Causing the suicide of another . . .

"resulted in the death of a little girl"

If that was the case,
then she should have been charged with and tried for murder. And that
would have been up to the prosecutors in Missouri to pursue.

The
charges in the trial in California had to do with her act of imitation
being a violation of the MySpace terms of service, nothing more since
she wasn't ever accused of any crime in Missouri.

I don't think
people should go to jail just for violating a website's ToS, except
when that violation is clearly linked to another crime. That wasn't the
case here.

Perhaps we need to have separate conversation about
her and this story somewhere else, but just to be clear I'm no fan of
Lori Drew; I think she is repulsive on many levels.

But I don't
think being mean or repulsive should be a crime.

The above quote belong to Dngrsmind in another thread and we started talking about the Lori Drew case. Claudi stated that she thought Lori Drew's action were criminal because she caused a girl's death (the girl committed suicide). Remember Lori Drew & others pretended to be a boy that struck up an internet relationship with the young girl, then broke up with her telling her she should kill herself because the world would be better off (or something like that). My question to Claudi is: if there really was a boy, and the boy broke up with the girl stating those comments, would you think he "caused" the girl's suicide?

I hate all these bullies and do think they should be held accountable in some way for their bullying. But I question whether they "caused" the suicide (such in Phoebe Prince's case too). These young kids were made miserable by the bullying, and for whatever reason thought their death would be easier. But I have to think these kids were pre-disposed to depression or suicidal tendencies. Taking your own life is pretty damn drastic. Kids suffer all kinds of heartaches without killing themselves. So I don't really know if I can blame the bully for the actual suicide.

What do y'all think?

Is bullying a crime? Should it be?


1
2
3
4
5



Average of 4 ratings: 5 stars


2 comments - post your comment




By Liz Hoffman
Tuesday, April 06, 2010

On Jan. 14, Phoebe Prince endured a day of taunts and text-message bullying at South Hadley High School. By all accounts, that day was a lot like the one before it, and the one before that, just like most days since Prince moved to South Hadley from Ireland.
But on Jan. 14, Prince went home and hanged herself.
And now nine of Prince's schoolmates, ranging in age from 14 to 18, face criminal charges of harassment, stalking, statutory rape, and violation of civil rights with bodily injury in connection with her death.

Phoebe Prince, 15, hanged herself Jan. 14, allegedly after being bullied at school. Nine classmates have been charged, raising the question of whether bullying is criminal.

The charges are a bold move from law enforcement to use criminal prosecution to crack down on bullying. Prince's death follows two other high-profile suicides related to bullying, one of a Massachusetts boy last year and one of a 13-year-old Missouri girl who was sent harassing messages on MySpace by the mother of a classmate.
"Every law has its first case, and this is a legal issue that's ready for a test case," says Tamara Holder, a Chicago criminal lawyer who has worked with Chicago's public schools and police on school violence issues. "It looks like there's a trend, and that's the time to get out in front of a problem, legally."
If kids know they could be held criminally accountable for their actions, they may think twice, Holder says.
But whether bullying is actually a crime is a thornier question. A lot of kids are bullied, but very few kill themselves. And even in those cases, proving that the bullying was the direct cause of the suicide is hard, especially when, in the case of 13-year-old Megan Meier, the teen has a history of depression or other mental health issues. (Lori Drew, the woman who posed as a teenage boy and pretended to be interested in Meier, was eventually acquitted of all charges.)
Forty-two states have anti-bullying laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but most deal with prevention and the duty of school administrators to step in, not directly with the bullies themselves.
"Essentially, we're talking about people being mean to each other, and that's tough, though not impossible, to criminalize," Holder says. Holder notes that if it occurred between two adults, there would be nothing criminal about it.
But children are different, says Dr. Aoife Lyons, a child psychologist in Chicago who has spoken at schools about bullying. Lyons says she regularly sees children traumatized by bullying, some so severely that they require hospitalization.
"It may seem like minor bullying, but it doesn't feel that way to a child," Lyons says. "It's our job to protect kids from a lot of things, and sometimes that includes other kids."
Holder says she thinks the charges against the Massachusetts teens would pass legal muster, but that getting a conviction would require a finding that the bullying was the chief and immediate cause of Prince's suicide, which may be difficult.
No matter what happens in Massachusetts, Holder says, the legal system is starting to catch up with bullying.
"It's time to create a standard: What is bullying, and what are the legal obligations of everybody involved -- parents, teachers, kids?" Holder says. "At the end of the day, these parents sent their daughter to school, hoping that she would be protected. That didn't happen."


