Quote:
Originally posted by 33girl
Maybe hazing is illegal, but the definition of hazing is way too broad for it to be taken seriously.
Take other crimes like murder, theft, fraud. You have a set of what each crime entails that pretty much everyone agrees on. For instance, premeditated murder- you plan to kill someone, you carry out those actions, and they are dead. That's premeditated murder. (Don't start on first, second, third degree etc) The average Joe can be selected for a jury and understand that.
Now you get to the definition of hazing. Some people feel it only includes physical abuse. Some people feel it includes calling someone a pledge or asking them to interview active members. Some are in the middle. I don't think we are ever going to have an effective Greek system OVERALL until we come to a clear definition (not the Granny's-nightshirt-covers-everything definition of the FIPG) of what hazing really IS. I know that there are alums (myself included) who are very offended when activities they participated in willingly and joyfully are labeled hazing.
|
I think that this is true of almost all statutory crimes. Look at the difference b/w murder and domestic violence crimes. Spousal abuse is a perfect example of a crime that is really difficult for juries, just like hazing is. Hate crimes are another example. Are they really any different than the common law crimes from which they stem -- aren't we really convicting these people for assault & battery or murder? In the civil setting, aren't we holding them liable for assault & batter or IIED? All that really happens with the creation of statutory crimes and torts is that we create new classifications for age old torts and crimes that people have been debating the definition of for ages.
As leaders in GLOs it is our job to educate our membership to promote our ideals without stepping over those boundaries. We all know it is possible, the challenge is to teach why it is important to work at it and succeed rather than taking the easy way out and hazing.