There is an interesting and tragic case out of Northern Illinois University in Dekalb where 22 members of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity have been criminally charged in the death of student David Bogenberger, 19, after a frat event with excessive drinking. It is one of the largest such prosecutions, if not the largest, that I have seen for a hazing or frat drinking death. The question is whether this is a matter that should be addressed on the criminal opposed to the civil docket as well as school proceedings for expulsion.
Five leaders of the fraternity have been charged with felony hazing: Alexander M. Jandick, 21, James P. Harvey, 21, Omar Salameh, 21, Patrick W. Merrill, 19, and Steven A. Libert, 20.
Arrest warrants were issued Monday for 22 members of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity for the death in November. Most are to be charged with misdemeanors.
Bogenberger died of cardiac arrest due to alcohol intoxication with a blood alcohol level was about five times the legal limit for driving. He had attended a fraternity hazing event called “Moms Night” or “Parents Night” where you have to run a gauntlet of girls and must basically drink five shots per girl. It appears that none of the girls were charged or the subject of warrants.
As a professor and a parent, my heart goes out to the family of Bogenberger. I can only imagine the terrible loss and pain that this family has had to endure for a senseless and reckless tradition at this frat. I also support both expulsion of students responsible for such hazing as well as removal of fraternities from campus. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with charging students criminally for their mere participation in such heavy drinking events. This has generally been handled as a civil matter with lawsuits against the students and fraternities.
The law states:
§ 720 ILCS 120/5. Hazing
Sec. 5. Hazing. A person commits hazing who knowingly requires the performance of any act by a student or other person in a school, college, university, or other educational institution of this State, for the purpose of induction or admission into any group, organization, or society associated or connected with that institution if:
(a) the act is not sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution; and
(b) the act results in bodily harm to any person.
§ 720 ILCS 120/10. Sentence
Sec. 10. Sentence. Hazing is a Class A misdemeanor, except hazing that results in death or great bodily harm is a Class 4 felony.
The law is rife with difficult ambiguities. What does it mean to “knowingly require” when you are dealing with a fraternity where a student can stop drinking and may or may not be denied entry in the fraternity. More importantly, the criteria of any act “not sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution” is remarkably broad. It also ties the applicability of a criminal charge to the varying rules of public and private institutions.
The problem is that we have consent of the victim and drinking may be lawful in some cases. It is an unfortunate reality that college students often use their newfound freedom to do things in excess. Drinking is one of the most common. One argument in favor of criminalization is that it is the only effective deterrent for such students — a criminal charge concentrates the mind of the most dimwitted college student. However, it also criminalizes another area of life in our country — part of a disturbing trend.
What do you think? Should this be handled as a criminal matter for all of these frat members?
Ive got no problem in theory with holding the frat members responsible. Just because the victim was an adult and participated voluntarily does not necessarily excuse others involved of criminal liability. For example, if you serve alcohol to a minor or to someone who’s clearly intoxicated, and that person is involved in a driving accident, then you too should have criminal liability. The fact that who was drinking is also responsible for what happens doesn’t relieve everyone else of responsibility for their own actions. As to this case, the statute seems vastly overbroad and vague to me. These kind of criminal statutes give the DA/government way too much power to imprison who they want, when they want, and make for unequal treatment under the law because the DA has so much discretion to do whatever he or she wants.
Is it the “brats” fault or is it society’s fault. I would say both, technically and materially. They have reached a legal age or responsibility. But we are the ones who taught, as parents and as society, the lessons they have or not have learned.
Barkin’:
“Quit coddling these brats.”
******************
Accepting biology and neuroscience isn’t “coddling.”
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2006/02/06.html
Barkin Dog, your comment goes more toward whether we should have a law in the first place against hazing, and that is something the people of Illinois decided through the legislative process was needed (at least in theory). While we may disagree, it is the law. I will defer the potential constitutional issues to JT and others more rehearsed in constitutional law, but my amateurish opinion is that the state has a rational basis in preventing this type of conduct. Vagueness of the statute, as JT noted, may be a problem but at first and second glance I don’t think so.
Yes, “no one put a gun to this guy’s head and told him to drink” as you say, but I must disagree that it was not coercive conduct. Anyone familiar with fraternal organizations and activities know that if you don’t participate in the fraternal “activities” as a pledge, you most likely won’t be invited as a member. Not being invited is often a major blow to some of these kids, I have seen it happen. Not to mention, “5 shots” per girl is more than excessive. No doubt the dead student is to blame, but that doesn’t automatically mean others were not.
And ditto what Mespo said about 18 year olds and maturity. All of us mature at different paces (and I was one of the slower ones), but, at least from my experience, the vast majority of 18 year old – 23 year old males are “kids” from a maturity standpoint. Mespo, I am scared sh*tless about the teenage years when my kids get there.
