes. So yes, these children should be punished, but so should many others. I am more concerned with the fact that they are children than anything else. I was unclear on this in my previous posts, and I apologize if it seems that I am trying to say that these actions are not deserving of contemn.
I agree in principle. But in reality, this just isn't possible. We simply don't have the resources to punish every crime. And this is where deterrence plays an important part. Consistency is still a goal to strive for. And like I said, these crimes should be taken more seriously so that a greater emphasis will be placed on their consequences, thus reducing their occurrence.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Maybe this is where we differ; I do not think that deterrence should play any role in punishment, nor do I think that it is effective. In fact, I think that punishment for the sake of deterrence is unethical.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I believe that punishment for its own sake is unethical. "Justice" for many people these days has become nothing more than thinly veiled vengeance, and frankly that disgusts me. But deterrence? I'll have to think about that.
I see punishment as being dealt specifically with deterrence of further criminal action in mind. Could you elaborate on why you think it's unethical?
I'm off to bed, so I'll reply sometime tomorrow.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I think it is unethical because I think that the sole reason that someone should be punished is because they deserve it. To punish them for any other reason is not only inappropriate, but unjust. If punishing someone deters others from doing the crime, then that is merely a happy fringe benefit, but ought not to be part of the desiderata of any theory of punishment. Not to mention what I take the be the ineffectiveness of punishment as a deterrent. But its effectiveness is not my problem--my problem is just that it is not the proper reason to punish someone, and punishing someone for the wrong reason is itself wrong. That is because punishment is a harsh action, so if not correctly justified, is an unjustified harsh and harmful action.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think it is unethical because I think that the sole reason that someone should be punished is because they deserve it.
Dagonee once wrote an excellent post outlining the five reasons we punish people in our current legal system. IIRC, three of them were Restitution, Retribution, and Deterrence. Does anybody recall what the other two were?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I can think of other reasons including at least: protection of society and rehabilitation. My claim is not to say that there are not other reasons to punish. My claim is to say that there should not be any other reason to punish that is a right reason.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. Those are the two.
quote:My claim is not to say that there are not other reasons to punish. My claim is to say that there should not be any other reason to punish that is a right reason.
I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation are all wrong reasons, and should not be a consideration at all in sentencing?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Yes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wow. I find that a very surprising stance to take.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
As I said, I am a Kantian retributivist.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Wow. I find that a very surprising stance to take.
Ditto.
Could you elaborate on why these other reasons are wrong? Also, you say punishment should be dealt solely because it's deserved as if that's an axiom. I don't see this, and in fact I think that's a pretty dangerous idea to run with. Could you elaborate on that as well?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Color me baffled as well. I can imagine arguments against punishment for deterrence, but why on Earth would it be unethical to punish as a protection for society?
If someone commits a violent crime, must'nt society be protected by that person? How else shall we do that except to remove that person from society?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think you meant "from that person" not "by that person" Rakeesh.
It would be kinda humorous if all our villains were required to undertake protection training and become the guardians of society as part of their rehabilitation.
I wonder if there's a story in there?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm pretty sure that's a movie starring Stallone and... Westley Snipes?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm pretty sure that's a movie starring Stallone and... Westley Snipes?
No that's Demolition Man and the bad guys don't become cops, they just freeze them and use some form of mind conditioning to remove their bad tendencies.
I was thinking more like, Catch Me If You can where *spoilers!* He is finally captured and works off part of his sentence by sharing his knowledge of forgery with the FBI while they work cases. But even cooler than that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it did happen in one of Card's short stories, I forget the title.
SPOILER
I'm thinking of the one with the child prodigy musician who, growing up, was 'tainted' by hearing someone else's music and thus was barred from playing his music for anyone, ever, because it was so powerful and evocative it upset people, even in good ways. But he couldn't stop himself from doing it, so he was continually punished. Eventually, blinded, maimed, rendered mute, he was made one of the enforcers of the law, the same kind of person who came along when he had broken the law and punished him.
SPOILER Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No that's Demolition Man and the bad guys don't become cops, they just freeze them and use some form of mind conditioning to remove their bad tendencies.
So they can fight bad guys, protecting society.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, it did happen in one of Card's short stories, I forget the title.
SPOILER
I'm thinking of the one with the child prodigy musician who, growing up, was 'tainted' by hearing someone else's music and thus was barred from playing his music for anyone, ever, because it was so powerful and evocative it upset people, even in good ways. But he couldn't stop himself from doing it, so he was continually punished. Eventually, blinded, maimed, rendered mute, he was made one of the enforcers of the law, the same kind of person who came along when he had broken the law and punished him.
SPOILER
The sounds like Song Master, but not exactly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There are the mind wipes* in B5, they're required to serve society afterwards.
* A telepath erases the old mind and creates a new one with no memories of their past with a new personality
More down to Earth:
quote:Naples has long been known as a destination that is overflowing with cultural experiences and art treasures. However, with pick-pocketing and bag snatching common, the southern Italian city can prove intimidating for uninitiated visitors.
In a bid to make tourists feel safer in the city, authorities announced in May that they were putting them in the hands of residents who know Naples' intricate streets like no other - the criminals.
With the summer season now firmly behind them, the six-month scheme is so far proving a success, with attacks against tourists thought to have been reduced by up to 85 per cent.
Former convicts have been enlisted to help guide visitors around the city, sporting luminous yellow vests to identify themselves as what is officially being called 'Operator for the Urban Tourist Assistance'.
link Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rakeesh -- you're thinking of "Unaccompanied Sonata".
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
This makes me think of "The Chocolate War" even though there are certain key differences.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If someone commits a violent crime, must'nt society be protected by that person? How else shall we do that except to remove that person from society?
First concerning the earlier point (not made by you), I don't understand how it is a dangerous axiom that people should only be punished if they deserve it. Should be punish people who do not deserve to be punished? That seems patently wrong; what is stopping the state from punishing you randomly if that is the case. Indeed, I think it goes against the very concept of punishment.
If the punishment includes removing a dangerous person from society, then that is a nice benefit, but that is not the *reason* to punish. If the reason we punish people is to remove dangerous fellows from society, then by parity of reason, we ought to remove people who are deemed dangerous to society from said society before they do anything. Perhaps someone who, upon turning 18, is clearly going to be a bad and violent person but has not committed any crimes as of yet. Or like in that movie where police officers were able to see the future and arrested people for crimes they did not commit. This type of situation is, in my mind, abhorrent.
