Characteristics of School Bullies and Victims as Perceived by Public School Professionals

Abstract

A large body of international research substantiates the concern with problems of peer-on-peer violence in schools and its common beginnings as taunting, harassment and other forms of bullying. One common difficulty in developing better ways of handling these problems is the professional literature's inconsistency in the identification of bully and victim characteristics. This study surveyed school professionals (teachers and counselors) who work with youth on a daily basis to see how closely their perceptions of victims and bullies matched the criteria commonly found in the literature. Participants rated 70 characteristics as to their importance in recognizing the potential for children to become bullies or victims. The results demonstrated strong agreement on five characteristics as being exclusively those of victims, 11 as exclusively those of bullies, and 15 as strongly associated with both victims and bullies. These characteristics and additional ones identified by an earlier study of international experts are offered to assist all those related to the school community in more effectively recognizing young people with the potential to develop into bullies or victims. Earlier and more accurate identification of such developing problems would increase the ability to create and implement prevention methods to improve safety and security for all youths.     

妨害公务罪中被害人问题初探——从四起案例谈起

近年来,因暴力抗法引发的妨害公务案件不断增多。在办理妨害公务案件中遇到的问题也逐渐凸显,文章通过四起妨害公务案,阐述了妨害公务罪中被害人的认定及维权等问题。     

Identification of Bullies and Victims

SUMMARY

Bullying studies frequently rely on student self-report to identify bullies and victims of bullying, but research in the broader field of peer aggression makes greater use of other informants, especially peers, to identify aggressors and victims. This study compared self, peer, and teacher identification of bullies and bully victims in a sample of 416 middle school students. Overall, there was poor correspondence between self-reports and reports made by peers or teachers, but consistently better agreement between peers and teachers, in identifying both bullies and victims of bullying. Peer and teacher identification of bullies were more consistently associated with subsequent school disciplinary infractions than were self-reports. These results raise concern about reliance on student self-reports of bullying and bully victimization.     

正当防卫权主体之探讨

正当防卫权的享有者只能是受害者,这是目前刑法理论界的通说.但正当防卫权设置的初衷是为了制止不法侵害,而不法侵害不应仅仅从最初的表现形式进行界定,受害者在某些情况下超出了防卫范围的侵害亦属不法侵害,故正当防卫权的主体应从实质意义上进行把握,即侵害者也应当拥有正当防卫权.它包括一般防卫权和在特定情况下的无限防卫权.     

关于被害人过错的法理探析

目前定义被害人过错多借用犯罪学的成果,正确的做法是定义刑法学意义上的被害人过错要考虑以下两点:其一,必须考虑刑法中确立被害人过错的实质意义;其二,必须考虑刑法学意义上的被害人过错同犯罪学意义上的被害人过错的区别。在现行刑法理论框架之下,被害人过错对刑事责任影响情形大体可以分为三类:1.通过超过和阻断因果关系而实现;2.通过被害人过错对行为人行为的违法性减弱来实现;3.通过被害人过错责任对行为人行为责任的抵消。被害人过错同样具有主客观相统一的特征,其基本构造也必须从主客观两个方面进行分析。     

联动司法解决刑事被害方的涉诉信访

限于刑事法律和犯罪人的客观状况,刑事被害人的一系列权利尚不能够得到完全地保障和实现。陷入困境的刑事被害人往往易成为信访人,其信访的对象则是作出最终司法判决的人民法院。在信访的被害人已经不信任法院的情况下,仅通过法院并不能够解决被害人的信访问题。由此需要创新工作机制,联动司法。通过联动司法加强对刑事被害方的救助,加强对犯罪分子所判刑罚的说理,与检察机关一道解除被害方的疑惑,并适时引入第三方,对法院的审理程序进行调查,以尽可能地解决刑事被害人方的涉诉信访。     

和谐社会环境下刑事被害人人权保障的新思路——以刑事被害人救助为视角

建设和谐社会的前提是公平正义。目前,我国由于被害人权利受到限制,刑事附带民事诉讼判决往往得不到执行,这与人权保障和司法的实质公正相去甚远。在和谐社会的环境下,探讨刑事被害人国家救助制度,是维护社会公平正义,建设社会主义法治社会的需要。     

The “Independent Variable” in Restorative Justice: Theory-Based Standards for Evaluating the Impact and Integrity of Victim Sensitive Process (Part II)

For almost two decades restorative justice practices have demonstrated positive impacts on crime victim satisfaction when compared to court and other adversarial processes. Although these practices have by no means addressed the myriad needs of crime victims, researchers and policy makers have puzzled about how to interpret these generally positive findings. We suggest that remaining difficulties in concluding that positive findings are a result of restorative process rather than some other factor (e.g., procedural justice) are due largely to (1) the lack of clear standards for gauging the integrity, or “restorativeness,” of interventions and (2) the failure to articulate logical mechanisms (i.e., intervention theories) that connect practices to immediate and intermediate outcomes, and these outcomes to long-term changes in the well-being of victims, offenders, and communities. In part 1 of a two-part discussion previously published in this journal, we described alternative definitions of restorative justice and outlined three core principles that provide a useful normative theory of restorative justice. In part 2, we focus on the “intervening variable” in restorative justice, utilizing qualitative data from a national case study to illustrate some potential immediate and intermediate outcomes of restorative justice practice on victims. We also discuss the implications of these outcomes for intervention theory and future research.