Should there be stricter school rulings?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Should there be serious penalty's for assault cases in school? Adults beating each other is assault UNLESS its in the name of self defense. However students are often allowed to be beaten with no real justice and are not allowed to defend either with these black and white rulings. Should we give children a right to defend themselves and actually punish children with actual penalty's for bullying? A few days off of school doesn't seem to be teaching anything.

[ajb]

This varies country to country.

 

The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. However between 10 and 17 they are treated differently; there are so-called youth courts and secure centres instead of adult prisons.

 

So I assume that for a serious assault in the UK that a person aged between 10 and 17 could face criminal action.

 

Aimed at what teachers can do if attacked, you may find this interesting

http://www.new2teaching.org.uk/tzone/health_and_safety/assaults/legaloffences.asp

 

In relation to bullying at schools read this

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/education_w/education_school_education_ew/problems_at_school.htm#h_bullying

[CaptainPanic]

Kids lack the self-control that they need to prevent themselves from harming other kids. 2-Year-olds will sometimes even slap each other, while they are barely old enough to walk. It appears to me (while I'm no expert) that kids can make a mistake sometimes and lose their self-control. Of course, some kids are more peaceful by nature than others, and some kids will be on the receiving end of a fight, while others will deal more punches or whatever... but I dislike the whole idea that kids can be punished by law for their actions. Kids must be kids, and they must be allowed to make mistakes. Making mistakes is a very important part of growing up.

 

At least where I live, the consequences of your actions become more severe as you grow up, with a clear line at the age of 18, after which you are considered fully responsible for your own actions to the law. It is my strong opinion that in case of a dispute between kids, adults (parents, neighbors or teachers) must intervene. Not the police or any other government worker who is associated with upholding the law.

[Ophiolite]

Fights in the school playground were a normal part of growing up. Today the incidents at the extreme, where real damage is done and weapons are used, seem more common. Clearly those need to be dealt with differently, but I would oppose, just as Captain Panic seems to, any attempt to suppress that normal young primate process of beating the crap out of each other for a real or imagined slight. It teaches most of us that violence is not typically a solution.

[iNow]

Forcing an adult to forever be punished for the mistakes they made as a kid seems both cruel and unusual.

[Phi for All]

Fights in the school playground were a normal part of growing up. Today the incidents at the extreme, where real damage is done and weapons are used, seem more common.

 

At least in the US, 24/7 news programs play a big part in this perception. Violent crime overall has been dropping significantly since the 90s, including school violence. But ask the average citizen about the schools and all they remember is the graphic news coverage of every single violent event in the whole country.

 

I find it a bit ironic that it was Bill Clinton who gave the media moguls the right to own media as well as other businesses, thus paving the way for our present non-informative, money-motivated, if-you-scare-them-they-will-come news broadcasts, and it was also Clinton who worked to improve a lot of the after-school programs that are being praised for helping reduce violence in schools. You'll almost never hear about the good that happens if the media can find something bad instead.

[swansont]

There are a couple of trends I se that I'm not comfortable with. One is the "zero tolerance" policies that schools have implemented so that any infraction of any sort gets awarded (nominally) the same punishment; there's no room for shades of grey or discretion on the part of the administration.

 

I also don't think that a non-adult should be "forever punished" for a mistake made when they were a juvenile. I think in a lot of those cases there is an adult or a group of adults who failed in their responsibilities. Some of that failure is in guidance, but some of it is in passing the buck by saying "kids will be kids" too many times. It depends on the circumstances, which isn't a factor in a zero-tolerance policy.

[Marshalscienceguy]

Kids lack the self-control that they need to prevent themselves from harming other kids. 2-Year-olds will sometimes even slap each other, while they are barely old enough to walk. It appears to me (while I'm no expert) that kids can make a mistake sometimes and lose their self-control. Of course, some kids are more peaceful by nature than others, and some kids will be on the receiving end of a fight, while others will deal more punches or whatever... but I dislike the whole idea that kids can be punished by law for their actions. Kids must be kids, and they must be allowed to make mistakes. Making mistakes is a very important part of growing up.