Comments - Click here to post a comment

"A few thoughts..." By Jerry Wills on Saturday, April 10, 2010 I agree with Tamara Holder. Something needs to be done. In my opinion, bullying another is just a form of intimidation no different than bribery or ransom. The particulars are each different, but the outcome is the same. A person is being coerced or intimidated to the point of making a decision in favor of, or in relationship to, what another more aggressive person or group is demanding. In the case of bullying, there might be no request on the person being intimidated other than to induce shame. The act of "bullying" itself demands a response of some sort whether it be to evoke humiliation, subservience, or some action (emotionally or physically) to satisfy the bully. The more immature or emotionally unstable a person is, the greater the possibility they will not be ready (or able) to cope. This kind of activity within a civilized society, where no appropriate recourse is available, makes me think we have not come as far as a culture as I had thought. Children should not experience humiliation so deeply that they can only find peace in death from their mean spirited companions. Tamara Holder and others of her profession, press on into this gray area. It is a worthy area to invest your knowledge and pioneering spirit of justice toward. The world will be a much better place for us all once you succeed.

"Para- Professional RSCD" By Belinda L. Frazier on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 I am a Para Professional in the Rochester City School District . I have been in the classroom for 5 years now, and had to combat everything from the He say, She say comments to the bullying in the classroom. Also to the Bullying tactics that they also try to use on Teachers and Administrations. My take on these types of issues are when we start allowing our children to take responsiblity for there actions, by giving them realistic coinsequences then they will begin to understand that they can not do the things that they do and act., Stop slapping children on the risk and make them accountable for there actions. Stop coddeling them make them accountable. Stop blaming the parents, make them accountable. For much is asked of them, Much is required.

I don't know what a "Para-Professional" is. Does it mean "she who is barely literate"?

....it's hard to explain but the reason I think lori drew should be convicted of a crime is because she's an adult and she was pretending to be a minor and fucking with a minors head....I think it should be criminal to pretend to be a minor when talking to minors on the internet.....troll all you want among other adults and kids can troll amongst themselves but don't pretend to be a minor...that's what bothers me...

Interesting point. I think if she had made overt sexual advances, they might have gone after her for that. I hadn't thought of the adult/minor aspect, claudi.

like the phoebe case is different to me...those kids should not be charged...they were acting like idiot kids act...lori drew is an adult and is supposed to protect her child and has a responsibility to act like an adult...imo...isn't that abuse of power or something?....I think she needs to go to some serious parenting classes and she should also be at least financially responsible for the funeral of the girl...lori drew wasn't even sorry after the fact and still doesn't even think she did anything wrong jmo

I remember all too well what it is like to be a child and have that kind of stress. I was the hated girl in the 5th grade; there was a we hate ziggy club, mostly because my parents were friends with my teacher and her husband (small town hard to avoid) and for whatever reasons girls decide to do this. I actually broke out in hives and I remember I couldn't sleep because they were so painful and I just cried and cried. Thank God I had a big brother who told me (and I remember it like yesterday) that I should become friends with the guys because they never do that kind of stuff to each other; that girls are mean and stupid and then he taught me some bad words like "prick" LOL to call them. He wouldn't tell me what it meant he said to just call them that and then say, "if you even know what that means..."

I did become friends with dudes after that and still seem to gravitate toward the men in new groups of people I meet.

Then when I was 15 I had the first love disaster. He was a senior but only 17 - it ended with him dumping me for another senior girl and it was painful and humiliating and I seriously contemplated suicide. I mean I seriously did. My mom had valium and I had no idea how many it would take and I took 3 before I wondered if that would be enough....so dumb. I remember how exaggerated and terribly painful the feelings were. Looking back it was so trivial - all of it BUT AT THE TIME it was so raw, so horrible, so devastating. I never had any depression issues and I was a pretty tough kid and was never coddled so I don't know why I was so affected.

Here's what I wonder: A minor can be liable for an intentional tort like a battery - as long as they are able to form the requisite intent, they can be held liable for their bad acts. When it comes to these types of cases, why can't they be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress too? I realize that requires the acts to be quite outrageous, but the law also says that the standard may be lower if you KNOW a person has a particular sensitivity and in my law books they list pregnant women, and children.

So if the emotional distress manifests in a severe reaction that leads to suicide, why can't they be liable for wrongful death? I mean, if they hit someone they can be liable for battery, so why not other bad acts and if the law realizes that children may be particularly sensitive and we would put them in a protected class from adults, why aren't they also protected from the same traumatization from other children?

