Bullies: Go To Jail?

Post Reply New Topic

I was just watching the news, I've been hearing this mentioned on and off a lot recently since the death of Phoebe Prince. At first people were talking about having workshops or 'lectures' on bullying, most recently though it sounds like Massachusetts legislature is passing a bill to effectively have bullies moved to the system after enough - I don't know the specifics, again just heard that a few moments ago, but it fired off a bit of a brainstorm.

The story regarding Phoebe Prince is one that I can really relate to on a lot of levels. The trouble with her situation was more than just bullying for the sake of bullying - she was a newcomer marching to the beat of her own drum, was attractive enough that the popular guys were dating her, and the popular girls of course reacted with the notion that they would need to pummel this girl until and continue to pummel her until there was nothing left but a husk of a person - in fact it seems like they got a slightly better deal - she's done breathing as well. Her being a good person couldn't have helped either, I say that because I can estimate that if she hadn't been a good person she would have likely worked one or two of these girls over and solved her problems. This story, for me, strikes a familiar chord specifically because when I was bullied it was something similar, I wasn't just a dork - I was attractive, I had a style, I was a danger to the establishment - it was *very* political and in most cases like this, nimbs might get shoved into a locker or get a harsh word once in a while, if your a political problem and roll over the toes of those in power with every step - things get unusually ugly.

Now, here's what I'm thinking. Taking this ruling as a general concept, again, at this point I know next to nothing about it. Even though it'd be in my nature to hate this sort of idea, even with all that I went through at that age, I take a moment to think about the following:

• Parent's ability to exert authority over kids has effectively been castrated. Parents can barely spank their kids without having to worry about legal issues. There was even a case in Canada where a father grounded his daughter from going on a 6th grade road trip, she sued - and she won, he had to give her back up to the mom because he had no capacity to be a parent anymore.
  
• I've known plenty of people who had horror stories about their kids standing up to a bully, even doing little more than pushing them back in response - which prompted the bully's parents to file a lawsuit. Sadly gone are the days where a guy or girl could just knock a bully out.
  
• Administrators can't lay a hand on these kids, not only is their property and savings at risk of lawsuit - they'd be fired immediately. They can give lip service, possibly get some sort of security to handle the kids, in the end math they're even more impotent in the situation than many parents or the kids themselves.

All of that makes me wonder - would this kind of anti-bullying law actually be a good thing? Typically speaking as well, with juveniles, the parents take the penalties, in this case would it mean that derelict parents would actually have their protective veil pierced and have customary legal liability for bullying? To me all of those things sound great - though my biggest concern is that there are always side-effects to this kind of thing, possibly this being used by the students in their own social games with each others, perhaps retaliation or self-defense being portrayed as bullying by the bullies? You also have situations where there are good parents who've tried everything they can and they're kid simply throws them around to where they have no control - would the liability stop with the child in that case? It seems like there's a lot that could go wrong with this sort of law as well. Regardless though I'll have to read up and see where it goes, part of me is worried about big brother in the schools, part of me would also love to see delinquent adults get their comeuppance.

The traditional conception that imprisonment is the solution to all bad behavior is basically flawed. The point of punishment, theoretically, is to change behavior to the better. No doubt that works for some cases but for a very large portion of ex-convicts the opposite is true and people who might have slight tendencies for bullying, when dumped into a prison situation where bullying is one of the prime social interactions, probably learn a great deal about sophisticating those tendencies to apply it to the rest of their lives. Prison is an educational system, amongst other things, and the quality of education installed is not favorable to a good society.

It seems like, at least in the sense that most prisons in the US and around the world are run, its less of a reform institution and more of a threat - ie. do this and you'll be locked up with your future destroyed and likely be getting love from Bubba. I think what I'd rather see than the kids specifically going to jail is the parents, or at least being heavily sued, when it is in fact applicable to their delinquency.

Proper social manipulation is a difficult business and can easily lead to oppressive officialdom. Bullying is not an activity restricted to teenagers, it is a general social malfunction. That it should be somehow punished is obvious but how to do it so that better behavior results is one hell of a problem.

I'd like to see a link to the specifics of that case. Arguing from anecdotes is never a good thing. I can name quite a few cases where parents have gotten away with ruining their children's lives and heading dysfunctional families - especially when the parents are religious.

As for bullying, there is comparative ranking on how severe the problem is between nations. Some of the nations have implemented policies much better than others. I, for one, have been particularly aghast at how poorly Canada has handled bullying issues. There seems to be an attitude, if I may break my own rule and speak from anecdote, that if it "is not seen, it did not happen" and punishment for people who have fought back against bullies often exceeds the punishment of the bullies.

