Resolved: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offence.

Pro listed his points and gave sources but did not specifically site the sources in his argument. I cannot find which source pertains to which fact. The sources themselves are fine, but please list them next to the facts they cover or list numbers so I can see which is which. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the specific claims. FULL CON POSITION: Bullying needs to be addressed by legislation, cyber or otherwise, but not with criminal sanctions. I submit the model law given by the Anti Defamation League as a good law dealing with K-12 students and submit that current laws dealing with assault, harassment, libel, and slander already address the matter concerning adults without risking invalidation by possibly prohibiting free speech; therefore, no new laws are needed. . http://www.adl.org... (Model law on actual p. 11. PDF p. 13) Support: I agree with Pro that cyberbullying is bullying, plain and simple. A bully should not find safety from punishment because a statement was made via texting instead of shouting it outside. Such a distinction would be silly and I can't make it with a straight face. My position is that neither action be criminally punished if it is not already encompassed by existing laws. I agree with contention one for the most part. Contention two on the other hand is not supported by the evidence offered. I have found no meaningful studies showing that criminal sanctions have curbed bullying. Tennessee (my state) has a cyberbullying law with criminal sanctions . http://www.commercialappeal.com... . http://techliberation.com... The law was given a good grade from this watchdog group. . http://www.bullypolice.org... I have not found one prosecution. Not one. So, in Tennessee we have this high rated law with no one in jail or fined (at least I can't find one). What good is it? The law is probably unconstitutional and for this reason prosecutors are not using it and are, instead, using other existing laws concerning libel, harassment, slander, etc that have passed constitutional tests (concerning adults) and are allowing for the schools to deal with bullying with children. The criminal sanctions do not appear to have done anything other than discourage prosecutors from using the law. This result is not desirable if curbing bullying is the goal. As support for his contention, Pro linked a story concerning a program in Philadelphia. The program uses the local community and education to help prevent bullying. Where are the criminal sanctions? This program uses better recourses (schools, students, teachers, parents) than say hand cuffs, police, and prisons. As the Con position, I support these programs that allow for measures to be taken outside the criminal law as they appear more effective. I see nothing in this article suggesting the bullying stopped because of criminality. As a matter of fact, PA does not have a criminal sanction in its cyber bullying law. . http://www.cyberbullying.us... And the law appears to be effective. . http://www.pottsmerc.com... Pro's source serves as an example of good legislation that does not include criminal sanctions. It does nothing to support his contention that criminality is needed, or even desired. Many of the criminal cyberbullying laws are redundant and overly broad. . http://www.theatlantic.com... And provide reactionary, rather than proactive, solutions. . http://news.discovery.com... In his third contention Pro wishes to separate cyber bullying from bullying because the effects are more permanent, sometimes. The fact that cyber bullying leaves no physical marks like a punch or a kick does not distinguish it from any emotional bullying done without electronic devices. The latter can be harder to see but we are not attempting to distinguish mental and emotional bullying from physical bullying, at least, not in this debate. Not all cyber bullying is permanent per se; in some cases, it is easier to deal with. I can't keep Joe Blow from telling me that I am a horrible person, but I can delete his text message. I believe Pro is referring to items like blogs, facebook and videos. The latter areas are already covered by a variety of laws more severe than any cyber bullying laws I have read. To continue with Tennessee, we don't need a cyber bullying law because we have a more stringent law in harassment and stalking. . http://www.mytennesseedefenselawyer.com... . http://www.haltabuse.org... Any activity that rises to this level need not be defined as cyber bullying or even bullying for that matter and a new law made. We have several laws with more severe punishments already and they are simply harassment, stalking, libel, slander, etc. The risk of bringing lower levels of activity into the realm of the criminal law is that the people best able to handle it are removed from the equation and we over burden the courts with silliness. I am offering a better solution than criminality: Education for school age children, parents and school officials: Bust the myth that activities conducted off school grounds cannot bring sanctions from the school. Schools have a long reach and many of the current laws on bullying extend this reach to allow administrators to protect students off campus, without criminal sanctions. Parents and students may not be aware of these rules so the school is not contacted. . http://fourriverscharter.org... See 2. C. i. Education for law enforcement: The police need to take this stuff seriously. As soon as harassment, online or otherwise, fits criminal activity, go after them. If the activity does not, contact the schools in the case of minors. For adults, show them the proper means of getting a restraining order. Yes, facebook activity can violate a restraining order. . http://mashable.com... . http://abcnews.go.com... (No need to use the cyber bully statute since we already had a good law barring this behavior) Education and awareness are the big ones here. Adding a law with criminal sanctions that is rarely used is a nominal effort at best. Tennessee, as well as other states, presented a knee jerk law that will probably fail the first time it is used. Pro said that "nothing will be achieved if cyber bullying isn't a criminal offense". I disagree. Making a nominal criminal law to respond to already illegal activities while risking Constitutional stonewalls is achieving nothing. "In light of these concerns, perhaps legislators should abandon the knee-jerk criminal legislation in favor of a more creative approach to cyberbullying. One such method would focus on prevention. " . http://blogs.vanderbilt.edu... I agree. Prevention and education, as presented by the ADL, is a much better solution than criminal sanctions.