Should a teacher who has broken a serious law unrelated to teaching such as impaired driving, embezzlement, assault, among others be prohibited by teaching? This paper disagrees and wishes to express the position that such a teacher ought to be allowed to teach and that a clear distinction must be delineated between the teacher and the person in the teacher. This paper asserts that barring the teacher from teaching would be against the spirit of the law, would be equal to committing an injustice and would equally set a high bar for teachers that is absent in other professions thereby discriminating against teachers; a process that is actually against the whole concept of natural justice. In explaining the paper’s position, it would be important to examine several facets of law. From the onset, the paper argues that teachers must not be prohibited from teaching for mere offences that they commit that fall outside the teaching profession regardless to the veracity and seriousness of the offence.
Foremost, it is critical to look at the ingredients of offences. A teacher may commit an offence with the absence of mental intention. These offences refer to the offences that occur without the intention of their perpetrators. Often such offences attract lesser penalties and sentences are compared to the offences committed with mental intent. For such offences, the law merely punishes the offender so that it does not appear as though the law cares less. Indeed, the law cannot further impose an added penalty for such offences. In that respect, it would be against the general spirit of the law to impose a ban on the teacher even after suffering a conviction in a court of law. The principle, therefore, is to expose the offender to the legal process, convict the offender and fully punish him and then let free. To impose a ban would be contrary to the normal practice in application.
Secondly, the principle of double jeopardy needs to be examined in context to the prohibition of a teacher from teaching. Double jeopardy principle relates to the general exposure of the offender to two or more consequences for one offence. This was further explained in the case of British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola et al. The court held that double jeopardy could only be limited in cases of human rights cases. In this case, a teacher who commits an offence shall be duly charged in a court of law and a sentence imposed on him. It would be tantamount to subjecting the teacher to double jeopardy if he is again prohibited from teaching even after he has been convicted and having fully served the sentence. This approach of double jeopardy is an affront to the general rule of law. It would be inconsistent with the general practice of law to subject one to double jeopardy despite the nature of offence committed. Again the nature of the offence in terms of the seriousness is a matter of law and should be left to the court to adjudge. The law out of the abundance of caution set it that the learned judges shall apply their discretion in reaching a decision as to the nature of sentence to apply. In addition, statutory guidelines do suffice for purposes of maximum and minimum penalties attached to sentences. The law indeed does not envision a scenario where the statutory offence and the statutory penalty are deemed inadequate and the sentence extended in matters of teaching. Such an application is, therefore, outside the ambit of the law and is not envisaged by any law of the land. Therefore, it must be appreciated that the law suffices for purposes of order and certainty. For that reason, the law must be used for such purposes only.
Thirdly, punishing the teachers to the extent of prohibition from teaching shall be against a number of human rights. First, every human being, without any amount of prejudice, has a right to a livelihood. In that context, a teacher equally has a right to a livelihood. A teacher derives his livelihood from the causes and activities appertaining to teaching. Therefore, it would be a violation of the human right to livelihood to disqualify the teacher from teaching merely because he had committed an offence. Indeed, it must be appreciated that the right to a livelihood is not unlimited and may be limited by an operation of the law. However, limitation of this right shall only be subject to a few select instances. The commission of other offences indeed does not justify the violation of this right. This need to be read in connect with the fact that often the sentence arrived at in the court relates to the offence in question and a subsequent question of prohibition of the offender from teaching, therefore, lacks in merit.
