Here's the link that inspired me to create this thread:

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/01/08/gun08.htm

Even the idea of schools being allowed to give students conduct marks is widely contested. So much more is the power to discipline students for whatever is not related to studying. However, some schools believe that not only do they have the authority to discipline students on their own ground, but also for the whole of their actions outside school.

The legality of that stance is not even debatable: there is simply no legal ground whatsoever for a school to do that. Perhaps in some countries state-owned schools might have some such rights, but privately owned educational business? That's hilarious. It's strange they don't have a private police at this point.

While undoubtedly misdemeanor or even more serious charges apply in many cases, that's the job of the judiciary and there's a reason why courts and especially juvenile courts exist.

Indeed, schools play courts and teachers play the judge and the jury (and the police, and the prosecutor etc etc) all too often. Ever been interrogated by a teacher as if you were a crime suspect? Ever been ordered to present your bag or pockets content, or even searched? Pressured to admit to something or face even harsher punishment if you don't admit to something you haven't done? Ever had a teacher involve the rest of the class in a mock jury role in the process of meting his idea of justice to you? Ever been forbidden to speak in your own defence?

I have. I've seen my own share of school justice. This is one of the reasons why university life feels all so much different.

I say, it's high time they put those soi-dissant policemen, prosecutors and judges (three in one, how economical :rolleyes: ) in order.

You might ask, "Hey, what with those juvenile criminals then?" Sue them. And make them liable. They will face a real court trial sentence (if a lighter one), but they will have all their rights to defence observed properly, they will even have a lawyer if appropriate, a real jury (if applicable) and a professional judge, as well as a real law and a teacher's view of the world on which to base charges and punishment.

And what about teachers who have already engaged in the schools' judicial ambitions? Sue them too. They have no right to judge and pronounce guilty, therefore they are liable for slander like anyone. In some cases, even if the charge is real. I'm not talking about the good old fashioned teachers who will punish a student who screws up during the class or incites fights during breaks etc, but only those who take it to such extremes as I described.

What's your opinion in the matter?

Here's another link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/07/parents.detention.ap/index.html

Detention. Does the word sound familiar?

I agree that the school has no right to punish students for things done outside of the school grounds. That said, I have no sympathy for the punk who'd do something stupid like that (and yes, I've done my fair share of malicious mischief), and could care less if he gets suspended or even expelled, whether that's the schools right to do or not.
Out of curiosity, would you feel a school has the right to suspend or expel a student caught vandalizing or destroying school property, even if he/she were standing across the street from the school with a potato gun?

Well, the idea that the student attacked other students while THEY were on school property would make the case a bit interesting. If the case can be viewed as an attack on students, rather than just school property itself (the bus), then the student may have to be removed for the safety of the other students. As a parent I would like to think that the schools can consider the safety of my children before anything else. If the young criminal is a threat to them, and other students, then I would like to see a court ordered restraint against him.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would do my utmost to see my children protected with safety from anyone who might attack them.

Well, the idea that the student attacked other students while THEY were on school property would make the case a bit interesting.Agreed. If you shot someone over two countries' border, you would be accountable in both countries, in most legal systems. The example is a bit lame because in this case the school did have some ground.

If the case can be viewed as an attack on students, rather than just school property itself (the bus), then the student may have to be removed for the safety of the other students.Agreed. I'd love to see juvenile thugs out of schools for normal kids. But I'd like to involve a real judge or magistrate if possible.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would do my utmost to see my children protected with safety from anyone who might attack them.Yeah, you have a point there. I would want the same for my children. But it works both ways and one day my children could find themselves punished without due process of law as the teachers saw fit.

Being a parent myself, I'm thinking from the perspective of protecting my child. One student attacking school property, and attacking other students that could be viewed as still being under the schools protection, could give the school some justification for the suspension. I pretty much agree with the outcome of the other cases that the first article mentions, but the school bus incident seems to me to be in a different category.
...and one day my children could find themselves punished without due process of law as the teachers saw fit.If my son ever launches a hardened egg at a school bus and is subsequently suspended, well, at this point I'd have to say that he's getting what he deserves (and he'd be getting a lot more than just suspension). I don't think I would blame the school for the suspension. Anyway, my son would never do such a thing. He may be only 7 months old, but he is always careful when shooting our potato gun! :D

He may be only 7 months old, but he is always careful when shooting our potato gun! I have to admit - just what the hell is a potato gun anyway?

Off topic, but a potato gun is a small cheap rubber band powered kids' toy that shoots tiny pieces of potato. A very odd idea, but hours of fun.

