Punishing violent students: accounting for self-defense

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the disciplinary measures that teachers apply to student participants in violent altercations and how protestations of self-defense and a violent record affect the measures taken. Design/methodology/approach – Israeli teachers (326) were shown fictional vignettes that recounted violent conflicts between students and were asked whether and how they would punish them. The vignettes portrayed students in three roles: aggressor, confirmed self-defender, and unproven self-defender. Findings – Confirmed self-defenders are much more leniently disciplined than unproven self-defenders and aggressors. Unproven self-defenders are disciplined almost as severely as aggressors. A violent record results in much more severe punishment of unproven self-defenders and aggressors but has only a slight upward effect on the disciplining of confirmed self-defenders. Social implications – The study reveals a difficulty in complying with a zero-tolerance approach to school violence because it collides with the right to self-defense. The intensity of discipline applied to self-defenders appears to depend on their ability to “dig up” witnesses to prove their case. Therefore, socially isolated self-defenders may be punished severely whereas social accepted ones would not. Originality/value – The results may enhance the understanding of arbitrators’ decisions in conflicts that defy attempts to determine “who started it.” They break new ground by describing the disciplinary measures taken against different role-players in fracases and are immensely important for understanding peacemaking measures in school and the “real world.”