Being a young girl is a rough thing. Hormones and all sorts of things can make them more sensitive. Girls can be very cruel. On the flip side, I was once very mean in a group of girls to this boy in our class and I still regret it. I wish someone would have stopped us from taunting him and sat us down and explained the very seriousness of the situation. Poor kid. He was poor and from a Jehovah's witness family and ended up in prison. I feel guilt about it to this day and I was probably 10 years old when it happened. I knew it was bad, but in the pack mentality it seemed OK at the time.

Kids have zero ability when it comes to judgment and that is where someone, somehow has to intervene.

I feel all disjointed writing this because I'm the first one to say suck it up, rub some dirt on and get back in the game; so I find myself wondering what should be done. I don't want to raise a nation of wimps, but kids today have more access to tools like Facebook and such to expand their bullying and I fear that they are losing touch with their humanity to everyone's detriment. Such a canundrum.

ziggy wrote:
Kids have zero ability when it comes to judgment and that is where someone, somehow has to intervene.

Well, the term "parenting" comes to mind . . .

I don't agree that kids have zero ability when it comes to judgment. We teach them from the first moment and continue while they're being raised. You said you knew it was wrong to behave a certain way, but you did it anyway because of the pack mentality. My 12-year old knows that it is wrong to be mean to someone. It is just whether or not he makes the right choice, I guess.

which takes me right back the primordial slew of the breakdown of a two parent home...oy vey....

I see what you are saying Kay but whether he makes the right choice depends on his judgment capabilities which, we now know are lacking in development up until around age 23!!!

The Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world love to go on and on about the breakdown of the family unit.
Well I dont like the breakdown of the 2 parent family either but what's the alternative? Should we go back to the 30s when women stayed in bad and abusive marriages because it was a societal taboo to leave? And if we do that then we might as well take away a women's right to vote, choose, smoke and leave the house without a veil covering her face.
Progress doesnt come without a cost unfortunately.

It sort of cracks me up to hear the right wing crowd bitch about the Taliban when they are the Christian equivalent.


(love me some Ziggy tho!)

My take is we dont need any more laws on the books, we are becoming a freaking police state as it is. They will be charged with assault, stalking, battery, rape, etc. Plenty of laws on the books already.

No more laws, less laws if anything.

I was bullied horribly as a child and I HATED it. I am concerned about setting the precedent of prosecuting for such matters though. Children have immature conflict resolution skills. It takes some time, lots of mistakes, and a few hurt feelings to work it out and get to the point were we can navigate the social interactions of life. Yes, this one case is an extreme case but I am not sure we need or want to involve the legal system more. I am concerned about where that may lead.

Oh yeah I can make the total link between the Taliban and the optimal need in society for a two parent home NOT! But me loves me some Gonzo (although that name reminds me of a muppet)/Pax.

My question is though - if a minor can be liable for other torts, why not intentional infliction of emotional distress? It's not a new action at law

I dont like the way the world is either Zigster, but we dont live in Thomas Moore's Utopia world and so I have little choice but to support the very things I hate the most just because the alternative is sometimes even worse. Things like safe and legal abortion and a woman's right to leave an abusive marriage are not ideal answers but this is a less than ideal world.


Also agree with Scott, this whole issue boils down to legal precedent and I am not willing to support such a precedent.

ziggy wrote:Oh yeah I can make the total link between the Taliban and the optimal need in society for a two parent home NOT! But me loves me some Gonzo (although that name reminds me of a muppet)/Pax.

My question is though - if a minor can be liable for other torts, why not intentional infliction of emotional distress? It's not a new action at law

Where are we going to draw the line for causing emotional distress, if I flip you off and call you a bitch for cutting me off in traffic should I be held liable for that if it causes you some distress?
I think the problem is people are getting too whiney and want to blame everyone else for their misery instead of taking control of their situation and fighting back.


I believe very strongly in scorched earth policy (who knew?), I play hard ball, you get in my face I am gonna get in yours but a lot louder and more aggressive, you shouldnt take shit from anyone, its really the only way to deal with such matters. I have admired lawyers like Lin Wood who operate like that, they dont let anyone fuck with them or their clients and thats why they win.

Kay wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Kids have zero ability when it comes to judgment and that is where someone, somehow has to intervene.

Well, the term "parenting" comes to mind . . .

I don't agree that kids have zero ability when it comes to judgment. We teach them from the first moment and continue while they're being raised. You said you knew it was wrong to behave a certain way, but you did it anyway because of the pack mentality. My 12-year old knows that it is wrong to be mean to someone. It is just whether or not he makes the right choice, I guess.

I agree that that's why kids HAVE parents. I want to note though that there has been some scientific evidence reported lately that kids don't have fully developed--is it frontal lobes?--somethings, and that it keeps them from feelilng much empathy. In other words, when your kid acts like he never thinks about how you or anyone else feels, that's pretty much true and he can't help it.