Once again, the reason we ought to punish someone is because they deserve it, and the punishment ought to be proportionate to the crime. Any other reasons are not really reasons, but side-effects that are pleasant. If we try to build a system on those other factors as reasons, then there may be many possible situations in which disgusting situations arise.
I am providing a very brief and shallow account of retributivism. I don't expect to convince anyone; merely, I am showing that it is a reasonable position from a certain vantage-point. Even if I were to provide a book-length account, I doubt I would convince anyone. That having been said, may I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Responsibility-Punishment-Library-Applied-Philosophy/dp/1402041470 which I'm sure your local university library can get for you.
Disclaimer: That book is written by my former advisor--it is one of the only things we ever agreed on.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: ... Or like in that movie where police officers were able to see the future and arrested people for crimes they did not commit.
Minority Report, I think.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
JonHecht: it might help if you keep in mind that, when most people say "reason to punish", they mean "reason to assign particular punishments" (that is, first you must decide whether or not someone should be punished, and second you must decide what the punishment shall be). This should be clear from the frequent dichotomy where a person will be entirely against locking up someone innocent of a crime, but entirely for locking up someone longer who has committed a crime and seems likely to commit a crime again (say, because they have committed several crimes of the same sort, each after being locked up for a period).
That is, you are not actually arguing against those as "reasons" to punish, in the sense most everyone means 'reason to punish'. I think it is rather not noticing the ambiguity of the language rather than constructing an intentional straw man, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
If the punishment includes removing a dangerous person from society, then that is a nice benefit, but that is not the *reason* to punish. If the reason we punish people is to remove dangerous fellows from society, then by parity of reason, we ought to remove people who are deemed dangerous to society from said society before they do anything. Perhaps someone who, upon turning 18, is clearly going to be a bad and violent person but has not committed any crimes as of yet. Or like in that movie where police officers were able to see the future and arrested people for crimes they did not commit. This type of situation is, in my mind, abhorrent.
Well, no, this doesn't follow at all. The reason we are allowed (or that is, allow ourselves) to remove violent criminals from society thus protecting ourselves isn't just because we've decided they are a danger to society. It is because they have proven themselves to be a danger to society, beyond a reasonable doubt. It's because we've looked at their behavior - specifically the crime - and given the person many opportunities to show us as wrong about them, and they still come out looking like a danger to society.
Removing someone from society because they are dangerous after demonstrating this through a trial by jury beyond a reasonable doubt is not comparable to deciding prior to any crime that they are probably a danger to society at all. It would take a very, very excellent book indeed for me to be convinced that the two options you're discussing are really in the same ballpark at all.
Perhaps the problem, in addition to a faulty comparison, lies in the fact that we're defining 'deserve' quite differently. In my view - and the law's view, broadly speaking - if an individual commits a violent crime and is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have done so by a jury of etc. etc., well, that individual has then forfeited quite a few rights, but not all of them. That person no longer has the inviolate right to, for example, mingle with the rest of society, carry firearms, drink alcohol, or a host of other rights that ordinary, non-criminal citizens enjoy.
There are some rights a human being can lose, and it's not at all disgusting to think so.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Thanks for the pointer, fugu. I agree that may be the problem, but I won't know until others share their responses to it. Then again, the claim that only those who deserve to be punished ought to be punished as an axiom is dangerous appears to go against this.
Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Fugu and Rakeesh both make great points.
Jon, I agree that it would be absurd to punish someone who doesn't deserve punishment. Punishment dealt should of course be deserved. But why is it deserved? In other words, what is the purpose of punishment?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.
I don't understand what you're speaking out against. Is it that you're speaking out against the idea that someone who has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt could potentially be punished by the criminal justice system? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you-folks who have not been proven beyond a etc. etc. should not be punished. But since that is the mechanism by which we decide who will be punished, I'm not really sure why you're speaking out.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote: That is to say, if one can be charged as a minor due to someone committing suicide as a result of one's behavior, then we ought to examine all suicides and see what influenced that individual's decision. If it turns out that it was caused by, say, negative actions by one's coworkers, then ought those coworkers to be charged with murder or something of the sort? This seems clearly absurd, yet we entertain the thought with minors. In all other cases, minors are generally ascribed less responsibility, not greater. Why is it different here?
Is this a response to the actual charges or to the sentiment that the kids should be charged for the girl's death? If the latter, I think most would agree with you. If the former, note that the charges are for specific actions that are clearly criminal on their own. The girl's suicide simply helped bring them to light.
The only "clearly criminal" behavior was the rape aspect, and they are charged. Stalking isn't a crime until the victim gets a restraining order and the stalker violates that order.
Posting something on the internet isn't like calling their house over and over. Having your phone ring is an intrusion. Words on a blog of networking sight aren't an intrusion. You have to choose to go there to read them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
mal: Words spoken on a blog or on FB are certainly an intrusion. A person visiting her facebook page will see them and read them to ascertain their nature. It's no different than shouting something loud enough for a group of people to hear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Posting something on the internet isn't like calling their house over and over. Having your phone ring is an intrusion. Words on a blog of networking sight aren't an intrusion. You have to choose to go there to read them.
Sure, and someone could just screen all their calls to make sure it's someone they want to talk to.
Your examples only work by putting the entire onus on the victim to deal with the behavior. And it's not, of course, just 'posting something on the Internet'. These people didn't go to an Eskimo film review website to vent their spite.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.
I don't understand what you're speaking out against. Is it that you're speaking out against the idea that someone who has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt could potentially be punished by the criminal justice system? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you-folks who have not been proven beyond a etc. etc. should not be punished. But since that is the mechanism by which we decide who will be punished, I'm not really sure why you're speaking out.
No, what I am saying is that if the reason we punish people is to protect society from them, then we can create a situation in which someone has not committed any crimes, but it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society. As such, according to your conditions, this person ought to be cordoned off.