Fourthly, it needs to be examined in terms of societal standards being set by ordering that teachers be prohibited from teaching upon commission of offences. It would be tantamount to creating a patriarchy of holy and innocents of the teaching profession. Such a move is tantamount to requiring that teachers live within the legal realms and that the society expects them at any point to defend their own life. The question of defense of one’s character in the entire duration of his life is an inconsistent practice that is repugnant to the law. It is not expected that teachers be called upon to defend their whole life. This ought to be read in connect to the question of criminal causation as held in R v Nette. The question of criminal causation applies to a particular crime and only stops at that. Even in the evolved law, it is often required that evidence of the bad character of the offender is not adduced unless he first submits evidence that he is of good character. The spirit in the prohibition of the evidence of the bad character often is to avoid unnecessarily requiring that an offender defends his life for good. In that light, prohibiting a teacher from teaching is actually tantamount that he defends his life for good for its dis-abuses the teacher of the opportunity to earn a livelihood for a lifetime. In that context, that approach would be counterproductive and unnecessary.
Fifthly, the idea of prohibiting teachers from teaching should be examined in the context of the general public policy. The legal aspect should fully consider the issue of opportunity costs and the cost benefits analysis. This is essentially because teaching as a profession is one of the ever necessary requirements for any government. Consequently, it is for the government to continually train teacher and occasion a continuous education and learning process of the teachers. A prohibition would support the loss of this precious resource with the effect that the government shall loss more manpower that is necessary. This as a matter of public policy shall be considered repugnant and ought to be opposed as much as possible. It would occasion an unnecessary burden on the tax payer due to the likely costs it imposes and transfers on the government and ultimately the taxpayer. For that reason, the teacher must not be lost merely on the group of mere offences committed. It should be the case that what the law offers as a penalty is sufficient and that the teacher after undergoing the due punishment ought to be left to continue in the process of teaching. Often the guiding principle need to be the ultimate burden imposed on the taxpayer and the overall spirit in imposing the law. It would be retrogressive to impose such a high penalty on the teachers as persons and equally transfer the consequences on the taxpayers. Ideally, the approach should aim at correcting the teacher and merely stopping at that. It would be improper to extent the same to the public. In that light, the idea of prohibiting teachers from teaching needs to be opposed.
Further the whole concept of restorative justice need to be considered. A prohibition of teachers from teaching merely on the grounds of the offences so committed would be repugnant to the principle of restorative justice. Restorative justice attempts to see society as a mixture of diverse interests and that each and everyone’s interest needs to be considered in the arrival at decisions especially in relation to public policy. In that context, it would be repugnant to the public interest and the general concept of restorative justice to prohibit the teachers from teaching merely because of the offences so committed. The whole concept of restorative justice is underlying the need for acceptance and reentry into the community by offenders after the commission and punishment for the commission of the offence. An approach that seeks to permanently bar teachers from teaching would be seen in that context of restorative justice as counterproductive and repugnant. It would occasion the failure of restorative justice and for that reason needs to be opposed wholesome. It is important to often consider either sides of the coin in such matters. The teacher though having been in the wrong by virtue of having committed the offence is also entitled to some rights. The teacher needs to be accepted and reabsorbed into the society. This process must be expeditious and must not occasion a double jeopardy in itself. For that reason, it would be only fair to excuse the teacher from further liability on grounds of the allegedly committed offences. The prohibition, therefore, does not augur well with the general practice of the law and should be opposed to the best extent possible.
In addition, the whole idea of crime needs to be understood from a different perspective. One fact that needs to be appreciated is that crime is there to stay and that as a government, the general policy needs to be the mitigation of the crimes rather that the victimizing of offenders. The best approach to take in this case needs to be the understanding of crime and seeking to prevent the crime rather than occasioning a prohibition from service of the offenders. In that context, the law must adopt a proactive approach that seeks to capture the interests of the opposing parties. For that reason, the crime needs to be prevented and measures need to be taken in the reduction of the crime. A good example is the need to understand why the teacher committed the crime in the first place. Several reasons abound for commitment of crimes. It could be that the teacher’s remuneration is insufficient for purposes of his needs. In that context, the government may be required to look into matters of sufficient remuneration so that teachers have no reason for committing a crime. The law would be jumping the gun by addressing cases of poor remuneration, which have put teachers on pressure to the extent of committing crimes, by further banning the same from teaching. However, the law must also define its limits in supporting teachers with reasonable causes. It would inconsistent with the general principles of the law to merely excuse the teachers from the consequences of having committed the said offences. In that vein, it would be important to strike a balance between the realistic grievances of teachers committing crimes and the need to see to it that the society brought is a society that respects and obeys the law. In that context, the balance ought to be informed by a utilitarian approach that seeks to take care of the interests of the majority.