But I shall buttress my thoughts with support:




http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/news ... op-bullies

I guess I'm less arguing than expressing an opinion - ie. I'll admit, this is a topic that I'm only somewhat informed on - have a lot hearsay regarding certain court cases but I would by any means consider myself an expert. I'd imagine the scenario you gave can go any which way though - ie. the parent who ruins a child's life is usually narcissistic enough not to care about the consequences as is - there's no changing that. On the other hand, if the precedent is that the law has very little sympathy for parents who won't spare the rod and will prosecute depending on the locality - that takes tools away from parents who actually wish to do their job. By necessity, if they're pinning responsibility on the parents, it would have to follow that more authority in discipline be given back to them as well and - in case where the parent is simply destructive you would hope that the teachers, administrators, etc. who notice the problem would have the ability to contact the state as they do now. Everything still comes down to human judgment, for better or worse, and that can't be avoided really no matter what we choose to do in regard to solving problems.

Having experienced bullying from a neutral, victim and oppressor point of view, I am now of the opinion that bullying is not a aberration or flaw in society, but rather fully integrated; a vital component in the system of rule enforcement.

To be clean about it, I was bullied as a teen(and not much), witnessed it from the outside as an adult(I watched it happen in bars) and later worked at that bar, a role in which I was to effectively bully the bullies. A certain percentage of my cohort in that industry became immersed in the power of pushing people around.

If you have ever experienced a school yard fight as an observer, you'll see that generally the one that gets punished later for the fight is the victim. Often they are twice losers for getting involved(however unwilling) in that fight.

It is usually more socially acceptable to be a bully then a victim. Sad but true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against kids sticking up to bullies and pounding them - just that I've seen too many times where the bullies learn from their parents, the parents lob law suits at the parents of the kids who stuck up for themselves, even if they don't win they drained the other parents financially, the teachers are afraid of these parents as well and what kinds of havoc they can wreak on their lives - it ends up being a situation where, unless other bullies want to team up on a particular bully, bully's seem like they get a degree of insulation that keeps the cycle going. Bar fights are different - its some grown adult dips--- talking smack to another patron or hitting on someone's SO and refusing to stop, someone (patron or bouncer) sorting him out, and him/her realizing - yeah, I deserved that; they don't then go run to their parents who try to sue the bar out of business. If you spend thousands of dollars in court for effectively doing your job as a bouncer you'd likely be both furious and demoralized by just how much common sense went out the window that such a thing could even happen, then yes, you'd ultimately be in a situation where you're effectiveness at maintaining order was greatly compromised (if a judge and jury can make water fall upward or birds sing backwards once, obviously the sickness is broad enough to make it happen again).

On another note though, some people are just blithe and innocent - they don't want to have to fight because its simply not in their nature. IMO as long as they don't hold themselves out as superior for it but rather just acknowledging who they are accurately I don't think they should have to be stressed sick about going to school, walking down the hallway, etc.. One of the broader reasons that this law has been considered, aside from recent incidents, is the understanding that bullying lowers GPA, students dealing with it have grades that suffer, often enough - even without suicide - it robs society of what would have been a very successful contributing adult when they're too beat up to believe in themselves for anything.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 10 Apr 2010, 12:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

If I had to name a horrible flaw in North American (esp. Canadian & US, I'm not sufficiently aquainted with Mexico) ways of dealing with bullying it is this: blame the victim.

Or, rather, punish the victim for self-defense much more than the victimizer. This is perverse to the highest degree. Teachers need to be trained and motivated to look for signs of bullying and prevent it.

Personal responsibility is a good idea, but it must not be an absolute. There must be checks and balances for failed parents, checks and balances a lot stronger than they presently are. Furthermore, moral education is a legitimate function of schools - teacher children that the other child is a human who feels pain is legitimate and must be done more thoroughly then it is now.

I think that's our experience simply because we live in continental North America. I've heard that in Japan its absolutely terrible, South Korea still treats those with disabilities as disgraceful (even by adults - an aspie who taught over there brought that back), Russia is filled with youtube videos of guys who just walk up to random people who seem to want to mind their own business and just kicking the ---- out of them. There may be some western nations who have taken deliberate steps in primary/secondary education but I think its them vs. the rest of the world who hasn't.


