Cyberbullying includes anything from making threats, to sending malicious messages and making derogatory comments (Karklins, 2012). Threatening another under Queensland and Victorian Law is illegal and is subject to a criminal penalty pursuant, as of Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) and the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 (the Crimes Act). Although provisions in both the Code and the Crimes Act make cyberbullying illegal – there are differences in their applications and outcomes. This paper compares the Victorian and Queensland legislation, attempts to provide an evaluation of the laws and makes recommendations to improve Queensland cyberbullying law considering the Victorian legislation.
Queensland criminal threats laws are in place
…show more content…
as an act to establish a Code of Criminal Law (Queensland Government , 2018). Section 359 of the Code provides: Threats ss1 “A person who threatens to cause detriment to a second person…or with intent to cause public alarm or anxiety, commits a crime (Queensland Government , 2018)” . Although Queensland Law defines online threatening and the detriment it causes fairly, having the outcome as 5 years imprisonment has minimal impact. For a victim of online bullying, 5 years imprisonment is perceived as an unjust outcome, compared to the experience they encountered. Furthermore, offenders are known to continue the threatening behaviour, making retribution threats after the expiration of their prison term (Sandy, 2013). The Court of Appeal case of R v TAHIRAJ [2014} QCA 353, gives a clear example of the injustice of the five-year sentence for threatening online. Where the appellant told A to strip on webcam; threatening her if she didn’t comply, the appellant would post her intimate photos, destroy her computer and hack her online accounts (R v Tahiraj, 2014). The appellant was sentenced to 3 years but threatened to hurt A when he completed his term, which he followed through with. Clearly the law in Queensland has been outlined to ensure the safety of the Queensland people, however, within that law the penalties do not have a significant impact on changing the behaviours of a perpetrator. Victorian Laws against threats consolidates the law relating to corruptions and unlawful offenders (Victorian Government, 2013). The Crimes Act (VIC) provides threatening in section S21A: Stalking “making threats to the victim (Victorian Government, 2013)”. Unlike Queensland Law, when a perpetrator of online threatening attacks a victim – under Victorian Law, it is classified under the criminal offence of stalking (Purcell, 2011). Due to online threatening commonly corresponding with stalking, having them characterised together with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment provides a just outcome for victims (Coumarelos, 2012). A report from Yorkshire Post is relevant to the efficiency of Victorian Law. It mentions, by dealing with online threats under stalking laws – there are no observed area for social media sites and mobile phones to be used to threaten others. Additionally, Sian Hawkins, head of Yorkshire online abuse stated, “We are seeing across the board that stalking and harassment are becoming more and more common. It is easy for stalkers to continue their behaviour online, as there are no pressing consequences (Wilde, 2018)”. Due to this, stalkers are more regularly resorting to the use of social media, however in Victoria, because of the large prison sentence, they are unlikely to use other online forums to engage in their illegal conduct. It is apparent that the Crimes Act enforces hefty consequences for stalking and threatening behaviour, by imposing a maximum jail term of 10 years upon offenders, ensuring the safety of social media users. When comparing the Code Act and the Crimes Act, the Victorian legislation is of greater deterrent as compared to the Queensland Law, due to the potential outcomes that maybe imposed upon an offender (Stewart, 2018).
Reasons for this contrast include, what is defined in each law as online threats, and the outcomes that occur if convicted. In Queensland Law, threatening is defined equitably, however, the Criminal Code only regards to online threats individually (Queensland Government , 2018), not taking in to consideration how typically threats occur during stalking or other cyberbullying aspects (Butler, 2018). More-over, many repercussions have been observed due to the very light punishment in Queensland legislation when consolidating online threats. Although Victorian law doesn’t require proof of intent to stalk (Victorian Government, 2013), the positive impacts of Victorian Law include placing online threats under cyberstalking and having an increase of time imprisonment are seen in Brodie’s Law (Brodie's Law Foundation, 2018). The introduction of Brodie’s Law allows the criminal justice system to respond to serious examples of cyberbullying. “The law ensures certainty in the application of the criminal law to cases of serious bullying… [and] sends a strong message that threatening and bullying behaviour” is punishable (Victoria State Government , 2017). When comparing the legislation in Queensland and Victoria, there are different advantages and disadvantages to both, although Victorian law is clearly observed with more
advantages. For Queensland Law to be as efficient and persuasive as Victorian legislation, outcomes of online threatening need to be re-analysed. The current Queensland legislation against online threatening has a consequence of 5 years imprisonment. This outcome is insufficient and should be changed as the harshness has little impact as shown, in the case R v TAHIRAJ, where the perpetrator continues their wrong-doings even after the prison sentence. Former chief justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alastair Nicholson, has been vocal in his opinions on minimal punishments of cyberbullying in Queensland (Wu, 2014). Corresponding with this, an investigation done by UNSW Australia, shows a description of the different states cyberbullying legislations, pinpointing where the cyberbullying incidents are reported. The state with the most reported incidents (reported in one fortnight) is Queensland (20), second lowest being Victoria (11) (UNSW Australia , 2014). If the punishments for threatening in Queensland were to be increased, Queensland’s amount of online threatening cases (reported) will be almost halved, like observed in Victoria. To be as influential as Victorian Law, Queensland legislation against online threatening needs to be re-evaluated. Changes to Queensland threatening outcomes must be considered, as the threatening laws in their present form do not provide the necessary deterrent for offenders, as compared to Victorian Law. Social networking sites are increasingly being used by young people, as a mode of social communication. Unfortunately, associated with the use of social networking sites comes the risk of cyberbullying and the danger of predation (Karklins, 2012). Due to this, the legislations should be re-evaluated to ensure the safety and security of the victims of online threatening, while also giving a satisfactory punishment to the perpetrators.