Perhaps it is equally important at this juncture to examine the reasons that would support a ban of teachers from further teaching after committed offences and seek to rebut the said reasons. One fundamental reason that would be alluded to in such a case would be that teachers act as role models and that their conduct should be subjected to a higher threshold and measure. For that reason, it would be necessary to have teachers keep away from offences and if having committed offences it would be proper to keep them away from the vulnerable group that they may influence in the negative. While this argument holds a lot of water, it equally lacks merit for its flawed assumptions and reasoning. First the approach assumes that offenders can never reform. It defeats the whole concept of restorative and rehabilitative justice. The common denominator in both of the concepts is often the assumption that offenders often learn their lessons and will keep off from future offences. This is informed by the fact that the punishment thereof from offences often serves to correct the offender. An assumption that teachers would fail to learn and thereby serve as poor role models is, therefore, merely theoretical and flawed in its entirety. Further, it needs to be appreciated that matters of law in terms of offences are often relative. What may be found in a court of law following the rules of evidence as offensive and punishable may in actual sense be a non-offence. In other words, the law has an uncanny way of taping even the innocent into the web of offenders. Despite the much appreciated burden of proof often imposed on the prosecutor, the system often inevitably traps even the innocent. This approach would commit those innocent to further punishment and may turn a law abiding citizenry into a lawless society. The basis for rebellion is often the feeling of unfair alienation and lack of justice thereof.
One may argue that the idea of prohibiting the teachers from teaching would work in the best interest of the child with the bulk being under the age of majority. As members of the age of minority, students and pupils demand and deserve a higher level of protection from the law and the public policy. It would, therefore, be argued that such children be protected from classes of persons who have been adjudged as criminals and capable of furthering criminal intents through or and with the children. However, such an argument should be opposed for being too simplistic an approach to a complex situation. The law needs to examine the indulgence of children in crime with a keener eye. This must assume an approach that is devoid of any amount of escapism. For that reason, it would be important to look into the factual issues that occasion that indulgence of children in crime. Cases such as the misuse of the internet, poor parenting and child exposure to crime as more responsible for child crime compared to mere inductions by the teachers. For that reason, the government through the law and policy needs to address these issues and find workable solutions rather than hide behind the cover and unfairly subject the teachers to undue punishment and distress.
In conclusion, it must be appreciated that crime in society has a bearing and foundation. It should be noted that the solution of crime does not lie in punishments in the character of prohibitions. Rather crime needs to be addressed in a proactive manner. The rights of teachers conferred to them by virtue of the human rights must be respected and upheld in coming up with any law or policy.
References
Boivin, R. (2013). On the Use of Crime Rates. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 263-278.
Chalmers, J., & Leverick , F. (2009). Fair Labelling in Criminal Law. Modern Law Review, 217-246.
Clarke, S. (2012). A Treatise on the Criminal Law of Canada. Toronto: Nabu Press.
Herminda, J. (2010). Criminal Law. Toronto: Kluwer Law International.
McInnes, M., Kerr, I., & VanDuzzer, A. (2011). Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada.
Perrin, B. (2008). Taking a Vacation from the Law? Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and Section 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 12-14.
Proulx, M., & Layton, D. (n.d.). Ethics and Canadian criminal law. Toronto: Irwin Law.
Roberts, J. (2007). Public Opinion and Crime Prevention. IPC Review, 193-218.
Simon, P. (2009). Canadian Criminal Cases. Toronto: Cengage Learning.
Westhues, A. (2006). Canadian Social Policy: Issues And Perspectives. Toronto: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
