Pheobe Prince's bullies sentenced

And we really haven't been trying that long.

The idea of "social bullying" is only really starting to come to the forefront. Up until recently, the only type of bullying that we would see is "Nelson Muntz" type of bullying, the singular, personal bullying that often crossed the line into physical bullying.

But we're seeing more talk about social bullying than ever before (which isn't difficult as it's a fairly modern subject). And from what I can tell this is a textbook example of social bullying. What happens in these cases, is that you have a group of individuals (or in fact it can be a large portion of a student body) who are creating a toxic environment for an individual/group of individuals. The toxic environment is damaging in such a way that goes past namecalling. When it's so many people reinforcing it, they have to be right, right?

The real problem with punishment in these cases is that often the people involved often really have no view that what they're doing is wrong. It becomes so normalized that to a degree they're just acting according to social norms, it's just that the social norms are wrong. If anything it's up to the local administration/teachers to correct this, but it's very difficult to do, especially when we have a natural tendency to like winners more than losers.

There are much deeper issues at play here.

I think that the sentences are probably appropriate in this case. Play with fire, you might get burned. And they did. Things such as harassment are real crimes. But do they send a message? No, they don't. Because when this happens, as it quickly becomes the social norm, it's hard to see this behavior as being wrong.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

eah not good enough but since the names are released they will be harassed a lot in public places

Fee fi fo fum. I smell Kraft Dinner.

We have already taught them WHY it is wrong, in school itself. They just don't CARE that it's wrong, as the continued persistence of bullying demonstrates.

I hope you mean "they disagree that it is wrong" (as morality is technically subjective) instead of "do not realize the consequences of their actions." (I mean, come on, with the increasing rate of bullying-related suicide, there is no way they could NOT be aware by now.) As for social norms, morality should not depend on them, PERIOD. If it does that is a problem in and of itself, with implications even beyond bullying.

edited 8th May '11 4:13:13 PM by neoYTPism

For the record a punch to the face is not going to give you just a black eye. You lot are seriously underestimating the damage that can be done. Broken noses, broken teeth, teeth knocked out, broken jaw, broken pallet, detached irises, damage to the eyeballs, and possible blindness from blunt trauma to the eye. Damage to the tendons in your face and damage to the muscle are all common injuries from sharp blows to the face. Most of these injuries require surgery, stitches, or other hospital care. They will also leave permanent scars, recurring pain from scarring of various tissues and other long term problems. It is entirely possible to kill someone with a single blow to the head or body.

---

Some places deal with bullying and harassment much more effectively then others though. The school Phoebe went to is a prime example of complete failure to address the issue. Phoebe is not the only person to have had problems as was reported by numerous others.

edited 8th May '11 4:16:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

We need to do something unprecedented and drastic to that school, to send a message to any other schools that fail to address bullying. I would suggest firing every teacher whose negligence played a role in this scenario, and never let them be a teacher again. Maybe this would force other schools to do a better job confronting bullying.

Yes, I know this is comparable to the way bullies operate. But I do not see how this issue can be resolved otherwise.

^^^Yes, I mean that they disagree that it is wrong. I think they do to some degree recognize the potential consequences of their actions and are ok with it. There are deep deep cultural issues at play here.

^My experience is that it's not the teachers. They can only do so much. It's usually the higher administration that's more responsible for discipline-type issues. But yes. There needs to be an investigation. Did they try to do anything to change the situation? Did they tacitly or even explicitly lend approval to what was going on? Then they need to go.

To be honest, I suspect you may need to extend that in these situations to local governmental and religious institutions. But that's just me.

edited 8th May '11 4:35:16 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I would not extend it to religious institutions at all, as I believe that morality should not rely on religion. The schools should be expected to do more about it, period.

My experience is also that bullying is not the fault of the teachers, but I would have thought that school-wide inaction on bullying implied some level of blame for the teachers, as I find it hard to believe that a small minority of higher ups both could and would prevent teachers from doing something about bullying. (Why would they?) Certainly an investigation is needed, but my overall point is that doing something more radical and unprecedented to that school might send a message to other schools in the process.

Arguing about whether emotional or physical trauma is worse is pointless, both since the experience of pain is subjective in both cases, and because it's a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive, and a lot of the damage done by assault is, in fact, emotional/psychological. Being beaten on the street may cause very little lasting injury, but the loss of one's sense of security is what still often makes it a traumatic event; certainly much more so than sustaining similar injuries accidentally or consesually (like in a boxing match).

The main differenct between the two is that purely emotional abuse is much more difficult to both qualify and quantify - not that it's something anyone can just shrug off if they "toughen up" enough.

"The main differenct between the two is that purely emotional abuse is much more difficult to both qualify and quantify" - Mostly Benign

What do you mean?

edited 9th May '11 5:40:21 AM by neoYTPism

@Neo YT Pism- I suspect that they mean that with physical abuse, you can show evidence as to how severe it is, and that it even happened far easier. If three people separate assault me on the street on three separate occasions, I can show photographs of my hypothetical bruises, cigarette burns or broken bones and how serious each of those are can be taken into account. Someone who is abused emotionally by three separate people can't take pictures of their tormented psyche- they can certainly give an account of what happened, claim they need therapy because of it, but how much effect being teased daily by each individual had can't really be proven.

edited 9th May '11 12:46:06 PM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Has anyone considered the amount of spin put into this story? The real story is less pleasing. From what I've known, Phoebe was one of those popular girls who got attention from guys because she couldn't get along with people of her own gender. She was already depressed self-injurer and had been already seeking treatment after a suicide attempt or something similar. After getting in a scuffle with some other girls over dating a football player, they attacked her on facebook and that sent her over the edge. (I'm pretty sure they weren't aware of what a terrible mental condition she had already been in, but I may be wrong) I'm not saying that it justified them attacking her, but I think it's just amazing how the media ended playing up a scuffle between catty girls and an already mentally troubled girl. Yet, only one story (from a reputable source) has bothered to cover any of this. Of course, given the supposed American "support" for underdogs and blameless victims, and not popular girls who get a lot of boyfriends and definiitely not those with mental ilnesses, it's not surprising. Meanwhile, thousands of other teen suicides get absolutely no media coverage at all. I suspect one factor is the victims weren't as attractive as Phoebe was.

Again, I'm not saying this wasn't a bad thing. (Although you can say that I said otherwise) But it's not worse than the thousands of tragic suicides that people don't blink an eye to.

But of course, I have to admit, I'm super biased. The idea that people would go out of their way to bully someone like that is way out of my comprehension. (And before anyone tells me that I couldn't understand because I couldn't be a target, you're dead wrong)

According to Wikipedia, most of that is not true:

She was definitely not "popular", and the bullying was much more severe than you've said and wasn't mainly on Facebook.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

"If three people separate assault me on the street on three separate occasions, I can show photographs of my hypothetical bruises, cigarette burns or broken bones and how serious each of those are can be taken into account." - Wulf

But you cannot prove that these bruises were caused by the people who assaulted you. It could easily be mistaken for a Wounded Gazelle Gambit. So the point is moot.