You are required to incriminate others. It’s understandable that the school would want to know which kid brought a gun to school, that doesn’t mean it’s right that they expelled this kid. It’s not even necessarily the case that the kid who brought a gun to school meant to do anything harmful with it, which is probably why this kid didn’t turn them in. This is just the result of a culture built around the highest rate of incarceration in the world, the harshest punishment is expected in every situation both by those giving it and those receiving it.
You are under no such obligation. You never know what something that someone else has done will or might incriminate you and you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. You should protect yourself and others but you and I both know exactly what would have happened to the other kid if he snitched.
You absolutely can be compelled to incriminate others. If incriminating others actually would incriminate yourself, any protection that gives you can be nullified by giving you immunity. Generally, if you refuse to testify when compelled, outside of few circumstances (self-incrimination, various privileges) you can and will be punished. It’s important to be clear about this because it’s important knowledge for anyone who has to live under the legal system.
Of course the other kid would have been expelled, see the final sentence of my comment (quoted below).
This is just the result of a culture built around the highest rate of incarceration in the world, the harshest punishment is expected in every situation both by those giving it and those receiving it.
Whether you could be compelled to give up a peer in this situation in the context of a court (you absolutely could and would be) isn’t relevant. It’s a flawed premise to analyze this situation through the lens of American law even if that were the case, because American law is not designed to help those involved or provide the best outcome for society. This is a story about children being treated like criminals, we shouldn’t be discussing it as though they’re literally on trial. None if it would be a problem if not for the environment fostered by schools where students expect the harshest possible punishment rather than adults to work to help them.
If the administration were interested in helping the children, the silence wouldn’t be necessary because they children would understand that a classmate with harmful intentions would be helped by the teachers, and a classmate who brought a gun for harmless reasons would simply be told calmly why that isn’t acceptable. Instead, you have a country with a carceral obsession creating schools which only know how to punish.
If you witness a crime, you are not required to report it. However, if it becomes known that you witnessed it, you can be compelled to testify in court. This doesn’t apply at all to this situation, but I’m saying it because people who might be in court one day in should understand it.
Again, the premise of applying this logic to this situation is incorrect. This isn’t a court, it’s a school. He has no legal rights protecting him from giving up a peer in this context (which means the school could and did expel him), and the correct rights for him to have in an ideal society wouldn’t be the ones granted by the American constitution. A school should be a place where children are nurtured and assisted by adults, not a mirror of a system of courts. The fact that this child was treated as a presumed criminal is a failure, which we can only compound by analyzing it with this legalistic framework. These children should not expect to be punished by default, and these adults should not punish them unless absolutely necessary.
You are required to incriminate others. It’s understandable that the school would want to know which kid brought a gun to school, that doesn’t mean it’s right that they expelled this kid. It’s not even necessarily the case that the kid who brought a gun to school meant to do anything harmful with it, which is probably why this kid didn’t turn them in. This is just the result of a culture built around the highest rate of incarceration in the world, the harshest punishment is expected in every situation both by those giving it and those receiving it.
You are under no such obligation. You never know what something that someone else has done will or might incriminate you and you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. You should protect yourself and others but you and I both know exactly what would have happened to the other kid if he snitched.
You absolutely can be compelled to incriminate others. If incriminating others actually would incriminate yourself, any protection that gives you can be nullified by giving you immunity. Generally, if you refuse to testify when compelled, outside of few circumstances (self-incrimination, various privileges) you can and will be punished. It’s important to be clear about this because it’s important knowledge for anyone who has to live under the
legal system.
Of course the other kid would have been expelled, see the final sentence of my comment (quoted below).
Whether you could be compelled to give up a peer in this situation in the context of a court (you absolutely could and would be) isn’t relevant. It’s a flawed premise to analyze this situation through the lens of American law even if that were the case, because American law is not designed to help those involved or provide the best outcome for society. This is a story about children being treated like criminals, we shouldn’t be discussing it as though they’re literally on trial. None if it would be a problem if not for the environment fostered by schools where students expect the harshest possible punishment rather than adults to work to help them.
If the administration were interested in helping the children, the silence wouldn’t be necessary because they children would understand that a classmate with harmful intentions would be helped by the teachers, and a classmate who brought a gun for harmless reasons would simply be told calmly why that isn’t acceptable. Instead, you have a country with a carceral obsession creating schools which only know how to punish.
Can be, not are. You are not required to report crimes unless you are a mandatory reporter. Last I checked 11 year olds aren’t that.
If you witness a crime, you are not required to report it. However, if it becomes known that you witnessed it, you can be compelled to testify in court. This doesn’t apply at all to this situation, but I’m saying it because people who might be in court one day in
should understand it.
Again, the premise of applying this logic to this situation is incorrect. This isn’t a court, it’s a school. He has no legal rights protecting him from giving up a peer in this context (which means the school could and did expel him), and the correct rights for him to have in an ideal society wouldn’t be the ones granted by the American constitution. A school should be a place where children are nurtured and assisted by adults, not a mirror of a system of courts. The fact that this child was treated as a presumed criminal is a failure, which we can only compound by analyzing it with this legalistic framework. These children should not expect to be punished by default, and these adults should not punish them unless absolutely necessary.
In a fight between gun rights and incarceration, incarceration wins.