 

At least where I live, the consequences of your actions become more severe as you grow up, with a clear line at the age of 18, after which you are considered fully responsible for your own actions to the law. It is my strong opinion that in case of a dispute between kids, adults (parents, neighbors or teachers) must intervene. Not the police or any other government worker who is associated with upholding the law.

That is a misconception since no teenagers and children are not all incapable of controlling their own behavior. Also under the idea that some people simply cant control themselves we should just allow rapists to go free since clearly they cant stop them selves from raping people does that make the act of rape ok? As well as that children do not always do this stuff on a whim. Sometimes this stuff is planned. I was a very angry child but I knew to behave myself and I would never hit anyone unless they hit me first. I knew I had to behave and despite the fact I generally wanted to hurt people I didn't. Rapists didn't use very good self control either did they, a drunk man beating the crap out of someone at the bar didn't either but I bet you that man will still go to jail for assault. You could argue that beer lowers peoples ability to think and control themselves but does that mean someone committing crimes when drunk is excusable? Also 2 year olds fighting each other is not as bad as what some middle and highschoolers have done to each other.. Though even if a 2 year old is not behaving and lashing out at other children they are in fact disciplined so no its not excused with small children either. In fact rape does happen in high-school too,

There are a couple of trends I se that I'm not comfortable with. One is the "zero tolerance" policies that schools have implemented so that any infraction of any sort gets awarded (nominally) the same punishment; there's no room for shades of grey or discretion on the part of the administration.

 

I also don't think that a non-adult should be "forever punished" for a mistake made when they were a juvenile. I think in a lot of those cases there is an adult or a group of adults who failed in their responsibilities. Some of that failure is in guidance, but some of it is in passing the buck by saying "kids will be kids" too many times. It depends on the circumstances, which isn't a factor in a zero-tolerance policy.

Even if an adult failed it does not change that these children are being forced to suffer for those adults mistakes.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[swansont]

 

Even if an adult failed it does not change that these children are being forced to suffer for those adults mistakes.

 

Which "these children" are you referring to? The targets or the perpetrators?

 

I seem to have deleted a line before posting my previous post. I don't advocate full, adult-level punishment, but neither am I advocating none at all.

[Phi for All]

There are a couple of trends I se that I'm not comfortable with. One is the "zero tolerance" policies that schools have implemented so that any infraction of any sort gets awarded (nominally) the same punishment; there's no room for shades of grey or discretion on the part of the administration.

 

It's not usually infractions of any sort that have zero tolerance. Schools can adopt zero tolerance policies on specific infractions, like firearms, and not with actual violence, like punching someone out.

 

But you're absolutely right about such black and white perspectives. According to a study by the National Association of School Psychologists, 79% of schools have a zero tolerance policy for physical violence, and the same percentage have one for tobacco. The punishments are the same, suspension or expulsion from school, which puts the kids at an even greater risk since you have to be an active student to use after school programs that might help. And it seems plain to me that the motivations and character of a student who sneaks a smoke on school property are quite different from those of a kid who beats a fellow student up.

[MigL]

Influences on young people have significantly changed. When I was young I saw most fights watching Hockey ( where they also need to do something about the violence ). Today's kids are more likely influenced by video games, 'gangsta' rap and Michael Bay films where no-one ever gets hurt.

 

I'll admit to having been in a couple of schoolyard scraps, but a few days later,you were friends again.

A couple of yers ago, a few kids my nephew knew of, decided to teach another of my nephew's friends a lesson, and I suppose it was pack mentaity, but they took a hammer to him and left him in a vegetative coma. This is not in a big city, but a small town of 135000 people.

 

We have a 'Young Offender's Act' in Canada where kids under the age of 18 aren't treated as adults. They are treated much more leniently, Jail time if any,is segregated from adults and records are sealed.

 

I have no satisfactory answer to this problem. I would like to see justice for the victims receiving the hammerings and a message has to be sent discouraging this type of behaviour, but at the same time, recognise that sending a kid to an adult jail for an act of stupidity will make him a carreer criminal with no future and no chance at rehabilitation.

