3 ms·

If all they need is a stern talking to, then what they did isn't criminal harrassment.

by a1369209993 6y ago

nl 6y ago
So "stern talking to" is the only action a school is allowed to take? If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment? Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.
- tomp 6y ago
  I’m ok with schools “punishing” people for breaking social norms, but the punishment should be proportional - detention, extra homework, public shaming, etc. But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  I am not sure how you got from "(responce <= stern talking to) implies !(severity >= criminal harassment)" to "(severity < criminal harassment) implies (responce <= stern talking to)"[0] via good-faith misinterpretation. If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.) 0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".
  - nl 6y ago
    You seem to be making a bright line distinction between "at school" and "not at school". This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school? Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account. I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform. I don't see what is different or new here.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > I don't see what is different or new here. That's fair as far as it goes, but I'm not claiming it's different or new; I'm claiming it's bad and needs to be stopped. > Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Probably. Probably. Debatably and depends on the mode of transport. > Bullying that extends from school to out of school? That's two items; yes to the former, no to the latter.
  - foobarian 6y ago
    > with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion Expulsion is not really on the table, at least in the U.S.
- Causality1 6y ago
  You interpreted his comment in exactly the opposite of the way it was written, as best I can tell.

If all they need is a stern talking to, then what they did isn't criminal harrassment.

nl 6y ago

So "stern talking to" is the only action a school is allowed to take? If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment? Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.

tomp 6y ago
I’m ok with schools “punishing” people for breaking social norms, but the punishment should be proportional - detention, extra homework, public shaming, etc. But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.
a1369209993 6y ago
I am not sure how you got from "(responce <= stern talking to) implies !(severity >= criminal harassment)" to "(severity < criminal harassment) implies (responce <= stern talking to)"[0] via good-faith misinterpretation. If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.) 0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".
- nl 6y ago
  You seem to be making a bright line distinction between "at school" and "not at school". This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school? Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account. I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform. I don't see what is different or new here.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > I don't see what is different or new here. That's fair as far as it goes, but I'm not claiming it's different or new; I'm claiming it's bad and needs to be stopped. > Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Probably. Probably. Debatably and depends on the mode of transport. > Bullying that extends from school to out of school? That's two items; yes to the former, no to the latter.
- foobarian 6y ago
  > with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion Expulsion is not really on the table, at least in the U.S.
Causality1 6y ago
You interpreted his comment in exactly the opposite of the way it was written, as best I can tell.