It's a little different from what HB discribes. The potato gun I've seen launches whole potatoes at high velocity.

**Edited out the details of how to make one**

From the looks of it, it's quite easy to make and could be quite dangerous in the hands of a mischievous teen. I'm just thankful that my friends and I didn't know how to make one back when I was a mischievous teen (although I don't think I would have ever fired anything at a school bus).

[ January 09, 2005, 03:58: Message edited by: Shalladeth ]

The teen in question is certainly disturbed. A frozen egg, as a projectile, is no different from a rock or a piece of metal. He didn't fire it in a random way, not knowing where it would land, but aimed it at a bus full of school children. I wouldn't want to be his lawyer arguing that it was just a harmless prank with no malicious intent. Taking the trouble to freeze the egg shows forethought.

That being said, Chevalier is surely right when he argues that this is no business of the school authorities, since it occurred off school property, which is where their jurisdiction ends, It does seem as though the proper authorities are letting the kid off rather lightly, according to the article.

If the Kids were on the bus at the time, then the school does have authority because they have some responsibility for the safety of the children on the bus. They should have caught the kid, punished him severely and turned him over to the cops. If he'd have hit the driver, how many could have been killed?

I have to say, I'm in agreement with Gnarfflingapotamous here.

The kid assaulted students of the school district, who were on school property (the bus). I think that should be enough to make it their business.

I agree that the school bus adds an element of uncertainty, but the perpetrator was standing in his own property when he fired the frozen egg. So was the crime committed on his own property, outside school jurisdiction, where the frozen egg was launched, or on school property, the bus, where the egg landed? (Which came first: the slingshot or the egg?) Presumably that's the question the lawsuit will address.

@Cernak: In most legal systems, the crime will be committed both where you acted and where the result occured. So yeah, if the school had something like jurisdiction, it could possibly cover the bus and so apply to the boy.

The school I attend reserves the right to punish anyone for things they have done outside of school. It has happened on numerous occasions before, and it's sure to happen again. Legally, it can be done, as my school is a private school, and the official reasoning is that anything that affects the publicity and prestige of the school, even if it occurs away from it, is fair game for punishment.

Check it out if you don't believe me (I wasn't involved) :
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/4452098.htm?1c

Rednik, your site requires registration, so I didn't get there, but it sounds pretty outrageous--and probably illegal--to me.

@Rednik: I still think police should be involved and a magistrate unless the offenders don't want that. My biggest problem with school "justice" is not the punishment itself, but conducting an investigation and declaring someone guilty. Yet another thing is that the two culprits were both students and the students invited for the show were from that same school and the taping, showing and watching was illegal. And yeah, I think schools should be allowed to expell or refuse to accept students who have been declared guilty of an offence.

Alas the link to the first story has now disappeared but I quick-read it earlier. In this particular case the school has suspended a child for firing a frozen egg at a school bus and injuring other school children. Open and shut case as far as I am concerned, the school should be fully able to suspend the child for damage to school property. If it had been to a vehicle not associated with the school it would be a different issue, though suspension might have formed part of any legally made punishment. In either case a magistrate should also be involved and the kid prosecuted. I'd rather see the punishment as a "mocking" public service (Having to sweep the street while wearing a bright pink boiler suit for example) than simply suing someone. Bring back the Stocks! :banana:

I've probably misunderstood your initial stance Chev, but you seem to be implying that teachers shouldn't be allowed to have their own disciplinary system. Ah, no I have misunderstood; it's only teachers that take it to extremes. I can't say I ever experienced that, the teachers at my school would only search bags if given due cause. (One incident of a shuriken being thrown and another of theft where someone turned the thief in.) Sounds like you've had a bad personal experience and the teacher overstepped his authority - though there may have been circumstances you were unaware of at the time, I'm sure some could easily be postulated. (Except the no-defence - unless he was trying to teach Kafka!)
Problem is for every bad teacher there is probably ten (number plucked from air but I know of a few cases) where the children make up some ludicrous stories to get the teacher into trouble. Pre-schools/infant schools now have two teachers per class so they have an "alibi". I'm personally in favour of CCTV in classrooms - that would remove the element of doubt.

Teachers are really up-against it in Britain now-a-days. Parental discipline seems to have gone too far out the window and children no longer have respect for adults. This leaves the teachers as the only ones able to try and instil some sense of responsibility - something I don't think they are trained for but I'm damn glad they're trying. The government can not enforce parental discipline, they could at least help teachers to instil it and enforce when necessary.