[iNow]

Strikes me as obvious that it would be better to focus our energy and limited resources on rehabilitation and mental health for prevention instead of punishment and penalty for infraction.

[swansont]

 

It's not usually infractions of any sort that have zero tolerance. Schools can adopt zero tolerance policies on specific infractions, like firearms, and not with actual violence, like punching someone out.

 

But you're absolutely right about such black and white perspectives. According to a study by the National Association of School Psychologists, 79% of schools have a zero tolerance policy for physical violence, and the same percentage have one for tobacco. The punishments are the same, suspension or expulsion from school, which puts the kids at an even greater risk since you have to be an active student to use after school programs that might help. And it seems plain to me that the motivations and character of a student who sneaks a smoke on school property are quite different from those of a kid who beats a fellow student up.

 

One problem with zero tolerance is when they treat a kid making a "gun" out of his finger and going "bang" as a gun infraction.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/18/finger-gun-suspension-is-going-to-stand.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/two-maryland-school-children-suspended-for-making-gun-gestures-with-hands/

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/boy-suspended-after-using-finger-as-pretend-gun/22204876

 

(these are separate incidents)

 

Or, as you point out, treating disparate crimes with the same punishment, or not having the latitude to consider whether there is a history of causing trouble vs a first offense. There's no nuance, and, as iNow points out, no option for some sort of counseling rather than suspending or other disciplinary action.

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

Influences on young people have significantly changed. When I was young I saw most fights watching Hockey ( where they also need to do something about the violence ). Today's kids are more likely influenced by video games, 'gangsta' rap and Michael Bay films where no-one ever gets hurt.

 

I'll admit to having been in a couple of schoolyard scraps, but a few days later,you were friends again.

A couple of yers ago, a few kids my nephew knew of, decided to teach another of my nephew's friends a lesson, and I suppose it was pack mentaity, but they took a hammer to him and left him in a vegetative coma. This is not in a big city, but a small town of 135000 people.

 

We have a 'Young Offender's Act' in Canada where kids under the age of 18 aren't treated as adults. They are treated much more leniently, Jail time if any,is segregated from adults and records are sealed.

 

I have no satisfactory answer to this problem. I would like to see justice for the victims receiving the hammerings and a message has to be sent discouraging this type of behaviour, but at the same time, for an act of stupidity will make him a carreer criminal with no future and no chance at rehabilitation.

You realize they have juvenile prisons for children and teens only. Its rare that they actually send kids under 17 to an adult prison but they will depending on severity of crime and motive of crime. (recognise that sending a kid to an adult jail) Is not really an issue there.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Acme]

Fights in the school playground were a normal part of growing up. Today the incidents at the extreme, where real damage is done and weapons are used, seem more common. Clearly those need to be dealt with differently, but I would oppose, just as Captain Panic seems to, any attempt to suppress that normal young primate process of beating the crap out of each other for a real or imagined slight. It teaches most of us that violence is not typically a solution.

When I was a boy, those caught in playground fights were marshaled into the Principal's office and promptly had the crap beat out of their butts with a heavy wooden board. Mere 'horsing around' or 'sassing back' got the same treatment in many cases. While I do think punishment for rule-breaking is called for, the kind of treatment we got in school taught us violence is A-OK and to be sneaky with our offenses so as not to get caught.

 

Suspensions seem reasonable although every district has their own rules which leads to some pretty extreme applications of suspensions. In-school suspension seems a smarter approach and done in conjunction/consultation with the parent(s). With so many parents -single or not- working it strikes me as an undue burden on parents to either miss work or pay someone to watch a suspended child.

 

Expulsions I think only applicable when law enforcement gets involved and there is a prosecution. Here again, many law enforcement districts (in the US) have such variable laws as to make for a confusing situation at best. Unlike the country wide laws mentioned in England, things vary here in the US by state, county, and city and there is a trend toward adopting these so-called 'zero tolerance' laws which in many cases I view as poorly thought out and more a means of passing the buck than taking responsibility for rationally determining and applying appropriate justice for children on a case-by-case basis.