IndexSummaryCriminalization of bullyingReferencesSummarySchool bullying is almost common in all schools around the world. Criminalizing school violence is not an effective solution to the problem. It not only increases harm to children but also leads to other criminal activities in students. There are many social, political and economic factors that have led to school violence. Criminalization has failed to address the root cause of bullying in schools. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, it negatively affects victims and attackers. Criminalization is not an effective solution; increases depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, low academic performance and other problems in students. Bullying prevention and rehabilitation programs should be initiated to reduce the problem of bullying. Criminalization of bullying Bullying is a structural problem based on prejudice and stigmatization, and the solution to which cannot be the criminalization of those who commit it. Bullying is discrimination because it prevents all those involved from creating conditions favorable to learning, not only those who are the victims but also those who commit the aggression and those who participate as observers. Bullying at school is common throughout the world, but there are many countries this treatment is severe. The criminalization of school bullying has no basis in the literature. There are many factors that have led to the criminalization of school violence. There are many sociological theories that explain the factors that have led to the criminalization of school bullying. The main factor that led to the criminalization of school is society's fear. Social and political fear of school crime and social insecurity has led to the criminalization of school (Rios, 2011). The second factor is making efforts to accommodate growing structural realities and realignment of power (Hirschfield, P.J., & Celinska, 2011). Social life is an important aspect of school criminalization. School bullying often leads to school violence. Teachers and principals were mostly eager to transfer all disciplinary responsibilities to police officers. Fear is an even more important factor leading to the criminalization of schooling in a safe school. This is not just a response to school violence. Research has indicated that the irrationality and racially based beliefs of politicians, educators, and parents about school and thoughts also lead to violent behavior. Scholars have cast young people as the scapegoats of politicians and educators. They have rejected help from government and other businesses to address school violence (Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011). School criminalization has shifted the focus from the fear of young people to larger concerns based on socio-economic and socio-political change and political interference towards young people. school disciplinary (Rios, 2011). Research regarding political involvement in school criminalization has indicated emerging structural political involvement. Structural political involvement in the process of school criminalization has weakened the ideological foundations of school disciplinary practices and practical consequences. The criminal transformations of the school have changed the justice policies regarding school bullying. The white, middle-class response to urban problems and rising taxes contributed to increased violenceyouth at school. Policies regarding youth poverty have also put pressure on the minds of young people to use violence at school. Deindustrialization and the penal industry have direct implications on school violence disciplinary practices. For example, billions in taxes invested in mass incarceration have allowed expensive schools to improve their behavior, such as hiring expensive teachers and guidance counselors. The penal industry's uneven distribution of education and their disinvestment in urban schools has shifted the focus. Furthermore, the growth of a strong criminal justice system staffed by powerful criminal professionals may have expanded school criminalization by increasing juvenile system or police roles in schools or the assignment of school counselors and vendors who establish technologies to improve recognition capabilities of school crime (Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011). In the literature, government effectiveness is now considered not by equitably distributing money and resources, improving human capital, or protecting civil rights, but rather by defending citizens from crimes and holding those responsible accountable. criminals. Because public crime is a high priority issue and it is a politically easier way to shift attention from deep problems to complex problems. In the school context, this model is highly applicable and demonstrated through school crime collection data. This was also seen in responsible school reforms. New reforms and laws placed schools in the hands of centralized policymakers at the state and local levels. Low-performing schools adopt these reforms to meet state-mandated performance and attendance thresholds (Cornell & Limber, 2015). Zero tolerance policies towards school violence have helped the government mask social injustice but also counteract the importance of mitigating factors. The passing on of school discipline activities from schools to the police or professionals also supports these factors as the police are not equipped to address the psychological and social roots of school bullying. School criminalization does not help stop school bullying; rather, it increased the rate of school violence (Hirschfield, 2008). Jeness discussed the criminalization model presented by McGarrell & Castellano 1993. This model explains how the process of major criminalization can be interpreted. The model is divided into three levels. The first-level “structural foundation” discusses the social and cultural factors that produce crimes in society and how society responds to such crimes. The second level, “social organization of crime and criminality”, indicates factors related to perceived experiences of crime and how legislation addresses them to combat fear of crime. The third is “trigging events,” which discusses which events lead to crimes (Jenness, 2004). This model is directly applicable according to school criminalization. School bullying is not a direct response to personal problems (Jenness, 2004). There are numerous social, political and economic factors that have led to school violence. Racial bias, social and ethnic inequality, fear of crime, criminal justice system, punishment, media attention to crime such as sensational events, and political interference are some factors that play an important role in school bullying (George, 2010). Parents' lack of attention to policies and legislation on childcare, welfare and crime is also seen as amain factor in bullying incidents in schools (George, 2010). School criminalization has not decreased school violence; rather, it does more harm to everyone involved, both those who have been bullied and those who have. Societies need to pay more attention to reducing crime; criminalization will not solve the problem or alleviate the problem of bullying in schools. According to a comprehensive 2016 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, it concluded that criminalization alone would not solve the problem of school bullying. School suspensions, criminalization, or expulsions not only fail to stop bullying, they also harm children. Criminalization is increasing children's contact with the juvenile system and also increases the risk of trauma, school failure and suicide in children (Rivara & Le Menestrel, 2016). Students who witness acts of violence at school subsequently suffer the same psychological, social and academic consequences as victims of these attacks. These effects result in drugs, crime, depression, social anxiety, and lower academic performance (Feld, 2015). Although not a direct cause of the suffering of bullying, as in the case of victims, some studies indicate that stalkers can be found in the antechamber of criminal conduct. Although paradoxical, with their execrable attitude, stalkers often gain the approval and even admiration of some of their partners, which pushes them to reinforce their intimidating attitudes by achieving, at least momentarily, success with them (Feld, 2015 ). a problem of enormous social inequality, and which has had a social impact. They are people who have already seen that their parents and grandparents continue to earn low wages, they live in colonies with circles of violence, they are very specific colonies, where there is substance abuse, teenage pregnancies. It does not mean justifying the commission of crimes, but to understand the conditions in which thousands of young people are developing in a country with high rates of violence, an unequal economy and few opportunities for development and social advancement through education or employment . The vast majority come from communities where crime and violence is completely normalized, where many times there is a family member in prison who has committed crimes. More cameras, more police, alternative measures are the only palliative to the phenomenon which will not remain in the background until we enter the macro. Criminalizing young people does not solve the problem but complicates it (Feld, 2015). For many years we thought that young people were a problem, without realizing that they are a solution, a solution that has not only been abandoned and has transformed ours is rekindled. If parents and reformers did their part, there would be no need to criminalize school violence (Rios, 2011). When we talk about bullying in the school context, two positions are usually identified: the bully or stalker and the one who is bullied, harassed or victimized. Generally, when the young person who harasses is discovered, the school sanctions him and often expel him. It is not intended to condone actions such as harassment; it is simply a matter of understanding that in that situation there are more than two people, plus the harasser and the harasser (Rivara & Le Menestrel, 2016). It is a matter of including in the analysis that both are minors, therefore they do not necessarily have the emotional maturity to understand the extent and effects of their actions, which rather than pointing the finger at them, indicates us as fathers, mothers and communities, who can reflect and prevent violence in the school context (Feld, 2015). For this, first of all, it could be.