BTW, How many alcohol related deaths does it take for fraternal and college institutions to take action? The ones that don’t should be ashamed.
Barkin, I do appreciate the reference to the Cardinals and legends Jack Buck and Stan the Man. :-). I have done my fair share of cracking Buds and being wasted in the 9th inning. Lucky for my liver, I finally matured. But there is nothing like a cold one at a Cardinals ballgame, soaking in the hot sun.
Or if you are 18 and you still act like a brat, face facts: Brats have to go to jail sometimes.
Mespo. I did not vote for the 26th Amendment. Thirty year old brats are walking around with the mentalities and life skills of kids. But the law is the law. Quit coddling these brats. 18 up and out. That means that when the kid hits 18 he is an adult and it is time to get out of the house junior. When I was 17 they were sending kids my age to Nam. If you are old enough for war you are old enough to vote and too old to act like a brat.
Barkin:
“Since the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person is an adult and can vote at age 18.”
*********************
Well, you must have never had teenage kids or been 18 if you believe a person is a mature adult at that age.
Barkindog, you’re absolutely correct. It’s about time that these 18yr olds who are, by law, adults, start doing the adult thing and accept responsibility for their own actions.
I will put another angle on the topic. The criminal charges aside. Many commenters here use the terms “college kids” and “Frat boys” etc. Since the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person is an adult and can vote at age 18. The phrase “18, UP and OUT!” bears some discussion here. The so called “kid” in Newtown who murdered 26 humans was an adult. They keep showing his kid photo just like that dead guy down in Florida who Zimmerman shot in self defense. We dont need a kid photo of the 20 year old mass murderer from Newtown. We dont need to call adults who are in college “boys”. Now, if some schmuck is an adult and allows other adult schmucks to goad him into drinking too much and croaks then it is his own damn fault for not being a MAN. I dont know how old Frat Guy was but if he was 18 then he is an adult and the Constitution says so. That is Amendment 26 by the way. Not many Americans are aware of it.
A second angle on the topic is why do we allow Frats to Flourish? Well, the right to assemble is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Right to Petition the Government is also guaranteed. The Right To Exercise Free Speech is also protected. Together, the right to form a more perfect union of students to speak and assemble and organize in a group is protected. And if some damn dean in a state college comes around and tells us to get off of the podium and quit assemblying and quit petitioning the government for redress of grievances then we got a lawsuit on our hands. Now the guys who assembled and boarded boats and threw the cargo of tea overboard might have pushed the limit of the right to assemble and to petition their government (King George The Kraut). but when the redcoats intervened all helll broke loose didn’t it?
When those students at Kent State got together to petition the government for redress of grievances about that damn war in Vietnam and the army shot some of them dead there was some repercussion. These werent Frat guys trying to outdrink each other and so it differs vastly from what went on in the topic of the day here. But we have to be careful about criminalizing behavior that is not physically coercive. No one put a gun to this guy’s head and told him to drink. If the action of others is not coercive then it is not or should not be criminal. If you tell an adult male that he is a pussy because he can not drink a quart of vodka and he drinks the vodka, he is not a pussy, he is an adult male with no brain. Where does it end? Budweiser tells you to have one for the Cardinals. Jack Buck is on the air and tells you to pop another Bud for Stan the Man and you do so. And by the Ninth Inning you are drunk as a skunk and run over a skunk. Is the skunk’s family gonna blame Jack Buck and prevail in court? I dont thnk so. But what do I know, I am just a dog barkin.
No one knows the real story, the media is blowing it up. Yes, it could and should of been prevented. The leaders of the fraternity and the people closely related to the death should face criminal charges. 22 members is way to many.
NickS,
Damn good point. I assume we don’t. Israeli soldiers after dehumanizing take off to the east coast of India to waste themselves on pot.
And psychiatry or extended counseling is not an answer, IMHO. Too slow. We need a ritual like the indians to take away the responsibilty for being the animal combat requires.
You have a comment from me at Michigan legislature in re JTs and gangs.
Good night for now.
Here in Illinois it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcohol. At the very least the older members of the frat were clearly breaking that law by supply underage members with alcohol. Unfortunately underage drinking is not often prosecuted on college campuses. As for the hazing law it needs to be enforced to show these groups that they need to quit being stupid and dangerous. My older brother nearly died when his kidneys shut down from hazing in his frat house which made the “Animal House” frat look like a bunch of wimps. There are so many tragic cases around frat houses these days. Some friends lost their son when he overdid alcohol and set the bed he was in afire. He suffered for a several months in a burn ward before his burned lungs finally killed him.
