This House would have cyberbullies do time even if under 18

Punishment must fit the crime. Cyberbullying by a young person can be just as damaging to a victim as a similar crime by someone older. As a result should be equally punished. When cyberbullying has ruined someone’s life, and possibly led them to commit suicide, there were 9 teenage suicides as a result of bullying on Ask.fm in 2012 alone,[1] then not only the victims but their loved ones lives have been ruined as a result of the offender’s actions. Such a consequence deserves jail time to pay for the actions.

[1] Broderick, Ryan, ‘9 Teenage Suicides In The Last Year Were Linked To Cyber-Bullying On Social Network Ask.fm’, BuzzFeedNews, 11 September 2013, http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/a-ninth-teenager-since-last-september-has-committed-suicide#.hmzj8JNV3W

Sentencing a criminal should not just be about punishing them for the magnitude of the result of the crime. Instead it should be about reformation and reintegrating the offender so that they can continue their life in future without engaging in any crime. While cyberbullies bear much responsibility for what they have done when the victim commits suicide it was not a direct action by the offender. 

Part of the point of time detained in jail is to prevent the offender from reoffending while inside. Being in jail prevents the offender from continuing to engage in cyberbullying by denying unsupervised access to the internet or telephones. It is the most reliable way to prevent reoffending for the duration of the sentence. 

Prison is the harshest possible way to prevent the offender from continuing to bully. As the crimes were committed online the offender can be cut off from the internet, or simply banned from the sites where he was committing the offence. 

While rehabilitation and prevention are important parts of sentencing there also needs to be punishment. There being a punishment, is necessary to ensure there is a deterrence to prevent the offender reoffending, and to prevent others carrying out the same crime. This applies equally to young offenders as to older criminals. 

Punishment does not have to be the complete loss of freedom that is prison. The loss of freedom as punishment should be interpreted more broadly than not being able to move from a particular location. Losing the freedom to use the internet or social networks can be as much punishment when these are activities that the offender enjoys. 

Punishment must fit the crime. Cyberbullying by a young person can be just as damaging to a victim as a similar crime by someone older. As a result should be equally punished. When cyberbullying has ruined someone’s life, and possibly led them to commit suicide, there were 9 teenage suicides as a result of bullying on Ask.fm in 2012 alone,[1] then not only the victims but their loved ones lives have been ruined as a result of the offender’s actions. Such a consequence deserves jail time to pay for the actions.

[1] Broderick, Ryan, ‘9 Teenage Suicides In The Last Year Were Linked To Cyber-Bullying On Social Network Ask.fm’, BuzzFeedNews, 11 September 2013, http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/a-ninth-teenager-since-last-september-has-committed-suicide#.hmzj8JNV3W

Sentencing a criminal should not just be about punishing them for the magnitude of the result of the crime. Instead it should be about reformation and reintegrating the offender so that they can continue their life in future without engaging in any crime. While cyberbullies bear much responsibility for what they have done when the victim commits suicide it was not a direct action by the offender. 

Part of the point of time detained in jail is to prevent the offender from reoffending while inside. Being in jail prevents the offender from continuing to engage in cyberbullying by denying unsupervised access to the internet or telephones. It is the most reliable way to prevent reoffending for the duration of the sentence. 

Prison is the harshest possible way to prevent the offender from continuing to bully. As the crimes were committed online the offender can be cut off from the internet, or simply banned from the sites where he was committing the offence. 

While rehabilitation and prevention are important parts of sentencing there also needs to be punishment. There being a punishment, is necessary to ensure there is a deterrence to prevent the offender reoffending, and to prevent others carrying out the same crime. This applies equally to young offenders as to older criminals. 

Punishment does not have to be the complete loss of freedom that is prison. The loss of freedom as punishment should be interpreted more broadly than not being able to move from a particular location. Losing the freedom to use the internet or social networks can be as much punishment when these are activities that the offender enjoys. 

Children under 18 should not be sent to jail. Children are considered less responsible for their crimes and the age of criminal responsibility is arbitrary with some countries having much higher ages than others; in the UK it is 10 however in some such as many Latin American countries it is as high as 18.[1] Children are often not able to understand the full damage of their actions or why it is wrong. This is not something that comes at a set age but is a slow change. As such children at younger ages should not be punished to the same extent as adults.

[1] ‘Defense of infancy’, Wikipedia, checked 29 April 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

Many children under the age of 18 both know the consequences of their actions and know that bullying, whether on or offline, is wrong. We cannot simply let these people get away with little punishment simply because they are under 18. If they have a lower mental age then there is already the possibility of the defence pleading diminished responsibility. 

Putting young offenders in jail does not work, it increases not decreases crime. Going to jail makes children more likely to offend again with young offenders 67% more likely to be in jail again by 25 than those young offenders who did not go to prison. At the same time they are 13 percentage points less likely to finish high school.[1] These statistics shows the damage that jail has on a young life; instead of completing high school and eventually getting a job jail usually means those who have spent time before continue on a self destructive criminal path.

[1] Beauchamp, Zack, ‘Study: Throwing Kids in Jail Makes Crime Worse, Ruins Lives’, ThinkProgress, 17 June 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/17/2166481/study-throwing-kids-in-jail-makes-crime-worse-ruins-lives/

The key here is to provide the educational opportunities and care inside a young offenders’ institute that they would be engaging in outside. This will allow learning and development to continue as normal while still providing punishment. The UK has from 2014 been increasing learning to 24 hours a week[1] – very close to what many British secondary schools provide.

[1] Fazaeli, Toni, ‘Securing education for young offenders – learning first, detention second’, FE Week, 24 January 2014, http://feweek.co.uk/2014/01/24/securing-education-for-young-offenders-learning-first-detention-second/

Jail or time in a Young offenders institute is an extreme reaction to a problem that can be solved by other measures. As an online crime the offender could be denied access to the internet or a mobile for a set period. Cutting off access would not only physically prevent reoffending but would have a similar ‘denial of liberty’ to jail. There have been suggestions that there should be internet ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders) to block people from particular sites in response to racism online, this would be similar.[1] Any other option would be cheaper than prison which costs on average £38,000 per prisoner per year in the UK.[2]

[1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘Punish hate crime on social media with internet asbos, say MPs’, The Guardian, 9 February 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/09/hate-crime-social-media-internet-asbos

[2] Ruskin, John, ‘Why has prison emerged as a prominent form of punishment for most crime and what are its functions in relation to wider society?’, Internet Journal of Criminology, 2011, http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Taylor_Prison_and_its_Functions_IJC_August_2011.pdf, p.3

The other options are much less likely to be effective at stopping the bullying from taking place than jail time. 58% of ASBOs handed out between 2000 and 2013 were breached. 43% were breached more than once.[1]

[1] Home Office, ‘Anti-social behaviour order statistics: England and Wales 2013 key findings’, gov.uk, 18 September 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/anti-social-behaviour-order-statistics-england-and-wales-2013/anti-social-behaviour-order-statistics-england-and-wales-2013-key-findings#asbos-breached