Sorry, but University and A-levels (or equivalent) can not be compared to general schooling as the students are there because they want to be. As they are also older, they just don't cause the agro which you get from younger teens.

Hey, I may be wrong but it seems to me that as the right to discipline and punish children has been removed from teachers (and now parents with the anti-smacking legislation) the attitude and actions of children have got worse. Imagine a 60 year old lady on the pavement being told to "Get out the f-ing way" by an eight year old and the father's initial reaction to try and support the child as a pavement is a "by-way" and therefore the child has more of a right to cycle on it than a women to stand on it. (It's actually illegal to cycle on pavements in England, I soon put him right) That wouldn't have been considered twenty years ago (showing my age again and Sorry, I've gone off topic again.)

In the case of this specific example, I would say it's right for the school to suspend the student.

Then again for the wannabe-judges who force students to follow the school rules and their own code of conduct even when the students are outside the of the school... Would break their bones could I catch 'em. :flaming:

(I know exactly why Chevalier dislikes these people.)

(I shall decide on my OWN values, and thinking that homosexuals are normal, for example, do not fall within my values. Or most others of those countless values people try to force on me. Anyone disagreeing with me is free to, but is not free to try to force me to think otherwise.)

Taza

Never known any teachers to try and enforce school rules or their own conduct on people outside of school premises.

Off topic: I totally agree with you on your last paragraph (except the example as an example). There is nothing I dislike more than someone trying to force their values or beliefs on other people or to prevent them doing something because they disagree with it (Exception of course being where that act is detrimental to others). I think you'll actually find most arguments on here stem from people wanting to employ their moral will on others.

I guess where I'm having a problem with this issue is did the kid pose a risk to the other students or did the other students pose a risk to him. If the school system believed that it would be dangerous for him to be in the school (to anyone including himself), then I agree they probably should have suspended him.

However, if the suspension was strictly a punitive gesture (which is how it seems to me), than they overstepped their bounds.

Without a doubt a criminal event took place and it should have been left to the discretion of the local district attorney.

The irony is that if he wins his lawsuit, I'm sure the parents of the kids on the bus will also sue and the plaintiff may end up in worse shape than he started. It is almost poetic.

If the School board is responsible for the safety of the students on the bus, then they should have the authority to protect them. The punk deserves what he gets. He should have been suspended and arrested. Try him for reckless endangerment. Try the punk as a nadult. He wants to interfere with education, then he forfeits that right. His life is ruined. Let him work to reclaim it.

Why should them try him as an adult? Give me one reason that doesn't include ruining his life, for fun.

I see this more as an issue of responsibilities than of locations. The kid has already gone through the justice system, and I don't see why there should be additional "formal" punishment applied. However, I think my views have already been summed up quite nicely by TGS:
I guess where I'm having a problem with this issue is did the kid pose a risk to the other students or did the other students pose a risk to him. If the school system believed that it would be dangerous for him to be in the school (to anyone including himself), then I agree they probably should have suspended him.

However, if the suspension was strictly a punitive gesture (which is how it seems to me), than they overstepped their bounds. If the event happened at a time and place where the school district had responsibilities and/or a duty of care, then I believe their actions are justified. I think the plaintiff is concerned more about his kid's college and monetary opportunities than any concept of natural justice.

@ Carcaroth: Completely agree with you on the whole issue of respect and kids being raised with a measure of discipline and courtesy. Unfortunately, it seems that common courtesy and decency are things you can only expect if you have a battery of lawyers at your disposal - and they'd better be meticulous in their approach.

Well, when I was younger (oh man, I sound like Splunge :mommy: ) there were certain things a teacher could do and certain things that they couldn't. For example, if a teacher (or principal) asked to search your bag (while on school property) then a student by all rights could refuse, in which case a police officer could be brought in to do so (all of this hinging on reasonable assumption). If a teacher (or principal) wanted to search your locker, they could do so without your permission, since it is the school's property (of course, they ask first, and then if you refuse they will cut off the lock).

Around here, though, the bus system is kept seperate from the school district. It is run by another government pronch called Laidlaw. So if that had happened here, then the school couldn't do anything, and Laidlaw could only suspend the kid from the bus and possibly sue for damages.

But if in the area this happened the buses are the property of the school district, then by all means, throw the book at him for defacing public property and endangering students who are still under the care of the school.