Rollainm. I don't know. Or I don't know with certainty, or even very much certainty. Oftentimes laws relate to a violation of the principle of harm (malum in se). And we are punishing them because they violate the law. Alternatively, they may violate coordinative laws (malum prohibitum). Some laws are on the edge, such as anti-drug laws, with regards to whether they are malum in se or malum prohibitum. Obviously we do not make illegal all unethical behavior, but usually we make illegal those illegal behaviors that cause harm to others (and sometimes one self).
So, summarizing, someone deserves to be punished if they knowingly and intentionally violate a law. In the case of malum in se laws, the intention did not have to be specifically to violate the law by any means, but rather to do the bad action.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Understanding the internet is still the wild-wild-west and unregulated, the clamps are about to come down.
I purchase a lot online. No taxes and the best prices in the nation. Don't worry, blog entries and online purchases will eventually be regulated and taxed.
Since WWW is international, what country will prosecute Facebook offenders? Is Facebook an America only service? If I post harsh language on Facebook about someone from another country, who is going to charge me with a crime?
As far as I can tell, there hasn't been a social networking restraining order granted other than pedophiles as a condition of their release.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
mal- also, add into that threatening to beat up someone in the halls at school, screaming epithets at her while she eats lunch, throwing soda cans at her on the street and other harassment up close and personal. When the girl can't walk to class without her friends surrounding her as protection, that is a problem. But, by all means, let's reduce the problem to mean posts on the internet. Ignoring reality always serves well.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Horrible. Who failed? Was the protection provided by the school? Obviously not. The school didn't care, "her friends" surrounded her. Sounds like she had some good friends but went to a lousy school with pathetic parents. It is a terrible thing that a student can't feel safe in a government school. It's horrible that fellow students need to physically protect a student in a government school.
I'm glad my children attend a school where bullying isn't tolerated. There are just as many bullies at her school but their behavior isn't tolerated. Those kind of bullies are in every school. Nature is cruel. Society attempts to overcome anarchy with laws and government. The school failed. This should be about the failure of the school. 99.9% of schools in this country don't require fellow student escorts as defense against bullies. Where were the teachers, administrators and parents?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.
I don't understand what you're speaking out against. Is it that you're speaking out against the idea that someone who has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt could potentially be punished by the criminal justice system? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you-folks who have not been proven beyond a etc. etc. should not be punished. But since that is the mechanism by which we decide who will be punished, I'm not really sure why you're speaking out.
No, what I am saying is that if the reason we punish people is to protect society from them, then we can create a situation in which someone has not committed any crimes, but it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society. As such, according to your conditions, this person ought to be cordoned off.
Rollainm. I don't know. Or I don't know with certainty, or even very much certainty. Oftentimes laws relate to a violation of the principle of harm (malum in se). And we are punishing them because they violate the law. Alternatively, they may violate coordinative laws (malum prohibitum). Some laws are on the edge, such as anti-drug laws, with regards to whether they are malum in se or malum prohibitum. Obviously we do not make illegal all unethical behavior, but usually we make illegal those illegal behaviors that cause harm to others (and sometimes one self).
So, summarizing, someone deserves to be punished if they knowingly and intentionally violate a law. In the case of malum in se laws, the intention did not have to be specifically to violate the law by any means, but rather to do the bad action.
This still doesn't answer the question of purpose. Why is punishment, specifically, the proper response to violation of the law? Why not, say, give them a puppy instead?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Oh. That's way way too deep a question for me to even begin to answer here. It relies on metaethical theorizing followed by application in a particular fashion. So, I can't do it here, but there are many many wonderful books on the topic. Alternatively, it just is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jon,
quote:No, what I am saying is that if the reason we punish people is to protect society from them, then we can create a situation in which someone has not committed any crimes, but it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society. As such, according to your conditions, this person ought to be cordoned off.
How would you go about creating such a situation? I don't think you mean 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the same way I do. When I say it, one of the key components is 'evidenced by the fact that this person has done something to endanger society'. It really feels like you're changing other peoples' conditions in order to demonstrate how they're unsound.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I mean beyond a reasonable doubt in the sense that there are no reasonable reasons to doubt it. I was under the impression that this is what beyond a reasonable doubt meant. And an example would be one such as that which was previously stated; i.e., the case in the film Minority Report. Alternatively, if we become more adept at neuroscience, we might be able to examine people's minds and determine that someone is uncontrollably violent, and there is a 99% chance this person is dangerous (which is considerably more than most legal scholars consider beyond a reasonable doubt to be for legal purposes).
Edit: Unless you have direct evidence of me doing so, I would appreciate for the sake of cordiality that you did not accuse me of being deceptive in my arguments.
Edit2: Your definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond not corresponding to what I think the common-sense definition of the term is, has several other problems for this context. a) It is redundant in many contexts. e.g., "You must determine that he did the action beyond a reasonable doubt" would transform into "you must determine that he did the action in a way such that it is 'evidenced by the fact that this person has done something to endanger society'" Well, you must determine that he did in in a way that he did it. That is a tad redundant.
b) Your reasonable doubt is simply coming close to how I define someone having deservedness (though not incorporating the epistemic conditions). As such, I *really* think that your definition of beyond a reasonable doubt is altogether an amphigory.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Exactly who is charging them with murder, and to what extent is that charge linked to their comments on Facebook?
Hack.
ETA: I'll be interested to see how you weasel your way out of this, malanthrop. Will you ignore this post completely? Suggest you were misinterpreted? Claim that that's what some people want to charge them with?
You are correct. They were charged with "violations of civil rights, criminal harassment, and stalking". Felony charges.
The teens will be felons if they lose. It isn't murder, but a felony nonetheless.
'
Did they COMMITT felonies? If so....charge them. Not with murder...they didn't, under any definition of the word, murder her.
They DID physically assault and batter her, sexually assault her, slander her and cyber stalk her.
And they should be charged with it. None of this is age dependent. They were all old enough to understand it was wrong, but they did it anyways, probably thinking they were untouchable.
They were wrong, and society will be better off with them being punished because of it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Bingo. Lord of the flies. They are children who do not fully understand their actions--they don't recognize other people AS people. It is the adults who should be preventing such action from taking place in the first place. It is not like we blame a baby for shitting himself. Nor do we blame a 6 year old for being selfish and whiny. It is a stage of natural progression that the adults need to prevent. If, however, they are competent enough to be tried, then try them. Also try many more people.
