There was a justified outcry recently when a video surfaced (below) of an Ohio man William Bailey making fun of a young girl with cerebral palsy at a bus stop. It is a brief video but enough to enrage a nation. Now, Canton Municipal Judge John A. Poulos ordered the maximum sentence for Bailey, who pleaded no contest to reduced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing. I realize how emotionally charged this case has become, but should mocking be treated as a criminal act?
Bailey insisted that he was reacting to name-calling directed at his 9-year-old son, but most people see the video has a direct mocking of the little girl with a pronounced limp.
The Knight family has lived next door to the Baileys for two years and the families had developed serious problems. The case is reminiscent of the Petkov case.
The film below does not show what normally passes for disorderly conduct or menacing. These terms have always been uncomfortably ambiguous for civil libertarians. Here they seem to be simply the most convenient way to vent well-founded anger at Bailey. The charges were reportedly based on the video, though originally the girl’s family said that Bailey threatened to choke the mother with a chain.
If mocking a little girl can be charged as disorderly conduct and menacing, how about mocking other people for political or religious reasons? This man appears a perfect tasteless cad. However, should he be criminally charged?
Source: ABC
“Have you seen Ogg on the hunt? He throws his spear like an Australopithecus! What a goober!”
People mocking people has gone on as long as humans have had the ability to communicate….. Animals mock animals….. We are called the evolved species….. Some yes…. Some no…. Chicken shitz are all over the place…..
Blouise:
thanks to you and gbk for the link. Fascinating read.
And there is a treasure trove of letters back and forth from many significant historical figures.
That being said? Do I think the parents should look into the possibility of pursuing IIED in civil court? Sure. But criminal child abuse is a non-starter without a pattern of behavior.
Tony,
What you allege is irrelevant to what was charged. As I told someone the other day, if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its butt when it jumps. You can play the supposition game all day if you like. I’ll stick with the facts as presented and the law as it exists, not how you think it should be.
“Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former agst. oppression of more than the smaller part of the society, whereas in the former(7) it may be extended in a manner to the whole. The difference so far as it relates to the point in question—;the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power—;lies in this, that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights, must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not [to] be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community. What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution. 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho’ it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side. It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expence of liberty. But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me well founded. Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power. With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only, is it in my opinion applicable to the Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.” – James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788.
Which I think goes precisely to my point that the regulating of speech (or any liberty) is fraught with the potential for abuses.
@Gene: IIED is what I am alleging here; by mocking her disability, and his intent to mock her is obvious on the face of it, he did not do that by accident, and there is no reason for mocking her other than to cause her emotional distress.
nate arwich:
7 comments vs. 90 plus comments. It seems to me that part of the attraction of this site is to ferret out the truth and to voice a multitude of opinions and observations about a particular subject.
To compel the reader to think about different perspectives on the event and to home in on what is true and what is ancillary.
We all agree the tormentor was an a$$hat.
.
Tony,
IIED is not what is alleged here. Even then, you’d have to prove intent. There is no evidence of intent here other than intent to be an ass on this guy’s part. If you don’t like the way the term psychological abuse is defined at law though – and that is what is required to prove psychological child abuse – I suggest you take it up with your representatives.
Here’s Blouise’s link fixed. The last closing paragraph needs to be part of the link:
http://tinyurl.com/cyjj9yx
@Gene: I still see nothing in the written law that demands any pattern of abuse for IIED. Is this a cultural thing in the court? It is not in the law. The closest I find is that a pattern of abuse goes toward “intentional” but is not required.
The qualifications for what qualifies as “emotional distress” appear to be that a typical person, upon witnessing the behavior, would express outrage. That test is certainly met, I do not see anybody on either side of the argument that has not expressed outrage.
Something’s wrong with your link, Blouise.
Bron,
You lost me there.
My response to your presentation of Jefferson is contained within this letter to him (from Madison:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dg025311))
Actually I was addressing the more general point of the wisdom or lack thereof of regulating speech, Blouise, using them as exemplars of why that might not be such a good thing to rush in to, but I cannot argue that “no response” is an invalid response.
I agree with the remarks of Tony C, above. If the mocking (not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior) had taken place in school at the hands of another student, I doubt people would be defending the first amendment rights of the bully. Bullying is actionable behavior on the part of schools. It seems to me it is reasonable to extend the same justification to a case like this.
CANTON, Ohio, Nov. 28 (UPI) — An Ohio man will spend most of January in jail for bullying the disabled daughter of his next-door neighbors, a judge decided.
Municipal Judge John A. Poulos handed William M. Bailey a 29-day jail sentence for mocking Hope Knight, 10, who suffers from cerebral palsy and needs crutches to walk, The (Canton, Ohio) Repository reported.
Hope’s mother, Tricia, said her daughter is afraid of Bailey.
“She wants the blinds closed. She doesn’t want to go outside,” Tricia Knight said.
Charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing were filed against Bailey last month,
He pleaded “no contest” Tuesday to amended charges and was ordered to report to jail Jan. 2 and to pay $400 in court costs and fines.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/28/Ohio-man-mocked-disabled-girl/UPI-54871354117966/#ixzz2DeUZ4cpm
“When the Constitution becomes a religion, I become very leery of its priests.
Giving a pass to adults who verbally abuse children on the basis of Constitutionally protected free speech smacks of a rigidness of form found mainly in the religiosity of true believers.
Count me out.” (Blouise)
To which you responded:
“Careful what you wish for.
You just may get it.” (Gene)
Although you were talking about points you introduced regarding Boemher or McConnell, those were not my points so I have no response.
He should not be jailed for speech. At all. Not even mocking speech.
Some people like Coke. Some people like Pepsi.
I generally like this blog; it’s often first to re-report interesting legal events nationwide, as well as other weird but intriguing issues.
BUT! It would really be nice to see some improvement in the degree of care exercised with reporting and writing each post. Many posts contain serious writing errors, well beyond typos, that often make it unclear what the author is trying to report. Other posts, like this one, completely leave out or deeply understate truly important facts. For a good example of how this post should have been written, take a look at this:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/29/man-sentenced-to-jail-after-mocking-disabled-girl/