Greek Hazing

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:45 pm

This is an interesting response.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_215123845.html

expony18 · Post by **expony18** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:15 pm

d@mn lawyers...

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:23 pm

expony18 wrote:d@mn lawyers...

Only two more years for you son...better stop now before it's too late.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:52 pm

some of my best friends are lawyers.

OC Mustang · Post by **OC Mustang** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:55 pm

Next time you hear some [deleted] suggests that the university should support the greek system and stay off its collective [deleted], just remember this article. It isn't that any university thinks that the greek system is bad...unless it is and he or she is threatened with imprisonment and fines because of something a handful of really stubborn students insist on doing.
Gee, I'd have a pretty significant bee up my butt about it too. Milk and Cookies wouldn't be a joke; it would be an everyday occurance.

expony18 · Post by **expony18** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:53 pm

jtstang wrote:
expony18 wrote:d@mn lawyers...
Only two more years for you son...better stop now before it's too late.

i need an intervention....

expony18 · Post by **expony18** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:54 pm

Stallion wrote:some of my best friends are lawyers.

i'm sorry

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:31 am

A lawyer has a clogged drain and he calls a plumber to come fix it. The plumber says that'll be $300. The lawyer said, it only took you five minutes and you're charging me $300. I don't charge that much and I went to SMU and I'm a lawyer. To which the plumber replied, neither did I when I was a lawyer. So you see, there's nothing wrong with going to UNT. You get to stick it to lawyers.

Cadillac · Post by **Cadillac** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:39 pm

oops.

NM

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:18 am

I realize that these charges are brought under NJ statute, but this appears this was a drinking party for all the fraternity members not just pledges. It doesn't sound like the kind of 'hazing' incident one normally associates with hazing. I understand drinking a half bottle of vodka in a very short time is a problem (this phenomenon has been know for decades to cause quick death). However, it seems this was the activity that in which all fraternity members could participate and not an activity forced upon one class of member (i.e. pledges). Certainly we don't have all the details. However, if an active fraternity member instead of a pledge had died in the same circumstances, would this be a hazing issue?

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:45 am

Not sure why it matters, pleedge or active member, if you die at a party called the "family drink" where you, the new member, are expected to drink with your older borothers. That's still coercion in another form. I expect that is included in the statutory definition of hazing.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:48 am

This newfangled interenet thingy is really amazing:

New Jersey Statutes: 2C: 40-3

A. A person is guilty of hazing, a disorderly person offense, if, in connection with initiation of applicants to or members of a student or fraternal organization, he knowingly or recklessly organizes, promotes, facilitates, or engages in any conduct, other than competitive athletic events, which places or may place another person in danger of bodily injury.

B. A person is guilty of aggravated hazing, a crime of the fourth degree, if he commits an act prohibited in subsection a. which results in serious bodily injury to another person.

2C: 40-4
Nothwithstanding any other provision of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes to the contrary, consent shall not be available as a defense to a prosecution under this act.

2C: 40-5
Conduct constituting an offense under this act may, at the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, be prosecuted under any other applicable provision of Title 2C of the New Jersey State Statutes; and

Other behaviors or activities in addition to those prohibited under N.J.S.A. 2C:40 et seq. defined as hazing by a college or university with respect to its students.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:00 pm

So based on the stature, it would not be hazing if a member of the fraternity died at the same event same circumstances because a member is not involved in an initiation of applicant (I assume an applicant is a pledge and a member can't be an applicant to join an organization that he/she already belongs to)? The stature seems a bit broad. How does the dean get charged if he did not know or organize or promote the activity that resulted in the kid’s death? It just seems a bit of a stretch.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:14 pm

ponyte wrote:So based on the stature, it would not be hazing if a member of the fraternity died at the same event same circumstances because a member is not involved in an initiation of applicant (I assume an applicant is a pledge and a member can't be an applicant to join an organization that he/she already belongs to)? The stature seems a bit broad. How does the dean get charged if he did not know or organize or promote the activity that resulted in the kid’s death? It just seems a bit of a stretch.

First, there's a "members of" provision in the first sentence in addition to "applicants of" and I think that is where you get past the pladge issue. And the first sentence only applies to the kind of gathering, ie, one "in connection with initiation of applicants to or members of a student or fraternal organization" and not to who is being hazed. Hazing in this statute is defined merely as placing "another person" in danger, it does not limit what category the "other person" is in.

The dean and the director of greek life are undoubtedly being charged with conduct, or in this instance probably a lack of policing the frat, which "facilitates" the hazing conduct. Broad, yes. Unconstitutionally broad? No.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:31 pm

I know very little about the Constitution except I know I have a constitutional right for somebody else to pay for my healthcare.

I was wondering more in terms of a jury. Granted one cannot predict a jury’s response, but it may be difficult to convince a jury that a crime based on this statue was committed 'beyond a reasonable doubt."

I also wonder about the bodily injury part. If a pledge breaks his ankle while participating in a 'hazing' incident where the pledges were made to perform jumping jacks, would that constitute bodily injury. I assume somewhere in the code there is a definition of serious bodily injury but 2C: 40-3.A doesn't require serious bodily injury.

Now donot misunderstand me. The death of this kid is serious and there may well be statues violated. It just seems like this statue is a bit broad and may not be easy to get a conviction in this case.