ETA: When I read Lord of the Flies, I do not think these children are horrible. I think they are just children who are put in a tough situation and are acting the way they know how. I feel sorrowful as a result.
Bullshit. They know damn well, they just think they can get away with it because no one holds them accountable.
If kids didn't think this was ok, they wouldn't sneak around doing it, or lie about doing it when caught.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As far as age mattering, I believe all the kids under 18 were charged as minors. Felonies, but they will still be in the juvie system, with all the protections that afford (such as sealed records). The young men were charged as adults, however, I believe they were over 18 and since they were charged with statutory rape, charging as minors does not make much sense.
ETA: I would feel a lot more sympathy for a 12-14 year old than I do for a 17 year old. I do expect a 17 year old to understand that level of right and wrong. I would expect a 12 year old to know right from wrong, but at that maturity level, I would be more hesitant to charge them since they are less capable of impulse control and long term understanding.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Kwea, yes. What I meant to get across was not that they did not think it was wrong, but that they did not think that it was wrong in itself. If they thought it was wrong in itself, I don't think they would have been able to do it. Rather, their ethical growth was so underdeveloped that their concern was merely for self-preservation because they knew that it would result in harm for them.
There's a difference between knowing that something is wrong intellectually, and understanding that it is wrong in a way that one would be too disgusted to act in such a way. This can, I think, only come from living.
ETA: I have TAd for a number of 101 ethics classes, in which most of the constituents were 18-19 year olds. Occasionally we would ask questions and have them raise their hands. I'd say nearly all of them were unethical bastards who thought that something was good if and only if a) You didn't get caught and b) It was good for them
Nearly every single person was under the impression that ethical egoism was the way to go, and this was based on a bloody poll. This is perhaps why I have my views.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
In this case, the true offenders have been charged already. The rapists have been charged for rape. Being mean isn't a crime.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, but assault, battery and slander are crimes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jon,
quote:I mean beyond a reasonable doubt in the sense that there are no reasonable reasons to doubt it. I was under the impression that this is what beyond a reasonable doubt meant. And an example would be one such as that which was previously stated; i.e., the case in the film Minority Report. Alternatively, if we become more adept at neuroscience, we might be able to examine people's minds and determine that someone is uncontrollably violent, and there is a 99% chance this person is dangerous (which is considerably more than most legal scholars consider beyond a reasonable doubt to be for legal purposes).
You're still missing the point. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be a danger' but 'beyond a reasonable doubt that they have been a danger, in such and such specific way'.
I didn't say you were being deceptive. I said it felt like you were changing things-and for the record, it's not fun to be labeled as having disgusting beliefs, either.
quote:I mean beyond a reasonable doubt in the sense that there are no reasonable reasons to doubt it. I was under the impression that this is what beyond a reasonable doubt meant. And an example would be one such as that which was previously stated; i.e., the case in the film Minority Report. Alternatively, if we become more adept at neuroscience, we might be able to examine people's minds and determine that someone is uncontrollably violent, and there is a 99% chance this person is dangerous (which is considerably more than most legal scholars consider beyond a reasonable doubt to be for legal purposes).
Well, you're right that my definition was redundant. That's largely because you're continually suggesting that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone committed a crime somehow is equivalent to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone will commit a crime. I don't grant that premise, and it seems to me that you've not done an adequate job of making your case.
I think perhaps the conversation went off the rails when you started referencing Minority Report. Why are we talking about how moral the actions that occurred in that work of fiction are as though they had direct comparable relevance to the real-world, present criminal justice system?
We can't predict the future like they could in Minority Report, and in fact even in that story, they couldn't predict the future either-all they could do was get a usually accurate though unverifiable (contradiction there) visual representation of the future, along with a name. Was there audio? I don't recall.
The founding premise of that story - absolutely reliable precognition - was flawed, so you can hardly point to it and say, "See, this is wrong, thus this other situation is wrong," because the two aren't comparable. In that story, you couldn't defend against the precognition. Your defense attorney couldn't cross-examine the three precogs. He couldn't visit the scene of the crime to evaluate evidence that didn't exist because a crime was stopped.
quote:I mean beyond a reasonable doubt in the sense that there are no reasonable reasons to doubt it. I was under the impression that this is what beyond a reasonable doubt meant.
Looking back, I think this is the problem. It takes more than beyond a reasonable doubt for someone to be separated from society. It takes it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific crime was committed by a specific person. Our criminal justice system does not grant us the right to incarcerate anyone who beyond a reasonable doubt is a threat.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"Well, you're right that my definition was redundant. That's largely because you're continually suggesting that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone committed a crime somehow is equivalent to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone will commit a crime. I don't grant that premise, and it seems to me that you've not done an adequate job of making your case."
Repeatedly, I said "Beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society". I wish you had been clear that this is not what you meant.
It was not clear when you said "It is because they have proven themselves to be a danger to society, beyond a reasonable doubt." Because this does not entail that any crimes are committed. and "It's because we've looked at their behavior - specifically the crime - and given the person many opportunities to show us as wrong about them, and they still come out looking like a danger to society." The claim that it is behavior, then only crime as a specific instance, implies that there are other factors that are influencing.
So I do not think that I am missing the point. I think that the point you were making has been entirely unclear.
Concerning the use of counterfactuals, whether they are actually possible is irrelevant to the question of what we ought to do if the situation were to arise. And if we ought to do something in that situation, it make evoke better intuitions, and from this we can determine what we ought to do in the actual world by the principle of parity, mutatis mutandis.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Because this does not entail that any crimes are committed.
*cough* does not necessarily entail. There are numerous moral systems where this would entail, for all situations that can arise in reality.
If we're trying to be precise, let us actually be precise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Repeatedly, I said "Beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society". I wish you had been clear that this is not what you meant.
I meant it the way society means it, the way we currently determine who is a danger to society-by proving before a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, but I really was taking it for granted.
quote:The claim that it is behavior, then only crime as a specific instance, implies that there are other factors that are influencing.
