Poll
Question:
Should verbal bullying be a criminal offense?
Option 1: Yes, and the perps should be responsible for consequences (so if someone commits suicide, charge them with murder)
votes: 2
Option 2: Yes, but it should be a separate offense, likely a misdemeanor
votes: 5
Option 3: No. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
votes: 22
This is becoming a hot topic on various gay news sites, as kids are being charged (or there are calls to charge them) with murder for causing a suicide of a bullied gay kid. I wonder what's Languish's opinions are.
No, that's asinine.
I predict this thread will increase the amount of bullying on Languish. :P
For the record, I voted the option no. 3.
I believe it already is in certain cases, such as making threats.
Bullying in school can be borderline harassment. AFAIK, schools of all the world forbid behaviors that woudln't be criminal outside, and likely, verbal abuse is an offense in school and not in adult life. So, it's a problem for schools to deal with, or suffer consequences. Like a work place. If one employee is constantly bullyed/harassed by another group and the employer does nothing, he can be held liable for the consequences.
Schools have to take their responsibilities.
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2011, 01:56:58 PM
For the record, I voted the option no. 3.
Well except that we already criminalize various types of speech. Threats in particular, but in some circumstances criminal harassment also comprosies only speech.
But the trouble is - what actions constitute "bullying"? How do you come up with a definition that is broad enough to catch the kinds of behaviour you want to stop, yet narrow enough to avoid criminalizing every mean thing said.
I have no idea.
I'd be in favour of the concept of outlawing bullying, but I suspect in practice it's almost unworkable.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
Bullying in school can be borderline harassment. AFAIK, schools of all the world forbid behaviors that woudln't be criminal outside, and likely, verbal abuse is an offense in school and not in adult life. So, it's a problem for schools to deal with, or suffer consequences. Like a work place. If one employee is constantly bullyed/harassed by another group and the employer does nothing, he can be held liable for the consequences.
Schools have to take their responsibilities.
I have no problem with that. I think the push now is for this to become a criminal offense, however, which I think crosses the line.
Sounds like a work environment issue.
Yes. To hold someone responsible for murder is mad but they should certainly take some of the blame.
Why are we so concerned with coming up with a new category? Harassment is still harassment when kids do it- hold them accountable when it's severe enough to cause injury/drive someone to suicide. Otherwise, let kids be kids. This "bullying law" nonsense smacks strongly of just forcing kids who may not even understand what they're doing to be held accountable for every mean comment.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 24, 2011, 07:36:01 AM
Why are we so concerned with coming up with a new category? Harassment is still harassment when kids do it- hold them accountable when it's severe enough to cause injury/drive someone to suicide. Otherwise, let kids be kids. This "bullying law" nonsense smacks strongly of just forcing kids who may not even understand what they're doing to be held accountable for every mean comment.
I agree. However, do we really want to make it punishable if it "drives someone to suicide"? Isn't it a bit against the eggshell skull rule - I mean, chances are than in 99% of cases when someone commits suicide as a result of bullying, an average person wouldn't off himself or herself when subjected to the same type of bullying.
I think we are having with a new outbreak of moral panic.
But the last outbreak isn't even over yet.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2011, 09:05:53 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 24, 2011, 07:36:01 AM
Why are we so concerned with coming up with a new category? Harassment is still harassment when kids do it- hold them accountable when it's severe enough to cause injury/drive someone to suicide. Otherwise, let kids be kids. This "bullying law" nonsense smacks strongly of just forcing kids who may not even understand what they're doing to be held accountable for every mean comment.
I agree. However, do we really want to make it punishable if it "drives someone to suicide"? Isn't it a bit against the eggshell skull rule - I mean, chances are than in 99% of cases when someone commits suicide as a result of bullying, an average person wouldn't off himself or herself when subjected to the same type of bullying.
I think we are having with a new outbreak of moral panic.
That is the eggshell skull rule. You take your victim as you find him.
You're describing an intervening cause, which in this case would obviously be the suicide's own volitional act of self-harm.
I thought the eggshell skull rule was the opposite - i.e. you are not responsible for the victim acting in an abnormally sensitive manner. But you may be right under common law. Under Polish law, one is only liable for normal, reasonable consequences of one's actions.