I go back and forth believing this. Certainly it seems like they have some empathy but I bet no one is claiming an absolute (the way the pop news can make it sound).

ziggy wrote:which takes me right back the primordial slew of the breakdown of a two parent home...oy vey....

I see what you are saying Kay but whether he makes the right choice depends on his judgment capabilities which, we now know are lacking in development up until around age 23!!!

Ah, yes, in those two parent homes, no slob of a father ever lies around drunk, screaming and practicing abuse, and the mother cherishes her babies and protects them from harm while very definitely not doing heroin. We're fucked by that breakdown of the 2-parent home.

Now Ziggy, I know you didn't mean that. It's the mindfulness and quality of the parenting, not the number. If it were the number, then polygamy would be the best for children. Hmm... come to think of it, it does take a village.

....the 2 parent argument is completely ridiculous to me....it's the quality not the who's doing the parenting.....but since parents have to spent a lot of time working and not spending time with their kids I think the schools do have a responsibility to teach more than just academics,i think classes where kids learn how to deal with their emotions would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo important

Yes I am speaking about optimal and having one horrible and abusive parent never is. I was just really lucky because I had two great parents who loved each other, didn't divorce, didn't fight and I wish everyone had that chance. The school didn't have the burden of teaching these things to most of the kids I grew up with because grandparents,parents,neighbors and friend's parents (the village) did with one exception that Claudi is right about and that is tools to deal with feelings, and the increased stress that kids endure today. It would be very helpful for kids to learn valuable skills for handling the tough stuff they are thrown into.

Gonz I'm with you in so many ways because I think we are a nation of wimps these days and I think kids need to learn to survive the harshness of adulthood, but something about that pack mentality is what bothers me and the fact that teenage girls are dealing with hormonal problems that can hinder their ability to deal rationally with something like this.

Since we have now had more time to study the effects on the single parent and mostly fatherless homes, I see an enormous amount of information that I just googled that states kids are better off in two parent homes even if there is fighting (I would not think abuse or addiction would be a good thing to grow up in), than a single parent home. Again I'm not putting down single parents and don't mean to disparage any single parents as there are so many good ones but it seem that on the whole the statistics are reporting that boys are especially at risk. And remember I'm speaking like I accuse my very liberal friends of speaking - optimally - in my land of milk and honey. Incoming!!!

Random thought:

It's amazing how many more people report that they themselves were bullied as kids than ever report that they weren't, or that they themselves were the bullies.

There are a few different ways to interpret that, but it is kind of strange no matter what, I think.

No "incoming," Zig, but I would be very circumspect about drawing conclusions regarding causality in the 1-parent, 2-parent argument. The data you've seen may or may not be sound; regardless, the opinions about what it all means are subject to dispute. (As with all such studies.)

the tapu wrote:Random thought:

It's amazing how many more people report that they themselves were bullied as kids than ever report that they weren't, or that they themselves were the bullies.

There are a few different ways to interpret that, but it is kind of strange no matter what, I think.

afterthought: hey, wait, come to think of it, i wasn't really bullied that i recall! oh, maybe once on a multi-family camping trip or something. i can remember bullying a boy or two, but not that much. Well, maybe I'm the only one unscathed by it all!

the tapu wrote:Random thought:

It's amazing how many more people report that they themselves were bullied as kids than ever report that they weren't, or that they themselves were the bullies.

There are a few different ways to interpret that, but it is kind of strange no matter what, I think.

That is an interesting point. People tend to downplay their own accountability in situations and I'm sure that the memory of being a bully is not retained nearly as long as the memory of being bullied.

ziggy wrote:which takes me right back the primordial slew of the breakdown of a two parent home...oy vey....

I see what you are saying Kay but whether he makes the right choice depends on his judgment capabilities which, we now know are lacking in development up until around age 23!!!

I understand that his judgmental capabilities will continue to develop. I do not think reaching a certain age is the magic answer because look at all the people beyond age 23 that continue to make poor choices. In my opinion, the majority of knowing right from wrong and making proper choices comes from quality parenting that begins at birth!!!

In my opinion, too many people have children and then fail to be good parents (and their failure can be for various reasons).

I don't think it helps that we've developed a parenting culture where we expect the schools to raise our kids.

I don't mean that as just a given either. I mean, we stopped using many other previous bastions of morality to give our kids moral guidance. No churches, no service organizations, no standard body of literature with moral and ethical complications, parents without a full moral system developed in their own personality--so it's really the schools that impart "morality," and that means peers for the most part. Major frigging break-down here.