(Just a little off topic for those who are still a little unclear, a standard potato gun is a large plastic tube about as big around as a potato, with a cap at the back end, and an ignitor button. A potatoe is jammed down the pipe, and hairspray [or another flammable spray] is sprayed in the back end. The cap is closed, the ignitor is pushed and BAM, potato-ala-Wright Brothers. :D )

I've probably misunderstood your initial stance Chev, but you seem to be implying that teachers shouldn't be allowed to have their own disciplinary system. Ah, no I have misunderstood; it's only teachers that take it to extremes. I can't say I ever experienced that, the teachers at my school would only search bags if given due cause.Well, they should be able to take protective measures, but punishment in the strict sense should always be reviewed by a magistrate, or be limited to cases where the juvenile offender agrees to undergo the school punishment and skip on the police and magistrates. Either that or when they have a videotaping security camera and the offence and the punishment is mentioned in the school's rules.

It's not like the magistrate is a professional judge and in the traditional system teachers and especially school authorities are construed as a sort of magistrate. But there's a difference between a modern judge of the peace and a feudal lord. I don't like it when they act like the latter.

Examples include deciding which kid's testimony is to be believed and which is to be discarded, involving other kids in the process of deciding or delivering punishment, punishing the most probable offender because there has been an offence and someone most be punished, and so on.

When they pulled the "you did that because more students say you did than that you didn't" trick on me, I always threatened them with slander lawsuit, and I always had student rights printed out somewhere in reach. But students don't typically know their rights. Teachers don't typically know student rights, either, but they still want to play judge on you. They don't know a damn about examining proof or defence rights, let alone drawing a line between an offence and something they don't like.

I went through disciplinary talks and lowering the conduct mark for sticking to my version (i.e. the teacher asked me to do a task) even after a teacher decided to contradict me (i.e. say that she gave it to someone else). I said, have it your way, no problem, give it to her, but you asked me to do that. Et voila, enter the world discipline. The woman didn't even think that she could mark it for two people.

Yet another example would be that teacher who decided if you were guilty by majority vote of the class. Doesn't matter people who voted you did that weren't even there. When you pointed that out, she would lecture you on how anti-social you were and that you were supposed to be part of the class and not above it. :rolleyes:

When they didn't have enough evidence, they would pressure on you to own to the offence. One way or another. Typically you admit and we get over it kind of ways. Of course, if they decided you were guilty, they increased your punishment for opposing, so I saw totally innocent kids play all guilty and apologetic because of fear or for pragmatic reasons.

Searches did occur, although they never happened to me except one woman demanding me to stick my pockets out, which I refused and had it my way. Whole class search because someone's missing something is a barbaric custom. They had another method, even more barbaric but not including a search: they ordered the whole class to keep repeating an exhausting physical exercise until someone admitted to the act. Either that or a punitive test outside of the normal rules for a test, that everyone was supposed to fail. The marks wouldn't be given if someone admitted doing the wrong thing.

Well, here is here. I live in the capital city. In the country, such things still happen and they are more of a general rule than an exception. Still, I don't think they move so far as personal searches. But I did some research on strip searches elsewhere and I found examples of it happening in schools. In the US, students have the right to refuse that (don't know about other countries, maybe somewhere else they don't have such a right), but they don't typically know and aren't informed of their rights by the teachers - who probably don't know, either. Plus, I can imagine a school punishing a student for refusing to allow a strip search for lack of cooperation with school authority or whatever "ethical" or "civic" crap that comes to their mind. In Alabama, they ordered a group of girls to come out of the bathroom with panties on their ankles because another girl was missing $7. Apart from sheer brutality and humiliation, didn't those idiots realise that all money looks the same and all kids carry some cash?

All in all, I think the situation needs to be formalised and things need to be written down and actually read. I'm not dead against teachers having magistrate rights. But in that case, they should receive special training (exam included), be bound by procedural regulations, they should be forced to write a protocol, and observe your defence rights. Plus there should always a recourse to higher authority suspending the execution of your punishment. Needless to say, all offences would have to be writted down and all punishments possible alike. Appart from the above, I really, really think that taking an IQ test should be compulsory for all teacher candidates. :rolleyes: Just look on those who search kids' pockets, backpacks or even persons for missing money. Heck, if we are at it, I think it's not just IQ, but some character problem or personality issue must be involved (after all, the person has completed some studies and obtained some degree, so he/she can't really be legally retarded), so a thorough psychological examination would be welcome. Another problem is, it's hard to make lofty demands in state-owned schools if you're paying them three times less than uneducated people receive in some jobs.

I got the impression that he was guilty and they had the evidence on him. They had him dead to rights. If found guilty in a fair trial, then he deserves what he gets.

As for trying him as an adult, I think that reckless endangerment is serious enough to warrant that kind of deterent.