Of course there are other factors influencing. But the crime having been committed is necessary factor. If it's not there, no amount of other factors will be enough.
quote: Concerning the use of counterfactuals, whether they are actually possible is irrelevant to the question of what we ought to do if the situation were to arise. And if we ought to do something in that situation, it make evoke better intuitions, and from this we can determine what we ought to do in the actual world by the principle of parity, mutatis mutandis.
It might in some instances. It doesn't in this case.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
not to derail this thread, but weren't the Hutaree arrested for something they planned (or claimed they were planning) to do?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, they were arrested for doing the planning. Planning certain sorts of events is illegal. They were arrested for committing a crime in the present.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i am aware of the illegal nature of planning destructive events. It just seems that the current discussion about reasonable doubt, punishment and deservedness there might be some interesting discussion about whether the Hutaree should be prosecuted/punished. Are they beyond a reasonable doubt a proven threat to society in that they must be punished?
It just seems like an interesting and current event that can be discussed versus the fictional (and in the future) event like in Minority Report.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"Of course there are other factors influencing. But the crime having been committed is necessary factor. If it's not there, no amount of other factors will be enough."
That's fine. It just was not clear until a couple posts ago that this is what you meant.
At this point, it just appears that you are arguing that deservedness is a necessary condition (and sufficient?) + the other thing might be a nice effect. Which is what I was arguing for from the beginning. Well, that is, if you also think deservedness is a sufficient condition. Do you?
Fugu, when I say entailed simpliciter, I always (and I mean always) mean necessarily entailed. If I mean something different, then I will say something such as "conceptually entailed" or something of that sort, as entailed has necessary embedded in it whenever it is used in logical argumentation. As such, necessary entailment is redundant.
"It might in some instances. It doesn't in this case." Well, I don't really see why this case is exceptional, but I don't think it matters anymore, if we agree on the first point. But what about the neuroscience example I provided? Is that also exceptional?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know why you're using the term 'deservedness'. The conditions I think are necessary are the ones I've said at least once already: that a crime be committed, and that it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt etc. etc. that a certain person did commit that specific crime. Only when those two conditions have been met can we start talking about the individual being a danger to society in terms of separating that person from society.
What you were initially arguing is that, somehow, including 'protect society from the criminal' into our criminal justice system actually meant that we could also just determine, before a crime was actually committed, that someone is a danger and lock them up too. Or at least that's how it read to me-I can't speak for everyone, but you really seem to be making this unnecessarily complicated.
As for the neuroscience example, since it relies on incredibly accurate, currently impossible degrees of certainty in terms of reading the mind of an individual, I'd certainly say it's exceptional. But even if such science existed, under current law we still couldn't just imprison them out of the blue-though perhaps that might happen in terms of medical care, which is a different ball of wax.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The second paragraph you wrote comes from the confusion of what we meant by reason, as fugu pointed out earlier and I asked that you would explain at that point what you meant by it (I think I did? Too lazy to check back). When I mean reason to do something, I mean sufficient reason, as I do not think that something can be a reason to do something unless it follows that one has reason to do it. This is rather than this nice benefit. That is to say, if they are going to be locked up already because they deserve to be locked up, why do we need to justify it by saying they are a danger to society?
And the reason I talk of deservedness is that this is the term that is usually used when discussing the topic. It covers having done the action, having had the intent to do it, knowingly doing it, etc. It is highly preferable, I believe, to use this term over them having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it, because someone can still deserve the punishment without having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have done it. That is to say, they could have *actually* done it, but been clever about it. I would not want to say that person no longer deserves to be punished because he was so clever. This type of procedural justice is problematic for that reason.
On the neuroscience, I am concerned with the ethical ramifications, not the legal ones, as the law--in my mind--ought to follow from the ethics.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Jon,
What if someone who hasn't broken any laws is carrying a terrible plague and needs to be locked up to prevent it from spreading? Is that sort of 'consequentialist' imprisonment always ethically wrong?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
A straight Kantian would have to say yes. There is a way around it for a Kantian, though.
a) Ask him to stay quarantined. Inform him of his great danger he is posing. he either b) Accepts and goes under quarantine or c) Refuses and runs about if 'c' then he is knowingly and intentionally causing harm to other, or he is irrational and thus not an agent with rights anyway. So then we may force quarantine.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What if there's no way to communicate with him before infringing on his rights? Suppose he's listening to loud headphones and he's on his way out of town. The only way to stop him is to shoot out his tires and cause an accident, or something like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that we lock dangerous people up to protect society but that, first, a person must have done something (commit a crime) to relinquish some of his or her civil rights. The goal is protecting society but a greater goal is freedom so "deserving it" would be a necessary but not sufficient condition.
In the case of the innocent person with a disease, locking them up is not ethical but, possibly, letting them spread the disease would be even less ethical.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
What he said. Kant would say no go. I don't know what I'd say; I'd have to think about it for a good long while.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, I'd say the obvious right answer is to lock the guy up, if that's the only way to save thousands of lives. We could even tool the example so that he only has to be imprisoned for a short while, making it doubly obvious.
If, according to Kantian ethics, that's not the obvious right answer, I don't see how Kant's ethics has any chance of being correct.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When we lock this guy up, presumably we are locking him up in a nice place, with good food, access to amusement (cable, internet, books, phone, whatever). That is substantially different then tossing the poor, sick guy in a tiny cage with nothing to do all day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What he said. Kant would say no go. I don't know what I'd say; I'd have to think about it for a good long while.
If it's a question of a grave risk to the lives of many versus quarantining one individual up - possibly for a limited time, no less - what is there really to think about? The choice is in your hands in this situation, so the question really becomes 'Which is more important?' The lives of many or the civil rights - of an individual?
If you chose to respect the individual's civil rights, I'm sure you'd have your family be the first in line to go to a movie with the guy, of course?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It's not that simple. I take rights seriously (for those who get the joke, teehee).
Also, regarding your strawman, there is a difference between not actively preventing something and encouraging the action.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute...
How is it my strawman - or even a strawman at all, really - for me to reference a hypothetical situation someone else brought up and was being discussed seriously - by you, no less - well before I posted? This coming from the guy who brought Minority Report into things.
Anyway, as for taking rights seriously...what about the right to not catch a fatal illness and then die from it when it could have been prevented? Do we not have that right? How do we not have that right, but we do have a right not to be quarantined?
quote:Also, regarding your strawman, there is a difference between not actively preventing something and encouraging the action.