Both states offer similar definitions for said crimes, therefore providing consistent laws throughout these jurisdictions. Although, when comparing Queensland’s and Victoria’s laws there are significantly more differences than similarities. Queensland parliament offers legislation for unlawful stalking, this crime consists of loitering and watching a person for an extended period of time, as well as the excessive use of technology to contact a person. However, this law does not specifically mention publishing content on social media relating to the person, therefore meaning this law does not benefit stakeholders in cyberbullying. Moreover, Victoria’s stalking legislation indicates that publishing excessively about a person on the internet is considered stalking (Australian legal information institute , 2018 ); thereby benefitting cyberbullying stakeholders. Victoria’s stalking legislation was influenced by the tragic death of Broadie Padlock; this legislation commonly goes by the name Brodie’s law. According to the official Victorian police website, five years after Brodie’s law was created there have been fifty eight offenders who have successfully been found guilty (Brodie's law- five years on , 2016). This demonstrates the efficiency of Victoria’s stalking legislation in comparison to Queensland.
Technology evolves and advances as the times change. It has the potential to improve the lives of people by being a powerful communication tool - the Internet. However, when the Internet is misused and abused, it is flawed with frequent cyberbullying. It is a form of bullying with the use of technology and has been increasingly common. It is a moral imperative for Canada to deal with this phenomenon as it can greatly impact individuals.
In some cases, criminalization is preferred, while other bullies are slapped on the wrist and grounded for a month. What can be agreed upon is the need for a definitive policy. Cyberbullying, as a burgeoning field of abuse directed specifically at teens, requires direct, speedy, and, perhaps even harsh, measures to curtail the stream of mistreatment flowing freely online. In order to develop such measures, cyberbullying must be recognizable. The government website dedicated to the prevention of bullying in general offers this definition: cyberbullying is “bullying that takes place using electronic technology” (“What is Cyberbullying.”)....
Generations after generations teens have used the actions of bullying to hurt others they felt as a threat or to be in the “in crowd” of popularity. Traditional bullying was physical and thus confined to face-to-face contexts. However, with the development of widespread social interaction via social media websites, email, and text-messaging, teens have additional avenues of expression and, as a result, other means of bullying. Over time the bullying taking place using digital means has come to be known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying has brought the evilness out of teen’s actions, words, and thoughts whether they were the bully or the victim. Equally important, the ending results of these actions, words and thoughts have brought death, limited yet undefined punishable consequences if pursued, and slowly progressing methods to control cyberbullying as a whole.
Internet usage in children and adolescents has been increasing in a steadily fashion in the past number of years and with the increase in internet usage, a new form of bullying has developed – Cyber bullying. Cyber bullying can be defined as “the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person,” (Merriam-Webster, 2012). This form of bullying can come through various mediums including but not limited to text messages, emails, videos, and social networking sites. There is an overwhelming amount of information that defines cyber bullying, identifies the demographics of bullies and victims of cyber bullying, and identifies the outcomes of cyber bullying on victims. More focus needs to be placed on who the perpetrators of this form of violence are and how this form of violence is linked to traditional bullying. This will allow researchers and practitioners to move forward with research and implementation preventative methods and intervention once the problem has already occurred.
Cyber bullying can be more terrifying than standard bullying, because the target typically does not know who is after them. Cyber bullies believe that because they are posting anonymously or not using their names, they can get away with anything. The case is that Internet activity is traceable. It is important to know that cyber bullying can be charged as crimes. In some cases, cyber bullies will be charged as sexual predators and have to be on the registry. Furthermore, items posted on the Internet can affect the person’s ability to get into university or employment.
