APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT FOR CYBERBULLIES
With an intentional jump off of the Washington Bridge, the life of Tyler Clementi came to a tragic end. Tyler was an 18-year-old violinist and first year student at Rutgers University who found himself victim to the harsh attacks of a cyberbully. Devastated, Tyler took his life after being humiliated by his own roommate, Dharun Ravi, who videotaped Tyler and posted publicly online his roommate’s private moments with a male companion, with the intent to expose and humiliate him in front of his fellow students. In recent years, with the rise of social media websites along with picture and video messaging, a new form of public bullying has emerged, becoming a well-known and controversial issue. According to an article in The New York Times titled “Dharun Ravi,” cyberbully Ravi faced trial and was convicted of bias intimidation as a hate crime. The judge, however, did not find him guilty of contributing to Tyler’s suicide, sentencing Ravi to serve a mere 30-days in jail, of which he served 20. This leads people to debate what the appropriate punishment is for cyberbullies whose goal is to publicly tear down their victims, and whether their malicious offenses are punishable by law. Proponents for legal action against cyberbullies believe that the bullies should be held responsible for their deliberate acts as well as the effects that follow. Those who oppose legal ramifications for cyberbullying suggest that the bully’s actions are protected under his first amendment right to free speech and he should not be held accountable for how the victim chooses to respond. Tyler’s mother, Jane Clementi, would disagree. She blames her son’s death on the violation he faced at the hands of his roommate. Many agree with her and feel that the light punishment Ravi received did not fit the hate crime that was committed. Legal action is a necessary penalty for these premeditated acts of denigration because cyberbullying is not being managed effectively by schools and parents alone, is creating disturbances at school, and causing significant pain and anguish for its victims, sometimes, as in Tyler’s case, resulting in death.
It has been argued by those who oppose legal consequences for online behavior that cyberbullies should not hold blame for the reaction of their target. In The New York Times article “Bullying, Suicide, Punishment,” Professor of Law and cybercrime specialist, Orin S. Kerr, expresses his view that offenders need to be prosecuted for the crime they committed and not for how their victim responded, releasing the cyberbully of any ownership of what occurs after the offense. In this line of thinking, should the courts also be expected to stop charging robbers with first-degree murder after they “accidentally” murder their victim while committing their initial felony? No, because whether it was their intention or not, the act was a result of their crime, for which they should be punished to the full extent. With this reasoning, cyberbullies are to blame for the outcome of their offenses and should be prosecuted according to the damage they caused.
One reason to support legal regulation for cyberbullies is that schools and parents have failed to effectively patrol cyber abuse on their own. Some parents lack the time and computer skills to be able monitor their children’s online activity. Often, afraid of revenge or insufficient action, the victims do not report the abuse to authorities, leaving the parents and school administration unable to manage the violations effectively. However, as pointed out by Wendy J. Murphy in the article “Federal Law Requires Schools to Protect Children from Cyberbullying,” in the cases that the schools are made aware of the viscous attacks of cyberbullies, because they are not required to intervene in events that happen off-campus, they are hesitant to get involved. Referring back to Tyler Clementi’s case, the school knew about the bullying by his roommate, but failed to take action, potentially missing an opportunity to get the law involved and prevent Tyler’s death.
Another reason to support laws against cyberbullies is that even though cyber abuse typically happens off-campus in the students’ free time, the harmful effects are often apparent while on school grounds, creating a disturbance at school and obstructing the victim’s education. According to the article “Prosecuting Cyberbullies,” the emotional pains of stress and anguish put upon the victims make it hard for them to function at school. Taking this analysis into consideration, it is likely that victims often avoid school out of fear of dealing with the humiliation caused by bullying and then fall behind in their education.
A final reason that victims of cyberbullying deserve legal protection is that the significant pain and psychological trauma caused by bullying can lead the victim to harm himself or others. The despair, anxiety, and fear caused by cyber abuse leaves victims at a heightened risk for depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and suicidal tendencies. In some cases, for example, the well-known Columbine shootings, the victims of bullying can even lash out in retaliation, resulting in harm of others (“Prosecuting”). Before the effects of bullying get to this point, intervention is necessary.
California State Representative Linda Sanchez is quoted saying, “[W]e have laws criminalizing stalking, sexual harassment, identity theft and more when it takes place in person and online. All of these actions have consequences. But there is one serious online offense that has no penalty—cyberbullying” (“Prosecuting”). Although some people believe that enforcing punishment for online behavior violates the First Amendment's right to free speech, Cyberbullying has become an intrusive form of harassment that is not being dealt with properly by schools and parents, is creating disorder on school campuses, and causing life altering distress to its victims. It is time society starts taking action to punish the offenders in hopes to deter future cyber abuse and make known that there will be repercussions for their crimes.