When nerds are so hated, how the heck are we supposed to have a working economy either? If at least half the nerds are weighing the economics in their head, realizing that they hate what they are for where it puts them, and end up switching crowds in seventh or eighth grade to come to school regularly stoned or tripping - some come out wiser for it, many don't. A country that wants to embrace values that do this to its educational structure is frankly suicidal.

It bothers my sensibilities as well, but in my experience, the initial bullying is a form of punishment. It is only when the bully takes it too far that the bully becomes socially unacceptable.

In many cases, its impossible for a teacher to see bullying, either through absence of presence or social blindness. The latter can be over come of course, but its a hell of a battle. Kids are crafty and will bully behind the teachers back.

For example read Huckleberry Finn to see how relatively kind and benign people were blind to the effects(and unjustness) of slavery. Poor Huck Finn thought he was destined for hell if he didnt return escaped slave Jim to his master. Finally Finn decided he was bad to the bone anyway, and he'd take his fate and not betray his new friend. Its banal to us, but he was going against societies mores and his religious belief.

Honestly, I think its getting better. Having recently read some comics from the 60s, I was shocked at how nasty people who liked each other were. These were presented to children as entirely acceptable behavior. It was not a story like "the glass menagerie", where it is a tale of a families internal struggles.

I mean, a line has to be drawn in the sand, right? You cannot police each and every nasty comment, but its hard to move the line, and even harder to know when it needs moving.

Right. And that insulation is foundational to society.

Bullies tend to bully as a means of suppressing behavior that they abhor in themselves. And they pass it on to their children. So if you have some gay guy who is shamed and embarrassed by his urges and feelings, he'll be as manly as he can, and he'll suppress any perceived 'gayness' in his son(s). They'll become bullies of gays as well, even if they are straight.


they don't then go run to their parents who try to sue the bar out of business. [/quote]

I only recall that the bar was sued once. A lady fell off a platform and ended up in a neck brace. I dont remember how much she got, but thats what insurance is for. Terms of the settlement were that she was not to return, though we eventually permitted it. She was not permitted to get on the platform again(and she had no desire to).

I had a funny situation once. I kicked out(I pushed him to the door), a grey haired man(in his 50s perhaps). When we got to the door he turned to me and said "You don't know who you are messing with. I am a very important man.I'll have your job!" Maybe he was, but I dont believe it. Four years later I quit. I guess he wasn't the pope or George Bush, eh?

Another time I kicked out a young tough guy who told me "I know the angels and I'll have a dozen big bikers here before you can <random expletive>." I realized suddenly that he was perhaps a prospect or associated with them, (and I was shaking in my boots), but I said "Go get them", reasoning that they would laugh at him for not being able to take care of himself. Especially considering he had no injuries, would they run to his aid? I never saw him again either.

The funniest ever though, was another young guy from another city. He started a fight and when I confronted him he kept asking "Do you know so and so? Do you know such and such person?". No I didnt of course. When he finally was made to leave, I said to another bouncer "The most annoying thing about him was the way he kept flicking his fingers." The other bouncer laughed and explained that those were gang signs. Socially blind aspie that I am... Anyway, the other bouncer explained that because he was using several, he was likely a poser and not associated with any of those gangs.

I guess I was cool as a cucumber because I didnt exhibit fear, though I felt it often enough. That calmness was taken as self assurance and competence.



Yup. I like those people.



Yup. Thats why things have to change. The problem is that the people who are bullying are generally exhibiting(in other ways) socially assertive and admirable ambition, so they get cut a lot of slack. They should be held to a higher standard.

The issues with "bullies" is complex.

1. The denial of parents to discipline their kids is churning out more animals than humans.

2. Bullies employ a classic tactic of strike their victims in private, but claim victim status first and very publicly.

3. That school officials can't impose discipline means they too generate more animals than humans.

It is a truth that the way a bully stops is when they learn they can't bully people anymore. At worst, it ends for them with a bullet to the head by some "victim" that won't be their victim.

I have no lack of awareness that this happens as well - ie. nonverbal constructive criticism. There are people who do that and then there are plenty who are rather just getting their own egos off by grinding someone into the floor for nothing.


That makes a lot of assumptions about the situation. If a guy starts a fight with another guy for simply looking - I'd say he's the problem. If a guy keeps hitting on a girl in full awareness that she's both taken and isn't appreciating the tries; they're both being harassed, as well as if the guy is trying to belittle her boyfriend/fiance/husband in front of her. My recommendation for social behavior would actually be walk the high road and do whatever you can non-verbally (without a physical altercation). So no - no thought of women as confederate southern property nor acceptance of pummeling another guy for minor annoyances from my corner. IMO it should only happen in self defense or physical defense of another (ie. if a guy or girl perhaps started 'grabbing' their S.O. - at which point the bouncers want to step in, hopefully they saw the instigation and will be walking the other party to the door).



