charge against Jack was dropped. At one point, Jack’s father, uneasy about the incident, thought of leaving the community. After the response of the students, and the reaction of the police and school, he decided to stay. He accepted the good wishes of the mayor who personally welcomed Jack’s family to the community.
Jack’s immediate community, at least in terms of the incident, was his school. His classmates were aware of the incident. They assessed the facts and acted quickly, and their action brought a peaceful and effective resolution. Jack and his classmate cannot be said to be friends. But it can be said that they are able to get along with each other (Friesen 2009a, 2009b; Swainson 2009).
Rugby: Bullying and Manslaughter
The rugby game on May 2007 between two Mississauga, Ontario, high schools was heated. Manny Castillo, age fifteen, was the captain of his team from Lorne Park Secondary School. There was real competition between Castillo and a player from the opposing school — a major junior hockey player with an Ontario Hockey League team who had ambitions for professional status. Words were exchanged.
At one point, Castillo’s opponent picked him up, flipped him, and drove him head-first into the ground. A referee testified that the opponent boasted that he had pile-driven Castillo as hard as he could. Castillo lay motionless on the ground. He died in hospital a few days later from head and spinal injuries.
Charged and Tried
Castillo’s opponent, whose identity could not be revealed under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was charged and tried for manslaughter. Defence lawyers argued (1) self-defence, as Castillo had a choke-hold that the accused simply tried to break, and (2) that Castillo assumed the risk of injury when he became part of the game.
Ontario Justice Bruce Duncan heard the evidence and rejected the defences. He found the accused guilty of manslaughter. Players, he said, must obey the law and the codes for the conduct of games, including such contact sports as rugby. The response of the accused was in retaliation for the briefly held head-lock. Reading from a twenty-eight-page decision, Justice Duncan stated:
The playing field is not a criminal law free-zone. The laws of the land apply in the same way as they do elsewhere.… There was no justification in self-defence. Accordingly, the defendant committed an assault, an unlawful act. That unlawful act caused death. The defendant is therefore guilty of manslaughter.
The force applied by the defendant was not within the rules of the game.… Dangerous play inside or outside the rules is not acceptable.… The defendant intentionally applied force that was outside the rules of the game or any standard by which the game is played. Manny did not explicitly consent to that force, and I am satisfied beyond any doubt that no such consent can be implied.
Sentenced
The Crown sought a two- to three-year sentence, opting not to seek an adult sentence. The defence sought a one-year probation.
On July 6, 2009, the Mississauga youth was sentenced to one year’s probation, anger management counselling, and one hundred hours of community service. Castillo’s father did not comment on the sentence but handed out copies of the victim impact statement he had delivered that morning in the hope that its message about organized sports would be communicated to the public. In the statement, he said, “I hope that organized sports, especially organized sports in schools, puts a no tolerance policy in place for violence and aggression in sports” (Cheney 2009; Mitchell 2009; Peat 2009; “Teen Guilty of Manslaughter in Rugby Death” 2009).
CHALLENGE QUESTION
The Effect of a Manslaughter Conviction on a School Sport
Q: Does the manslaughter conviction influence how rugby is to be played at the school level?
The rugby case was one of the Crown against a single person charged with violating the Criminal Code. The accused was found guilty. That was the end of the matter so far as the Crown’s case under the Criminal Code was concerned. But schools, players, and parents were left asking how the conviction would affect the sport at the school.
Kieran Crowley, Rugby Canada head coach, said he had never heard of a death in rugby play prior to the incident involving Manny Castillo. Indeed, Doug Crosse, spokesperson for Rugby Canada, added that the manslaughter conviction would “confirm a lot of incorrect suspicions about the game.” (The suggestion seemed to be that rugby might be seen as a game without rules.)
On the other hand, the verdict was seen by some as a way of realigning what should be the mark of acceptable athletic behaviour. Clayton Ruby, a lawyer recognized as a civil rights expert, said of the manslaughter conviction, “Some athletes have a skewed perception of acceptable behaviour. They think violence is part of sports, and these guys get away with it on a regular basis. A case like this serves notice” (Cheney 2009).
New Rules and Their Enforcement
Educational authorities who allow school athletic competitions and set the rules for play and their enforcement are apparently reviewing the conviction handed down by Justice Duncan. Al Wolch, a former coach and, at the time of his quoted comments, a superintendent with the Toronto District School Board, said the decision of Justice Duncan will result in “significant” policy review concerning school athletics:
We see incidents and injuries all the time — undercuts in basketball, kids running others to the boards in hockey and other episodes in football.… We have to look at educating better, but we also have to understand the people coaching are volunteers. Both have to go hand in hand or we may be better off not having certain sports.… We’re always reviewing regulations. As you look at danger, you need to make sure coaches, responsible for these students, are qualified in theory as well as the technical and practical side (Grossman 2009).
In fact, the coaches and referees are much like the “police” on the field. The coaches can influence how the game is played, and the referees can enforce rules to prevent certain kinds of violence.
The Doctor and Unasked Questions
It was a routine physical for the fifth-grade boy. The doctor was one the boy had known, and trusted, for several years. Toward the end of the examination, the doctor casually asked the boy his favourite subject. The answer: science. His patient had even won a prize at a science fair and was to go on and compete in a multischool fair.
But the boy was unhappy. He was being teased, jostled, and even occasionally beaten up by other students because of his success at the science fair. This was not a one-time event, but an ongoing pattern that could only be called bullying. The boy’s mother wondered whether life wouldn’t be easier if her son “just let the science thing drop.”
The doctor had a sense of personal outrage. After all, he was a person of science, and he had worked hard to practice as a medical doctor.
Prescription
The doctor encouraged the boy’s mother to call her son’s teacher and complain. And, he encouraged the boy to continue his love of science.
On reflection, the doctor noted what he did not say to his patient or to the boy’s mother:
And here are three things I now know I should have done: I didn’t tell the mother that bullying can be prevented and that it’s up to the school. I didn’t call the principal or suggest that the mother do so. And, I didn’t give even a moment’s thought to the bullies, and what their lifetime prognosis might be.… Research has described long-term risks — not just to victims, who are more likely than their peers to experience depression and suicidal thoughts, but to the bullies themselves,