Works Cited
"Dharun Ravi." The New York Times. N.p., 21 June 2012. Web.
05 Dec. 2012.
Murphy, Wendy J. "Federal Law Requires Schools to Protect
Children from Cyberbullying." Cyberbullying. Ed. Louise I.
Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt.
from "Suing School Would Shine Light on 'Suicide by
Bullying,'." Patriot Ledger 13 Feb. 2010. Gale Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
"Prosecuting Cyberbullies." Issues & Controversies. Facts On
File News Services, 6 Dec. 2010. Issues & Controversies.
Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
Schwartz, John. "Bullying, Suicide, Punishment." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 03 Oct. 2010. Web. 04 Dec.
2012.
It has been argued by those who oppose legal consequences for online behavior that cyberbullies should not hold blame for the reaction of their target. In The New York Times article “Bullying, Suicide, Punishment,” Professor of Law and cybercrime specialist, Orin S. Kerr, expresses his view that offenders need to be prosecuted for the crime they committed and not for how their victim responded, releasing the cyberbully of any ownership of what occurs after the offense. In this line of thinking, should the courts also be expected to stop charging robbers with first-degree murder after they “accidentally” murder their victim while committing their initial felony? No, because whether it was their intention or not, the act was a result of their crime, for which they should be punished to the full extent. With this reasoning, cyberbullies are to blame for the outcome of their offenses and should be prosecuted according to the damage they caused.
One reason to support legal regulation for cyberbullies is that schools and parents have failed to effectively patrol cyber abuse on their own. Some parents lack the time and computer skills to be able monitor their children’s online activity. Often, afraid of revenge or insufficient action, the victims do not report the abuse to authorities, leaving the parents and school administration unable to manage the violations effectively. However, as pointed out by Wendy J. Murphy in the article “Federal Law Requires Schools to Protect Children from Cyberbullying,” in the cases that the schools are made aware of the viscous attacks of cyberbullies, because they are not required to intervene in events that happen off-campus, they are hesitant to get involved. Referring back to Tyler Clementi’s case, the school knew about the bullying by his roommate, but failed to take action, potentially missing an opportunity to get the law involved and prevent Tyler’s death.
Another reason to support laws against cyberbullies is that even though cyber abuse typically happens off-campus in the students’ free time, the harmful effects are often apparent while on school grounds, creating a disturbance at school and obstructing the victim’s education. According to the article “Prosecuting Cyberbullies,” the emotional pains of stress and anguish put upon the victims make it hard for them to function at school. Taking this analysis into consideration, it is likely that victims often avoid school out of fear of dealing with the humiliation caused by bullying and then fall behind in their education.
A final reason that victims of cyberbullying deserve legal protection is that the significant pain and psychological trauma caused by bullying can lead the victim to harm himself or others. The despair, anxiety, and fear caused by cyber abuse leaves victims at a heightened risk for depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and suicidal tendencies. In some cases, for example, the well-known Columbine shootings, the victims of bullying can even lash out in retaliation, resulting in harm of others (“Prosecuting”). Before the effects of bullying get to this point, intervention is necessary.
California State Representative Linda Sanchez is quoted saying, “[W]e have laws criminalizing stalking, sexual harassment, identity theft and more when it takes place in person and online. All of these actions have consequences. But there is one serious online offense that has no penalty—cyberbullying” (“Prosecuting”). Although some people believe that enforcing punishment for online behavior violates the First Amendment's right to free speech, Cyberbullying has become an intrusive form of harassment that is not being dealt with properly by schools and parents, is creating disorder on school campuses, and causing life altering distress to its victims. It is time society starts taking action to punish the offenders in hopes to deter future cyber abuse and make known that there will be repercussions for their crimes.
Works Cited
"Dharun Ravi." The New York Times. N.p., 21 June 2012. Web.
05 Dec. 2012.
Murphy, Wendy J. "Federal Law Requires Schools to Protect
Children from Cyberbullying." Cyberbullying. Ed. Louise I.
Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt.
from "Suing School Would Shine Light on 'Suicide by
Bullying,'." Patriot Ledger 13 Feb. 2010. Gale Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
"Prosecuting Cyberbullies." Issues & Controversies. Facts On
File News Services, 6 Dec. 2010. Issues & Controversies.
Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
Schwartz, John. "Bullying, Suicide, Punishment." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 03 Oct. 2010. Web. 04 Dec.
2012.