Bullying in schools

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by barbara

Not that it should be, but I think you are right in saying that it is based on the lawyer who argues the best case.

Yes, it generally goes to who can afford the best law school debate team champion in a for-profit justice system.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by mpholland

So if someone else is held responsible for suicide, should they not also bear responsibility when it leads to homicide? There is no personal accountability anymore? Is it all based on the lawyer who argues the best case?

Black and white here too? All or nothing?

What's wrong with saying that there's responsibility to be borne by both--the suicidal person, and, in a case like this, the malicious people inflicting emotional harm?

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Black and white here too? All or nothing?

What's wrong with saying that there's responsibility to be borne by both--the suicidal person, and, in a case like this, the malicious people inflicting emotional harm?

I don't know, you tell me. You'll notice you highlighted a question and not a statement.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Black and white here too? All or nothing?

What's wrong with saying that there's responsibility to be borne by both--the suicidal person, and, in a case like this, the malicious people inflicting emotional harm?

It isn't reasonable to hold a person put into a vulnerable despondent state by the actions of another person responsible for the consequences.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I don't know, you tell me. You'll notice you highlighted a question and not a statement.

Come now. Your question was clearly rhetorical.

When is society better off: when some legal sanctions are possible against people whom, with heedless malice, urge vulnerable, despondent persons to kill themselves? Or when such people are free to act with no 'personal responsibility' for their actions?

[donquixote99]

Actually, the case against the suicide-urgers seems to me to be a straightforward application of the long-standing 'eggshell rule.' Goes back to common law. Here's the beginning of the Wikipedia article on it:

This rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition).[2] The eggshell skull rule takes into account the physical, social and economic attributes of the plaintiff which might make him more susceptible to injury.[3] It may also take into account the family and cultural environment.[4] The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.
In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", as echoed in the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.[5]
The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts – intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases – as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim – if a trespasser's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the defendant or accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.