University officials charged for hazing

[James]

What about that old adage that a DA can get an indictment on a ham sandwich?

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I have no idea, and neither do you.

They were not sued by some sue-happy litigant, Tom. They were indicted by a grand jury, which presumably heard sufficient evidence to believe that these two school officials should be charged with hazing.

New Jersey criminal law (N.J.S.A. 2C: 40-3a) says: "A person is guilty of hazing . . . if, in connection with initiation of applicants or members of student or fraternal organizations, 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." (My emphasis) It is "aggravated hazing" -- what these two officials have been charged with -- if death results.

I must assume, though it is only an assumption, that sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury that these two officials had been criminally negligent, perhaps turning blind eyes, to the point where their negligence facilitated hazing.

I recognize as well as anyone that grand juries make mistakes and that DAs may not present cases based in fact to grand juries, although I continue to believe that the Duke lacrosse incidents of the world are the exception rather than the rule. Most DAs I know value their integrity enough to make that the case.

With the caveat given above that grand juries can be misled and can err, I am assuming that they would not have been indicted unless there was at least some evidence that they did have knowledge or but for their negligence should have had knowledge.