University officials charged for hazing

[UGAalum94]

I hope that the administrators are cleared and that they are able to seek some redress from being improperly charged and maybe tried.

(Of course, I'm assuming that they had no knowledge or participation in the fraternities unregistered event.)

Unless we want to go back to the days of college students being viewed as minors in the complete care of their universities despite in most cases these same students being over the legal age of majority (with of course alcohol purchase and/or consumption being the exception), its very difficult to see how in the world the administrators who supervise organizations can actually be considered guilty of committing crimes based on behavior they didn't engage in themselves and had no knowledge of.

It just seems crazy that they were indicted when there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the hazing would have been tolerated had they known of it or that they did know about it.

Do you really think we're better off treating college students like high school students in terms of university oversight of social events?

Doesn't this seem nuts?

I've got no problem with the charges against the people in the organization who were involved. But the administrator being held responsible isn't going to be a move in the right direction.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Nothing actually, I am just saying they are in the line of fire in a sue happy society or being charged because they work at this School, but were not involved!

True?

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.

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I hope that the administrators are cleared and that they are able to seek some redress from being improperly charged and maybe tried.

(Of course, I'm assuming that they had no knowledge or participation in the fraternities unregistered event.)

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

The negligence standard would require that the administrators have a duty to know about this sort of hazing... or at least to investigate. I think the prosecution has an uphill battle with this one, but it all depends on the facts.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The negligence standard would require that the administrators have a duty to know about this sort of hazing... or at least to investigate. I think the prosecution has an uphill battle with this one, but it all depends on the facts.

I would agree it's likely to be an uphill battle.

Along with the facts, though, it will depend on whatever the law in New Jersey may be. Many states have been moving toward imposing duties that would not have been considered even a few decades ago, especially with regard to alcohol and safety (such as duties imposed on the host of a party).

I have no idea what the standards in New Jersey might be. I take it from the article linked above that there is no precedent for this kind of case there -- maybe prosecutors are hoping that the court's will enunciate some kind of duty.

[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.