New Laws in Georgia and New Mexico require more severe punishment for students – or anyone else – what threats against schools, despite the increasing testimony that a similar law becomes a student who does not risk the risk to others.
Propublica and WPLN NEWS recorded the Tennessee law in Tennessee, which threatened the massacre at school, led to the arrest of students based on rumors and insurmountable threats. In one case, a deputy of the Hamilton county arrested 13-year-old autist In August, saying his backpack would explode, though the teenager later said that he just wanted to protect the stuffed bunny inside.
In the same county almost two months the deputy found and arrested an 11-year-old student on a family birthday. The child later explained that he overheard one student, asking if the other would be at school tomorrow and that he responded to him “yes”. Last month State Statute School agreed to pay a student’s 100,000 student family To settle a federal lawsuit claiming that school officials mistakenly reported him to the police. The school also agreed to train how these types of incidents, including the report on “real” police threats.
Tennessee demands that schools appreciate whether threats of mass violence before expulsion of students. But the law on criminal liability does not bring the police to the same standard, which led to the arrests of students who did not intend to disrupt the school and did not realize the threat.
In the recent legislative session of Tennessee, civilian rights defenders and disability, who have pushed the law to show that the police can only arrest students who make reliable threats. They claimed that very young students and students who are devastating as a result of disability should be expelled from the crime.
Several Tennessee legislators on both sides also expressed dissatisfaction with the law on the school threats during the session, referring to the detriment to children who did not pose a real danger. “I still still fight through unintentional consequences, because I am still not quite satisfied with what I did earlier,” Senator Kerry Roberts said at the Committee’s hearings in April. “We are still fighting to do it right.”
But Greg Meissa, Deputy Commissioner for Security and Home Security, said in March the legislators committee that in his “informed opinion” the law had “holding” the effect on students who threatens. Macy said Propublica that the number of threats that had been monitored has decreased since the law came into force. His office did not immediately release this number and previously denied the request for the number of threats he monitored, calling the information “confidential”.
According to Data Propublica, received at the request of the records, the number of students collected is increasing rather than shrinking. Last academic year, by the end of March, the number of charges for threat of massacre in the juvenile court jumped to 652, compared to the 519 for the entire previous academic year when it was attributed to the province. Both years were rarely recognized as “offenders”, which is equivalent to the adult court. The youngest child who is accused this year is 6.
Instead of hardening its approach, Tennessee this year strengthened it. Legislation Added another, higher -level criminal offense Books for those who “deliberately” make a school threat against four or more people when others “reasonably” believe that the threat will be carried out. Defenders of human rights defenders and disabilities have told the legislators that they were worried that the new law would lead to even greater confusion among police and school officials.
Despite the resonance over the increase in arrests in Tennessee, the two states followed its adoption of laws, which will be more strongly threatened with the threats of the hoax.
In New -Mexico, legislators increased the charges for threatening firing with offense before the crime, in Answer the wave of school threats For the previous year. In order to accuse the crime, a person must “intentionally and angrily” threaten others, cause the evacuation of a public building or propose a police reaction.
Critics of the bill warned that even with the demand to prove the intention, it was written too unclear and could harm the students.
“This broad definition can criminalize what is described as” thoughts of crimes “or” right threats “, with the consequences of applications made by children or underage, without a complete assessment of the consequences,” the state defenders’ service said, according to State Analysis of an earlier, similar version of legislation.
After a 14-year-old shot last September in High School of Apalachy in Georgia killed four people, Speaker John Burns promised to take tougher measures Against students who make threats.
He has spoiled a legislation that causes a crime to issue a threat to death from a person at school that terrorizes people or causes evacuation. The law, which came into force in April, says that someone can be charged with either if they intend to cause such harm or if they threaten “at risk of risk”.
Neither Burns nor the sponsor of the New Merxic bill answered the comment requests.
Georgia also considered a bill that treats any 13 to the age of 17, which makes a terrorist threat at school as an adult in court. But after refusing the lawyers, the author of the bill, Senator Greg Dolezal, the Republican, rejected threats from the list of crimes, which could lead to adult court.
During the March of March CommitteeDalizal acknowledged the concerns of the original language of the bills. “We admit that there is actually the difference between people who actually commit these crimes, and minors who are unreasonable, but may never have to pursue it without intent,” he said.
Other states also considered the passage of more severe punishment for school threats.
In Alabama, a spokesman Alan Baker, a Republican, sponsored the bill that deletes requirements that the threat will be “reliable and inevitable” to lead to criminal charges. The bill easily accepted in both houses, but did not take the final steps necessary to check the legislation.
Baker said the broader version of the penalty was intended to focus on the threat of hoax that causes panic in schools. The first crime would be a wrongdoing; Any threats would be a crime afterwards. “You just talk about a very devastating scenario, though you can determine that it is just a hoax,” Baker said. “That’s why something was needed that would be a little tougher.”
Baker told Propublica what he plans to re -submit a bill on the next session.
Pennsylvania considers legislation that will threaten the schools, regardless of the authority. The bill will also require violators to pay restitution, including the cost of deliveries and compensation for the time spent on time, responding to the threat.
In a note last DecemberRepublican Senator Michel Brooks, threatened the “rigid and extremely corrupted hoax” after firing at the Nashville school as a reason for the proposal. “These calls have caused a great reaction to emergencies, creating dangerous conditions for students, faculty and public safety agencies,” she wrote.
Aclu Pennsylvania opposes legislation by calling it “Widespread expansion” of the current law This can lead to “excessive” costs for children.
The legislative body of Pennsylvania is shut off in late December.
Page Pfleger from Public Radio WPLN/Nashville reported.