Sure there is. In this case, that difference is that the people who die aren't close to you. Or would you not quarantine the carrier, and then take you and your family and head for the hills? Then you would have the right not to get sick and die, and your family would, but not all the other poor slobs who come into contact with the person you wouldn't quarantine just to keep a clean conscience.
(If you can't tell, the strawman remark was pretty damn irritating).
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The strawman is, once again, that my comment about not actively doing something to prevent it is utterly different from actively encouraging it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, what's the difference?
Well, I suppose your conscience might be clear at the end if you didn't quarantine, but lots of people would be dead...so long as you didn't violate the carrier's rights, though, that's the most important thing.
Civil rights aren't a suicide pact. They are not, nor should they be, absolutely inviolate. If someone is a carrier of a deadly, highly contagious illness and plans to continue living his life in close proximity to other human beings, exposing who knows how many to the serious risk of death...the choice over whether or not to quarantine that individual, whether they have been given the opportunity to choose that for themselves, is extremely simple.
Or, you tell me - without descending into ethics-class jargon, if possible? - why it isn't? 'I take rights seriously' is hardly persuasive. Seriously is not an accurate word to describe such a high esteem for these rights. 'Fanatic' is really more complete.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You have to understand, Rakeesh -- the historical Kant thought it was wrong to lie to a murderer about where his intended victim was hiding.
Makes it hard to understand why anybody ever thought he was onto something with his ethics. Probably because his work in metaphysics and epistemology was so brilliant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder if even someone as brilliant as Kant could present a strong defense for that style of belief. So far, though, I've never heard one. Not even in the ballpark.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Good read.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Because this does not entail that any crimes are committed.
*cough* does not necessarily entail. There are numerous moral systems where this would entail, for all situations that can arise in reality.
If we're trying to be precise, let us actually be precise.
I'm shocked. If we are going to bring "morality" into the picture, lets be intellectually honest. I'm opposed to abortion on a moral basis but I don't believe abortion providers should be charged with murder. Abortion is legal.
By your standard, criminal charges can be brought against anyone who deviates from those in power.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:While valid criticisms of the Groundwork are to be addressed, Kant dismisses many criticisms that he finds unhelpful. He suggests that many of the defects that reviewers have found in his arguments are in fact only in their brains, which are too lazy to grasp his ethical system as a whole. As to those who accuse him of writing incomprehensible jargon, he challenges them to find more suitable language for his ideas or to prove that they are really meaningless. He reassures the reader that the second Critique will be more accessible than the first.
Is this a fair statement to make in your opinion, Jon? I do have to wonder at an outlook which insists on the laziness of others as a reason for their disagreement.
Anyway:
quote:Kant's position is that moral goodness, which consists in following the rule of the categorical imperative, is more basic to ethics than good consequences, and that it is the right motivations--an obligation to duty-- which is criterial for defining a person as good.
What good are right motivations if they don't lead to good consequences? For example, telling a murderer where his victim can be found so as not to lie, or permitting a carrier of a highly contagious, deadly illness freedom of movement so as to avoid quarantining him against his will. I think if you asked the people who died as a direct result of those decisions, they'd say something like, "To hell with 'right motivation'! My family is dead!"
Reading the whole article carefully twice now, I simply don't see anything that leads me even to consider that an individual ought decide to let the carrier go free, or tell the murderer where to find his victim. Maybe I'm just lazy, or perhaps I think my responsibility stretches further than what I directly decide to do and carry out.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Are you suggesting we profile in the airports? The words of the bullies are the same as the words of an Imam. In fact, the words of the Imam lead to even more deaths.
Inspiration is inspiration. This girl was inspired to kill herself. What about religious leaders that preach words that inspire their flock to kill themselves in the name of Jihad? Are you sure you want to start prosecuting people who inspire suicide? Of course, you'll ignore the homicidal suicices. She killed herself some kill themselves to take out others. The Imam at the mosque has more blood on his hands than the bullies in a school.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What in the hell are you talking about? I think perhaps one idea in five in this post of yours just now was actually relevant to the discussion at hand, and even that idea was nutty.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I do wonder why your question matters with regards to criticisms of the groundwork. The question is moreso concerning whether the second critique is valid, not the groundwork. And yes, Kant's writing is... hard.
Regarding your second point, I was unclear. I did not mean that the wikipedia article is the good read. Rather, I meant that the book itself was and provides his justification, which is a very brilliant.
That having been said, I disagree with him. My point is simply that he does provide a fantastic argument for his point because you inquired whether he could provide a strong defense. Yes, and it is there in that book.
ETA: Rereading what was said again concerning his accusations of laziness: I do not think this should be held against Kant at all. He was a genius and was, like many other geniuses, bothered that other people had trouble understanding him.
ETA2: Kant distinguishes between good actions and right actions. They are distinct. A good action is one with the proper motivations. A right action is one in which the proper action is done.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't mind hard reading. In fact, if done well I enjoy it. I am suspicious, though, of writing done hard just for its own sake-and suggesting people who disagree are just too lazy to understand does make me skeptical.
Anyway, my list is pretty long right now as is. What is your defense, then?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
My defense of Kant? I don't have one. I disagree with him. I just don't think that it is offhandedly wrong. If you want me to try to provide a full defense of Kant as Kant might put it, that would be incredibly long (edit: and I would do a piss poor job of it). If you want me to provide a shallow one, that will be incredibly bad and full of holes that may easily be picked.
As for my view on the matter, I have said already that I am unsure, and am very very hesitant to take some particular answer as obviously the case. Heck, I'm not even sure there is a fact of the matter.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: He was a genius and was, like many other geniuses, bothered that other people had trouble understanding him.
The fact that this attitude is common does not make it ok.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: He was a genius and was, like many other geniuses, bothered that other people had trouble understanding him.
The fact that this attitude is common does not make it ok.
QFT
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Meh, I happen to think that if Kant or Wittgenstein want to yell at people and throw a hissy fit because they aren't understood, let them. They've done enough. The fact that they yell at people doesn't degrade the quality of their work. In fact, nothing they do independent of the work itself matters at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I meant your defense of, in this case, considering letting the carrier go unquarantined, not of Kant.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Uhh... I don't understand that sentence. Can you clarify?