Stalking and bullying are issues that have been around for decades. However, with the birth of the Internet these issues have developed into hybrid crimes. In order to be considered a hybrid crime, the crime must have been able to originally be committed offline but now the crime can be committed online. According to our in class discussion bullying is defined as intentional and repeated aggressive behavior that involves an imbalance of power. Cyberbullying is slightly different because the behaviors have to be preformed by electronic means and the behavior doesn’t have to be repeated. On the Internet one single action can be seen by hundreds and shared multiple times, due to the possibility of widespread harassment an act of cyberbullying only has to occur once. These issues exhibit similar behaviors online and in the physical realm, however what is being done about these
Unfortunately, even repeat offenders don’t realise that their actions are illegal. Akin to series of signature murders, Australian internet abusers are motivated by an intrinsic modus operandi – one that has not yet resulted in consequence. “Australia, I’m sorry to say, is the worst
All around the United States, the prevalence of cyberbullying ranges from 10-40% of people who get bullied through electronics. Furthermore, this is a problem caused by kids, teens, and adults who target one another online by repeating harmful threats and harassments. This conflict negatively impacts the victims’ life which is why anyone who cyberbullies should pay the consequences and be prosecuted.
Because cyberbullying is a relatively new phenomenon, there is some degree of variance in its definition. In its early inception, cyberbullying was thought to be limited to the internet. However, the rapid creation of new technology tolls has expanded the boundaries to include cell phones, instant messaging, chat rooms, and email (Campfield, 2006). Campfield (2006) conducted a study of middle school students to determine the incidence rates of cyberbullying. She found that nearly 70% of students were involved in cyberbullying in some capacity, as a bully or victim. In a similar study, Li (2007) found that 39% of students have been involved in cyberbullying, while 52% were aware of a peer being harassed through electronic m...
Should Parents Be Legally Responsible for Their Children’s Cyberbullying Crimes According to a recent study as stated on nobullying.com, “ only one out of every six parents of adolescents and teens are even aware of the scope and intensity involved with cyber bullying”(“No Bullying”, 1). In today’s society, cyberbullying has become a more frequent form of harassment than traditional bullying. Due to the surplus of technology and the wide access that young people have to the internet and social networking, cyberbullying has become the preferred form of tormenting others without actually performing the act in front of the person.
Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense because whether it’s bullying or cyberbullying, it still damages a person emotionally and physically. Admittedly, many will argue that it is crossing the line to force perpetrators behind bars when it is not even bullying, but some foul words thrown in social sites. However, there is no difference between cyberbullying and offline bullying when it is still an issue that constantly eats away at its victims, abusing them with hurtful words and messages. “The United States Department of Health and Human Services calculated the percentages of bullied victims, where 37% of teens have been physically bullied, while 52% of teens have been cyberbullied” (Cyber/Bullying Statistics). Studies shown indicate that there have been more cases of cyberbullying than offline bullying, whereas people believe that “cyberbullying is not real bullying” and “it is to speak out in what...
With the development in technology cyber bullying and cyber crimes became a serious issue. Cyber bullying is terms as the use of electronic means of communication so as to bully an individual and most typically it occurs when one sends messages that are threatening or of an intimidating nature (Florence, 2014). Cyber crime on the other hand refers to crime that involves a network and a computer and in regard to this the computer or network may be the target (Study.com, n.d). Cyber bullying and cyber crimes are well known problem in the world but they aren’t noticed like bullying and crimes but they can be harmful and serious.
The world would be a better place without you, you should go kill yourself. People often forget that there is somebody else behind the screen on the other side. The twenty-first century led to the development of several innovations, most notably the internet and social media. Despite its numerous benefits, people’s reliance on social media has spawned a new and dangerous concept called cyberbullying. Whether it is spreading rumours or sharing an inappropriate image of someone over the internet, cyberbullying is evident in this newly technology driven world. It is especially worrying when fifty percent of adolescents experience cyberbullying sometime during their lives and ten to twenty percent experience it on a regular basis
With technology progressing, students are moving past face to face hectoring, and are verbally bullying other through social media. Cyberbullying can sometimes become more harmful than verbal, physical, and emotional bullying due to victims, not feeling like they have an escape route because they are threatened repeatedly through text messages, e-mails, social media, etc. The worst part about cyberbullying is that the things posted can be anonymous; therefore, there is no blame for who posts what. A victim can suspect that someone is to blame for the actions done, but there is no proof to solve a possible ongoing issue. Cyberbullying and bullying are actually considered a crime when someone: physically assaults another person, gender or racism is talked about, violent or deadly threats are made, sexually texting, inappropriate photos, stalking,