Zero-Tolerance Policies

[pgrmdave]

I was teased, mocked, and subjected to a lot of peer ridicule for a few years and I never became violent, and I regret it. If I had stood up to them on their level, and shown that I wouldn't be pushed around, I believe that my school wouldn't have felt like such a terrible place. The zero-tolerance policies, in my experiance, tend to work against the victims, not the aggressors.

[IrishEyes]

I was teased, mocked, and subjected to a lot of peer ridicule for a few years and I never became violent, and I regret it. If I had stood up to them on their level, and shown that I wouldn't be pushed around, I believe that my school wouldn't have felt like such a terrible place. The zero-tolerance policies, in my experiance, tend to work against the victims, not the aggressors.

 

Dave,

First, thanks for starting this thread. I think it's a very interesting subject, and obviously a few others do as well...

 

You actually regret NOT becoming violent? You weren't physically abused though, right? So why do you think that becoming violent would resolve your problems? Also, what type of violence do you wish that you had used against your aggressors?

 

And to keep it on topic, can you please explain the 'zero-tolerance' policy that you mentioned? My children are home-schooled, and I am not aware of any zero-tolerance policy in our local school district, except for drugs... Thanks!!

[pgrmdave]

I was never physically abused, no, but it got to the point where the constant barrage of insults, which often occured out of a teachers hearing range, by many of my classmates, made me dread going to school, and I enjoy learning, so this was a big thing. I think that the reason that the people persisted for so long, about two years, was because I couldn't stand up to them. In a battle of words when you're twelve, all that matters is your peers judgement of who wins, and when you're already unpopular...well, I had no chance there. It was safe for them to insult me, I couldn't retaliate. If I had fought back, just a simple fist fight, nothing truly damaging, especially at that age, it would've shown that it wasn't safe for them to pick on me. The Zero-Tolerance policy, in the school system I was in, made any violent act mandate a certain punishment (I think it was five days of out-of-school suspension, but I don't remember). There were other Zero-Tolerance policies, I had a friend who had three days of suspension for bringing in a bullet on a necklace, it was considered a weapon. The policies don't allow for differing circumstances.

[IrishEyes]

oK, I guess I still don't get it. Please don't give up on me though, ok?

Were you physically capable of punching these people, but you just decided not to punch them?

And if YOU decided not to resort to violence, WHY was that your choice?

Was it fear of punishment in the school system or at home? Was it that you didn't think it would make a difference then, but now you think it might have?

I'm sorry to have so many questions, but this subject really fascinates me, and I want to understand what you mean a lot better. I'm doing psych homework right now for school, so this is actually ehlping to bring a few things into focus...

[IrishEyes]

The policies don't allow for differing circumstances.

Do you understand WHY the school did not allow for differing circumstances? They adopted a very absolute set of rules, and allowed no deviance from those rules. You think that this was wrong of them, and it was unfair to victims, because victims were not allowed to use violence without being punished?

Keep talking it through, I'm into this one...

[pgrmdave]

I was given the opportunity, a few times, to hit them, but I knew that I would get into a lot of trouble, mostly at school, I think that my parents would have understood. At the time, I wanted them to throw the first punch, now I think that the insults may have been the first punch, in a sense, and that I could've made a difference in my life if I'd stood up to them. I also later found that the ringleader of them went on to become physically abusive to other students, and while I don't know, I think that if I had stopped him when he did it to me, he may not have slammed that kid's head into the water fountain.

[pgrmdave]

The problem with zero-tolerance is it doesn't allow different punishments based on the circumstances. I don't think that violence should go unpunished, but some violence is worse than other violence. The time that best sticks in my head is when I was walking through the hallway one day and I saw a fight break out between two girls. One girl came up and just started hitting the other, and pulling her hair. The second girl defended herself as well as she could. Both girls were punished equally, because that is what the rules said to do. When the administration was asked about it, they said that the second girl had no right to hit back. I think that these girls, even if they seemingly took the same actions, should not have received the same blame.

[lindagarrette]

Do you understand WHY the school did not allow for differing circumstances? They adopted a very absolute set of rules, and allowed no deviance from those rules. You think that this was wrong of them, and it was unfair to victims, because victims were not allowed to use violence without being punished?

Keep talking it through, I'm into this one...

Our legal system is structured to consider circumstances and vary the punishment according to the severity of the crime. This is supposed to be a deterrant. If you imposed the same penalty for rape as you did for murder, supposedly, rapists would have no incentive to kill the victim. Schools don't bother to differentiate because the rulemakers are not trained jurists.

[Fishteacher73]

Most district that I am aware of do allow variances in the punishment based on the circumstances, but the basic concept is that if you violate the rules, you are subject to some sort of punishment. Where I work (I am a teacher) the consequences are connected to the specifc incedent; ie if some you jumps a student and the student defends themselves, usually the aggressor will recieve a harsher punishment, but for the fact that the defendant fought, they will also be subject to a degree of punishment.

[pgrmdave]

I understand that they are not trained jurists, and that they cannot make some of the distictions within our legal system, but teachers know students very well, as I'm sure Fishteacher could attest to, and thus are able to make more informed decisions. I think that having a mandatory sentance removes the personal aspect, something which the Supreme Court recently ruled on, making mandatory sentances unconstitutional.