Edit: Oh, it's too early. I understand what you mean now. Well, the same that I said of Kant's account would apply to mine. That having been said, it is grounded in the idea that if a right is really a right, then it is inviolable. If it is violable, then it was not a right in the first place. As well, I am not concerned about the consequences as much as you are, but rather the ethics of the action itself, which gives me a completely different view on the matter.
As for an actual defense, to do that in any reasonable way, I would first have to teach you a few metaethical theories, explain the good sides and bad sides, and explain why perhaps some constructivist amalgam is most suitable--or, alternatively, nothing is correct and thus it makes it impossible to say with certainty that any action is that which is right or good; or at the very least, actions that are not clear cases (if there is such a thing). Sorry to be somewhat dismissive, but it's kind of like going up to someone and saying, "Hey, can you explain physics to me." Ethics is a well developed field, and really can't be summarized in any efficacious manner in a forum post. Or a book for that matter.
[ April 14, 2010, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The fact that they yell at people doesn't degrade the quality of their work.
While technically true, perception matters.
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: In fact, nothing they do independent of the work itself matters at all.
Dude, you are SUCH an ohmigosh-this-is-so-COOL! college student. Save these posts. In 5 or 10 years, you'll find them amusing.
Or not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ethics is a well developed field
Heh. That's perhaps not how I'd describe it, but... Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:As for an actual defense, to do that in any reasonable way, I would first have to teach you a few metaethical theories, explain the good sides and bad sides, and explain why perhaps some constructivist amalgam is most suitable--or, alternatively, nothing is correct and thus it makes it impossible to say with certainty that any action is that which is right or good; or at the very least, actions that are not clear cases (if there is such a thing).
What's the epistemic method supposed to be here? Not reflective equilibrium -- that would require that you take considered judgements about particular cases as basic evidence. Clearly you're not doing that in response to the plague carrier case, where the answer is obvious (as we've tried to point out).
Many ethicists would say that by doing metaethics first and letting it dictate your judgements about particular cases, you're putting the cart before the horse. We're looking for a theory that explains a bunch of moral truths we largely already know.
Besides, there are a lot of constructivist views available that don't entail Kantian normative ethics. Sharon Street's view, for example.
P.S. You don't need to teach me any background. I learned it from Michael Smith in grad school at Princeton.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"Dude, you are SUCH an ohmigosh-this-is-so-COOL! college student. Save these posts. In 5 or 10 years, you'll find them amusing." Based on the fact that I'll be applying to phd programs soon, thus making a major life commitment, based on the fact that I think that the work is all that matters, I do not think I will suddenly up and switch a few years down the line. But it's possible.
"That's perhaps not how I'd describe it, but... "
There's a difference between well developed and close to finding an answer.
"What's the epistemic method supposed to be here?"
Right now, I'm not specifically concerned with the moral epistemology of it. If we really want one, how about moral contrastivism? That seems to be as good as any other for this situation. e.g., not killing rather than killing.
"Many ethicists would say that by doing metaethics first and letting it dictate your judgements about particular cases, you're putting the cart before the horse. We're looking for a theory that explains a bunch of moral truths we largely already know."
Many metaethicists would say that ethicists are just speaking meaninglessly unless they have a foundation upon which to ground their ethics, and that grounding the metaethics in what ethical truths we thinks we know (based on what? intuition?) begs the question in favor of those ethical decisions.
"Besides, there are a lot of constructivist views available that don't entail Kantian normative ethics. Sharon Street's view, for example."
I was just giving Kant earlier as a token example of someone who is not a consequentialist, if I recall. That I said a constructivist account might be best doesn't mean that I think Kant's account may be best--if there is a best. I just happen to think that if any moral system is going to work, it is going to be some form of constructivism because I sure as hell don't believe in ethical objects or that intuitions are grounding. No thank you, Mr. Audi.
"P.S. You don't need to teach me any background. I learned it from Michael Smith in grad school at Princeton."
I was responding to Rakeesh, not you.
Edit: And yes, I still agree that Kantian ethics is obviously wrong. It doesn't mean that some deontological theory isn't preferable over some consequentialist theory--or, as said earlier, an amalgam. Because for me, many (all?) consequentialist theories give rise to situations that I take as obviously wrong.
Edit2: Once again, too early and too little sleep. I just glanced over your post again, actually noticing the reflective equilibrium part as more than a blip in my mind. Metaethics has priority over ethics.
[ April 14, 2010, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: That having been said, it is grounded in the idea that if a right is really a right, then it is inviolable. If it is violable, then it was not a right in the first place. As well, I am not concerned about the consequences as much as you are, but rather the ethics of the action itself, which gives me a completely different view on the matter.
Well I'm not sure that any definition of "rights" comes without some inherent legal/moral/ethical guidelines. Rights always have parameters with which they are no longer owed or are to be observed. Also i cant see how you can focus on the ethics of an action and not be concerned with the consequences of the action, that's like saying you're concerned with the structural stability and integrity of a bridge but not with whether it can withstand a gust of wind or actually have people drive on it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jon,
quote:Oh, it's too early. I understand what you mean now. Well, the same that I said of Kant's account would apply to mine. That having been said, it is grounded in the idea that if a right is really a right, then it is inviolable. If it is violable, then it was not a right in the first place. As well, I am not concerned about the consequences as much as you are, but rather the ethics of the action itself, which gives me a completely different view on the matter.
It's my personal outlook to be skeptical of anything involving human beings that is absolute. They can serve some good purposes as guidelines, but never in my experience as something that must always (that word again) be taken literally.
Why wouldn't you be as concerned with the consequences as I am in this hypothetical? You're the one making a decision that leads to results. And it's not even a decision like 'Everyone must wear seatbelts' or something. Your detachment might be credible in such a case. No, here the consequences - contagious death - are suffered by other people just by going about their daily lives and encountered the carrier you let go because of his 'inviolate' right (if you did decide to let him go).