Again, not lost on that either.



I only recall that the bar was sued once. A lady fell off a platform and ended up in a neck brace. I dont remember how much she got, but thats what insurance is for. Terms of the settlement were that she was not to return, though we eventually permitted it. She was not permitted to get on the platform again(and she had no desire to).

I had a funny situation once. I kicked out(I pushed him to the door), a grey haired man(in his 50s perhaps). When we got to the door he turned to me and said "You don't know who you are messing with. I am a very important man.I'll have your job!" Maybe he was, but I dont believe it. Four years later I quit. I guess he wasn't the pope or George Bush, eh?

Another time I kicked out a young tough guy who told me "I know the angels and I'll have a dozen big bikers here before you can <random expletive>." I realized suddenly that he was perhaps a prospect or associated with them, (and I was shaking in my boots), but I said "Go get them", reasoning that they would laugh at him for not being able to take care of himself. Especially considering he had no injuries, would they run to his aid? I never saw him again either.

The funniest ever though, was another young guy from another city. He started a fight and when I confronted him he kept asking "Do you know so and so? Do you know such and such person?". No I didnt of course. When he finally was made to leave, I said to another bouncer "The most annoying thing about him was the way he kept flicking his fingers." The other bouncer laughed and explained that those were gang signs. Socially blind aspie that I am... Anyway, the other bouncer explained that because he was using several, he was likely a poser and not associated with any of those gangs.

I guess I was cool as a cucumber because I didnt exhibit fear, though I felt it often enough. That calmness was taken as self assurance and competence.

I used to pass bullying off as mostly constructive but I can think of many cases where I've either been at work, been at a house party, and listing to a conversation, and often enough there's nothing constructive involved when I hear that they are pretty much pounding on someone for even opening their mouth - whether its someone they went to school with, a younger sibling, etc.. Is one of those 'I get a charge out of it, I get away with it - I'll do it' kinds of things. I'm not saying that if someone has awkward social skills or constantly says thing that are off point that they don't need to have that brought up, parents or friends are preferable and you'll always have the problem where people with hi IQ's simply need to keep their mouths shut because they're thoughts will get them beat up. I think though when it comes to 'correcting' people's social deficiencies, society perhaps needs a different way of approaching that - perhaps not killing them with kindness but if their parents, people around them, had a constructive recourse (or psychologists could give direct social skill advice) and people actually knew what the heck they were talking about rather than being oblivious to the differences in their own actions and why they do or don't work, that might be a better substitute. If people are going to run someone into the ground until they take their own life though - why not just take the next step and formally execute them. Then again, in cases with people like Phoebe Prince, there's also a specific power struggle at play; that's a situation as well that's entirely inappropriate.

Its also just easier for kids to really grind on kids - ie. the real 'victims' may have little choices in their resources, what their parents have given them in terms of self respect or self-defense skills, what kind of clothing they have to wear to school (where I grew up you were a loser to have less than $60 pants), that early in someone's life if they're a pushover there's a good chance that its not their fault and perhaps they haven't built the kind of sense of reality that someone would need to understand the human condition well enough. Adults on the other hand - its harder for bullies to go there just because there's so much terra incognita. If an adult sees a geeking looking adult; they have no idea if that adult is a gun nut, perhaps is ex-military, could be a black belt in something like Wing Chun or FMA, adults have had the time and space to be methodical about shoring up their weak spots - some haven't, many do, and most potential bullies realize that they bully other adults at their own peril.

Only if you're a lawyer. The UK has headed down this liberal culture-of-the-victim road, too. Kids are raised in a fashion that encourages them to take on victim status, and to look to the state to solve the "injustice" they are told they suffer. This is apparent on this forum with some young people. The bottom line is that if you're bullied at school you'll be bullied as an adult, so you're best off working out how to deal with it, rather than being isolated from the problem. Obviously there are exceptions to that, and there are cases where bullying becomes criminal without having any additional legislation. When I was a kid my father, who'd been in the military, showed me various ways to cause maximum pain to an individual. I was told to use this if someone tried intimidating me, but not to get caught by a teacher. That's what I did, when necessary, as well as use my head to bribe, coerce, or avoid if need be. Kids need to learn those skills to survive in the adult world. Life's not always nice, and it's not fair, so best get used to it quick.