[Fishteacher73]

Here's my post from the prest/war thread about this:

 

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine's Trenchcaot mafia) popped those that were picking on them. I guess your ideals worked...they aren't being picked on anymore. It is wrong to condone ANY sort of violence when other options are present. Schools have been continually pushed to teach more than just the "three r's". Teachers (I know, I am one) are now expected to essentially teach morals/inter-personal skills, etc. because for many students this direction is lacking at home. One must foster an atmosphere where VIOLENCE IS NOT TOLERATED to show that there are alternatives to lashing out in a physical manner. Without this, we have a snowballing effect of the violence of the children. (This can be seen in the escalation of gang violence in LA in the early 90's). While "zero-tolerance" is not a quick fix, it is a long-term solution to a problem that has no quick fixes. One can start to see the impact this has had in the decline of violence in thepreviously mentioned South Central.

[IrishEyes]

Our legal system is structured to consider circumstances and vary the punishment according to the severity of the crime. This is supposed to be a deterrant. If you imposed the same penalty for rape as you did for murder, supposedly, rapists would have no incentive to kill the victim. Schools don't bother to differentiate because the rulemakers are not trained jurists.

linda,

I'm a bit confused, can you help me out? You said "this is supposed to be a deterrant", meaning that mandatory sentences are supposed to be a deterrent, right?

 

And then, "If you imposed the same penalty for rape as you did for murder, supposedly, rapists would have no incentive to kill the victim". Were you being facetious, or serious? I'm sorry, linda, I guess I don't interact enough with you to know when you are joking or not.

[IrishEyes]

I understand that they are not trained jurists, and that they cannot make some of the distictions within our legal system, but teachers know students very well, as I'm sure Fishteacher could attest to, and thus are able to make more informed decisions. I think that having a mandatory sentance removes the personal aspect, something which the Supreme Court recently ruled on, making mandatory sentances unconstitutional.

 

Ok, I'd like to get to this, but I want to come back to it later, ok?

 

You mentioned that you think that things would have been different for you, even going so far as to say your life may have been different, if you had reacted violently to these kids when they teased you. Can you sit there and think all the way through that scenario and honestly say that your life could have turned out better if you had been the one to resort to violence? Is that something that you imagine encouraging your future children to do?

[Fishteacher73]

Another issue is that by law (yet not in school) inflamitory words, aside from direct threats, are NOT a excuse to resort to violence. Verbal harassment is treated seriously and is not tolerated. I Just yesterday ended up having a student sent to alternative school because he continually picked at another of my students.

Many of these students are from a home situation that is full of verbal/physical abuse. Many simply act the way they have been shown to. The point of "zero-tolerance" is to give a tool that prohibits the justification of violence. It may not always be specifically fair in all cases, but any slight to the "victim" I feel is minimal.

[Fishteacher73]

And then, "If you imposed the same penalty for rape as you did for murder, supposedly, rapists would have no incentive to kill the victim". Were you being facetious, or serious? I'm sorry, linda, I guess I don't interact enough with you to know when you are joking or not.

 

In some states rape can be classified as a captial crime. (Texas is one, but in Texas just about anything is a capital crime unless you are Ken Lay).

[IrishEyes]

Many of these students are from a home situation that is full of verbal/physical abuse. Many simply act the way they have been shown to. The point of "zero-tolerance" is to give a tool that prohibits the justification of violence. It may not always be specifically fair in all cases, but any slight to the "victim" I feel is minimal.

This is the case far too often. If students are taught that violence is the solution at home, then it is natural that they will carry that to school as well. However, having a set of standards in place from the beginning of their education that lets them know, in no uncertain terms, that violence simply can not be tolerated in any situation, is one way to overcome the issue of what they are being taught at home.

 

I do something very similar at home. I admit that I still will sometimes listen to their cases, but generally, any physical violence to any of the other children will receive immediate and harsh consequences. This also goes for retalitory violence. The answer is either solve it amongst yourselves, or get the Mom before fists start flying.

 

Of course, one exception is if they are ever in a situation where I am not redily available, and someone starts to pick on, or in any way harm, one of the little ones... If there is no adult around (very rare!), and threats of telling the adults do not work, and one of the smaller girls is being abused, it *is* ok for one of the boys to subdue any other child that is harming one of the girls. That is the *only* situation where any type of violence is acceptable and will not garner any type of punishment from the parents. However, that "violence" has been defined as only the amount of force necessary to end a physical attack on one of our children, and is not to go any further than that. It's been tested on one occasion, and Michael was very effective in pushing a bully to the ground and tossing the 3-year old over the shoulder to get her away from harm.

 

Does that seem hypocritical?

[IrishEyes]

In some states rape can be classified as a captial crime. (Texas is one, but in Texas just about anything is a capital crime unless you are Ken Lay).

Why shouldn't rape be classified as a capital crime? Or maybe that should get its own thread?

 

What I was getting at was what does imposing the same penalty for rape as murder do to deter a rapist from killing the victim? I don't get that part of the statement. It would seem that if rape and murder both have the same punishment, then there would really be no reason NOT to kill the victim, as they can't exactly execute you twice, right? So why not just kill the victim and hope not to get caught?

 

Or is that what you were implying, linda? Sorry if I see very slow today, I'm taking Hypo breaks in between studying for a psych test, so *THIS* is supposed to be a brain rest for me... ;)