I suppose the real question is do you have an obligation to stop major suffering and death if you can? How much is that responsibility mitigated, if at all, by other considerations such as personal risk, cost of taking action, and the potential of violating someone else's rights? An elaborate philosophical construct is not, it seems to me, required to examine such a question.
quote: As for an actual defense, to do that in any reasonable way, I would first have to teach you a few metaethical theories, explain the good sides and bad sides, and explain why perhaps some constructivist amalgam is most suitable--or, alternatively, nothing is correct and thus it makes it impossible to say with certainty that any action is that which is right or good; or at the very least, actions that are not clear cases (if there is such a thing). Sorry to be somewhat dismissive, but it's kind of like going up to someone and saying, "Hey, can you explain physics to me." Ethics is a well developed field, and really can't be summarized in any efficacious manner in a forum post. Or a book for that matter.
'Somewhat'? If you can't explain it persuasively, you could simply say you don't want to talk about it right now.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
OK. I don't want to do it right now. There is no way I would have any chance of convincing you of anything unless you have studied the topic enough to be willing to not rely solely on your gut feeling about the topic. Hell, I'm not even sure studying the topic would make a difference, as it seems to me that most people just base their ethical systems on what their gut feelings are anyway in some shallow attempt to justify their pretheoretical beliefs. Honestly, I am kind of tired of talking about ethics at this point. All it is now is "I think it's obviously x" "I don't think it is obviously x". Since when does the skeptical (or perhaps simply fallibilistic here) standpoint get so much sh*t. I think I'm in an epistemically solid position. Meh.
"Why wouldn't you be as concerned with the consequences as I am in this hypothetical?"
I already explained some reasons why one might not be concerned with consequences. Ethics confuses the hell out of me, and I don't think it's simple. I don't trust my intuitions about such matters, so even if I have the intuition that the consequences matter here, I am hesitant to say so. I really don't know what framework is best, though, as noted earlier, I suspect some form of constructivism is preferable. I just know that I don't like many, possibly all, forms of consequentialism due to some possibly distasteful results, and thus am suspicious of making a judgment based on the consequences.
Maybe I'm just a bloody emotivist. I don't know. Ethics is weird.
Edit: The only thing I really do have strong feelings about is that metaethics takes priority over ethics. What the conclusion will be... I don't know. Trying to adduce a metaethics from "clear cases" of right ethical judgments presupposes that there are clear cases. I don't know that this is the case.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, well, if you think I'm relying solely on my 'gut feeling', then your perception isn't actually very clear at all.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Trying to adduce a metaethics from "clear cases" of right ethical judgments presupposes that there are clear cases. I don't know that this is the case.
clearly
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The only thing I really do have strong feelings about is that metaethics takes priority over ethics.
Would that be a "gut feeling" or some other kind?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Oh. It's a gut feeling. There's a reason I find all this so confusing. The feeling is, in my mind, effectively worthless. There might be good reasons for why it is the case that metaethics has priority, but there are also good ones for the other way around. Those that destineer noted, for example.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: "Dude, you are SUCH an ohmigosh-this-is-so-COOL! college student. Save these posts. In 5 or 10 years, you'll find them amusing." Based on the fact that I'll be applying to phd programs soon, thus making a major life commitment, based on the fact that I think that the work is all that matters, I do not think I will suddenly up and switch a few years down the line. But it's possible.
WHOOSH!
Way to miss my point.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Jon,
(First of all, good luck with your grad school plans. It can be a super-cool experience.)
quote:I just know that I don't like many, possibly all, forms of consequentialism due to some possibly distasteful results, and thus am suspicious of making a judgment based on the consequences.
What do you have in mind? Over-demandingness? Trolley problems? Williams's Jim and the Indians example? I suspect that the distasteful results you're talking about are judgements about clear cases! In effect, Rakeesh and I are saying the same thing about Kantian retributivism, the view you endorsed before. It leads to a distasteful-looking result.
quote:The only thing I really do have strong feelings about is that metaethics takes priority over ethics. What the conclusion will be... I don't know. Trying to adduce a metaethics from "clear cases" of right ethical judgments presupposes that there are clear cases. I don't know that this is the case.
I sympathise, in that a large number of applied ethicists want to disregard metaethics entirely, which seems misguided to me. But the idea that there might be no clear cases also seems odd. The Holocaust is a clear case.
I think that in the end both metaethics and applied/normative ethics matter to each other's domains, and neither is "prior" to the other in any important sense. Knowledge of what's right in a particular case can be evidence for metaethics, and knowledge of metaethical truths can be evidence about what's right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A friend of mine actually wrote a good paper defending a more moderate form of the view you hold. In case you're interested:
I am certainly sympathetic to the view that there are clear cases, but I am still suspicious of them as anything more than emotivism or some like thing. I definitely think that the holocaust was wrong, but clearly many of the Nazis didn't. If it was so obviously wrong and manifestly so, then why wouldn't they have done something? Once again, I don't know. I am just more and more suspicious of ethical claims as definite. Something may seem like a clear case, but is it really? I am not denying clear cases. I just don't know. To clarify, I do not mean that a metaethical system should disregard normative ethics completely. It can certainly be informed by normative ethics, but if the metaethical system is sound but leads to some results that are against a supposedly clear normative instance, perhaps the normative intuition is just wrong and we should not take this as a defect in the theory. Looking back, I realize that when I said that metaethics has priority, this is different from what I am saying now, but what I am saying now is more in line with my view.
The horrible part about all this is that I am sympathetic to particularism.
And thanks for the link.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
without personal ethics, meta-ethics are worthless. Depending on your personal beliefs the answer to "what is good", one of the fundamental questions of meta-ethics, can vary.
Personal ethics can be culturally based, experienced based, or theoretically based, just to name a few.
If you let that guy go, I'd probably shoot you both in order to stop him, and live with the consequences.
Outside of books and college, very few things are absolutes.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:I am certainly sympathetic to the view that there are clear cases, but I am still suspicious of them as anything more than emotivism or some like thing. I definitely think that the holocaust was wrong, but clearly many of the Nazis didn't. If it was so obviously wrong and manifestly so, then why wouldn't they have done something?
Maybe, as you suggest, it's not so obvious. Or maybe they knew it was wrong and just didn't care.
Or, maybe the premise that there exists a flawless/objective moral framework is wrong.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
There was a lawsuit against ID Games after the tragedy but I believe it was thrown out.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If you can't explain it persuasively, you could simply say you don't want to talk about it right now.