Under Polish law, you're also allowed to steal whatever you want, as long as the victim is Jewish. Let's not get hung up on using Polish law as an example.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
Under Polish law, you're also allowed to steal whatever you want, as long as the victim is Jewish. Let's not get hung up on using Polish law as an example.
quite the opposite in fact. If you're Jewish you just call all accusing you antisemitic and get away with it. <_<
Quote from: szmik on September 24, 2011, 03:08:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
Under Polish law, you're also allowed to steal whatever you want, as long as the victim is Jewish. Let's not get hung up on using Polish law as an example.
quite the opposite in fact. If you're Jewish you just call all accusing you antisemitic and get away with it. <_<
:bleeding:
To answer Beeb's question, bullying is obviously different than assault by threat, because that's an already existing crime. Expressio unius exclusio alterius, and all that.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2011, 10:25:20 AM
I thought the eggshell skull rule was the opposite - i.e. you are not responsible for the victim acting in an abnormally sensitive manner. But you may be right under common law. Under Polish law, one is only liable for normal, reasonable consequences of one's actions.
No, it's the rare occasion where banana is right about the law. The thin skull rule (no idea why you'd stick the word eggshell in there) means you take your victim as you find them. If you hit someone once, and not really that hard, but they fall over, crack their skull and die, you're guilty of manslaughter.
Now there is also some case law regarding the "crumbling skull" - which is someone who already had a pre-existing condition that would have deteriorated anyways.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2011, 03:43:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2011, 10:25:20 AM
I thought the eggshell skull rule was the opposite - i.e. you are not responsible for the victim acting in an abnormally sensitive manner. But you may be right under common law. Under Polish law, one is only liable for normal, reasonable consequences of one's actions.
No, it's the rare occasion where banana is right about the law. The thin skull rule (no idea why you'd stick the word eggshell in there) means you take your victim as you find them. If you hit someone once, and not really that hard, but they fall over, crack their skull and die, you're guilty of manslaughter.
Now there is also some case law regarding the "crumbling skull" - which is someone who already had a pre-existing condition that would have deteriorated anyways.
Psst I'm Ideologue and I'm always right, on non-proximity fuze related questions. :secret:
Wouldn't everyone on Languish be guilty?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2011, 01:15:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 01:07:21 AM
Wouldn't everyone on Languish be guilty?
Not me. I'm nice.
And fond of accusing others of racism.
GUILTY
Stop being racist and worshiping racists and I'll stop accusing you of racism, you bigot.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2011, 07:31:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2011, 03:43:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2011, 10:25:20 AM
I thought the eggshell skull rule was the opposite - i.e. you are not responsible for the victim acting in an abnormally sensitive manner. But you may be right under common law. Under Polish law, one is only liable for normal, reasonable consequences of one's actions.
No, it's the rare occasion where banana is right about the law. The thin skull rule (no idea why you'd stick the word eggshell in there) means you take your victim as you find them. If you hit someone once, and not really that hard, but they fall over, crack their skull and die, you're guilty of manslaughter.
Now there is also some case law regarding the "crumbling skull" - which is someone who already had a pre-existing condition that would have deteriorated anyways.
Psst I'm Ideologue and I'm always right, on non-proximity fuze related questions. :secret:
:lol: BURN
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2011, 01:28:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2011, 01:15:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 01:07:21 AM
Wouldn't everyone on Languish be guilty?
Not me. I'm nice.
And fond of accusing others of racism.
GUILTY
Stop being racist and worshiping racists and I'll stop accusing you of racism, you bigot.
That covers almost everyone from before 1950. One can admire a person for his deeds, while not admiring some of his beliefs.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 02:15:43 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2011, 01:28:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2011, 01:15:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2011, 01:07:21 AM
Wouldn't everyone on Languish be guilty?
Not me. I'm nice.
And fond of accusing others of racism.
GUILTY
Stop being racist and worshiping racists and I'll stop accusing you of racism, you bigot.
That covers almost everyone from before 1950. One can admire a person for his deeds, while not admiring some of his beliefs.
You run a Kwantung Army rape camp, don't you?
Quote from: Mart:lol: BURN
On whom? :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2011, 02:25:48 AM
You run a Kwantung Army rape camp, don't you?
They're called All Inclusive Resorts, thank you very much.
...Can I come visit?
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2011, 03:43:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2011, 10:25:20 AM
I thought the eggshell skull rule was the opposite - i.e. you are not responsible for the victim acting in an abnormally sensitive manner. But you may be right under common law. Under Polish law, one is only liable for normal, reasonable consequences of one's actions.
No, it's the rare occasion where banana is right about the law. The thin skull rule (no idea why you'd stick the word eggshell in there) means you take your victim as you find them. If you hit someone once, and not really that hard, but they fall over, crack their skull and die, you're guilty of manslaughter.
Now there is also some case law regarding the "crumbling skull" - which is someone who already had a pre-existing condition that would have deteriorated anyways.
"Eggshell skull" is common in US tort teaching, and the phrase has some traction with non-lawyers/law students in the US.