I'm just not comfortable punishing self defense, provided it's a proportionate response. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 27/03/2011 06:16:23 AM
The kid getting punched might not have fought back if he knew that doing so would get him expelled or like in lot of places in the US arrested and fined hundreds of dollars. Because the punishment was reasonable it was low enough that he was willing to risk it for the right to defend himself. You make is sound like I am claiming he doesn't have the right to defend himself but the opposite is true. I am saying that he has the right to do it if he thinks it worth paying the price. Very rarely do we know enough about what leads up to these fights so the only rational thing is to treat both boys the same. Now if one kid makes a habit out of fighting he should be punished more. I do think that if can be shown that the one boy was simply attacking the other boy for sport (and please don’t claim we can or we will be back in the context argument again) then I think it would be reasonable for the school to punish the one boy both for fighting and then separately for harassment but that would not stop me from punishing both boys for fighting. I don’t think any of us know enough about this case or what evidence the school has to make that judgment. It would have helped if there has been some audio.
I will admit that this case stretches my argument by I still think it makes sense to have the rule that fighting will be punished and it is up to you to decide if you want to pay the cost. If not all the bully has to do is instigate the victim into throwing the first punch.
I will admit that this case stretches my argument by I still think it makes sense to have the rule that fighting will be punished and it is up to you to decide if you want to pay the cost. If not all the bully has to do is instigate the victim into throwing the first punch.
An argument could very well be made that practically pile driving someone is a disproportionate response to getting socked in the jaw a couple times, but it's hard to debate who instigated the conflict when one person is backing away the whole time the other is hitting him in the face, and only responds physically when his back is literally against the wall. Even if he'd been "talking trash" at the other kid getting punched in the face a few times had clearly ended that, and that's where it should've ended under those circumstances. Likewise, if the kid who was being bullied had jumped on the other one and kept hitting him after dropping him on his head there'd be no question his response was disproportionate, but he didn't do that; he waited to see how the other kid would respond, and when he saw that response was simply to stagger unsteadily away, he didn't pursue him.
In the final analysis I don't think it's just or advisable to punish someone if it can be definitively established that they merely defended themselves and nothing more. Self defense is not wrong, and when the rules have already failed by making self defense necessary, they should not deliberately fail the victim yet again by further victimizing him. No one should be expected to "pay" that "price" for personal security, nor should anyone be expected to "pay" the "price" of taking a beating to avoid punishment for simply protecting themselves--especially when it might not do any good; how many times did one of your sons admit that his brother never fought back when you broke up one of their scuffles?
I firmly believe in the duty to retreat. Physical violence should be avoided when possible, but the laws in many states that prosecute people for killing someone who's invaded their home and put their family at risk are ridiculous and wrong to me. When someone's got a knife to your wifes throat that should be provocation enough to shoot them; you shouldn't have to wait until AFTER he's put it through her heart to avoid prosecution, and prosecuting someone for preventing that on the grounds that "well, prosecution ensures he won't fight back unless he must" is senseless to me. That's vastly different from this case in degree, but not in kind.