If the state has a law that says hazing is a crime, they should be prosecuted. Not only is it true that a civil remedy is not always effective (rich kids could just do as they pleased and daddy or mommy could hire bang-up-bomber-unscrupulous lawyers to get the suits kicked out with attorneys fees charged against the deceased’s grieving family) but once the legislature acts, the executive should follow. If the law is unconstitutionally vague, these boys will have to take an appeal and go up to get it declared so, but I will bet that the process will chill the desire to haze any future students to death. The one thing I would say is that if the administration of the school did not carefully inform the fraternities (and sororities) of the law and the expectations of the school itself, THEY should be sued, at least, and perhaps also fired. There should have been notice, expressed intent, notice of intended enforcement, and an understanding. Otherwise law is useless and, worst of all, for sale.
By the way, even if it was the kids “choice” to perform the hazing ritual, that is not an excuse in my opinion. Any one of the older frat boys could have easily seen that there was danger involved; the kid was gradually reaching the toxic level of alcohol ingestion. These are COLLEGE KIDS getting the benefits of our education dollars, folks, not ten-year-olds trying to figure out how to behave in the world. COLLEGE KIDS. They’re supposed to have SOME intelligence to guide their conduct!
ID, I have not been in the military but have many friends who have. Their assessment is the same as yours. Our military does a very good training for battle. What it doesn’t do is debrief after the horror. American Indians had spiritual rituals for braves to become human again after the savagery of war.
I agree with Professor Turley that these criminal charges are excessive, especially the students charged with felonies. I joined a fraternity in college and I am still close friends with most of my frat brothers to this day. We didn’t engage in any physical hazing, but we did have some wild parties. I would not have joined if there was physical hazing, because I have always balked at being pushed around or bullied in any way. Something to do with usually being one of the shortest kids in my class. Let’s deal with the problems associated with excessive drinking on campuses whether it is in fraternity houses or dorms or private residences. The school has the ability to deal with any abuses and the parents of the deceased could attempt a civil remedy, but I can’t agree on criminal charges in this kind of case.
Some are not informed of the purpose of boot camp. It is not hazing leading to team building.
It is simply a planned, well-tested and evaluated method of shaking people loose from their “civilian” presumptions.
It is also a test of your reactions under extreme stress and even live fire exercises. Your ability to stay under control and take orders and carry them out as a member of a team. Your lives hang on it.
The conditions are often one of hurry up and wait when it comes to training.
You are assured that if you don’t stick up your head into the line of overhead fire, then you are safe.
Without the arbitrary and continuous stress from your sergeant, then you would not be stressed and imprinted with necassary skills. Nor evaluated and found fit for combat.
You are being prepared for an inhuman task under inhuman conditions, where even the best die.
So it is not a version of frat sadism. Rest assured. All movies to the contrary.
What a tragedy. Charging 22 people with the killing of someone who died of their own actions is horrific. They are not guilty of anything. The “victim” chose to behave in the manner that he did. The fact that he died is terrible and sad but it is no more sad than if they were drinking and acted on a dare.
“The question is whether this is a matter that should be addressed on the criminal opposed to the civil docket as well as school proceedings for expulsion.”
All of the above.
mespo727272 1, December 19, 2012 at 11:41 am
… it is in the DNA to require some sort of trial prior to admission into any group …
=========================================
No doubt IMO that it is in the circuitry of our cultural Amygdala, but by the same token no doubt IMO that behavior can change DNA if the behavior is appropriate for causing that change.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/06/cornell-frat-guilty-in-alcohol-hazing-death.html
Cornell Frat Guilty in Alcohol Hazing Death
By Andrew Chow, JD on June 29, 2012 6:06 AM | No TrackBacks
“Cornell University’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter was found guilty of hazing, while three frat members were cleared in the alcohol-related death of a pledge in 2011.
The conviction means the family of George Desdunes, 19, of Brooklyn, N.Y., will see — at most — $12,000 from the local fraternity chapter for the criminal conviction, The Ithaca Journal reports. But the family has also filed a civil lawsuit.
In a hazing ritual gone wrong, SAE fraternity pledges kidnapped Desdunes from his home, bound his hands and feet with zip ties and duct tape, and then forced him to drink alcohol until he passed out, according to The New York Times.
George Desdunes never regained consciousness after that hazing ritual. He was found dead hours later with his hands and feet still bound; a coroner’s report showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.356%, more than four times New York’s legal limit.
In the Cornell hazing death criminal trial, Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s local chapter, along with three SAE members, were charged with first-degree hazing and providing alcohol to someone who was underage. The hazing charge covers any intentional or reckless conduct that “creates a substantial risk of physical injury … and thereby causes such injury.”
Verdicts for the three SAE members were sealed. But lawyers told The Times their cases turned on whether Desdunes was already intoxicated when he was kidnapped, and whether the men knew of his intoxication. Defense lawyers also argued Desdunes could have stopped the hazing ritual if he’d wanted to.
The local SAE chapter, however, did not defend itself in court. Because it is a corporation, it can only be fined. “If the chapter had any money they would pay for it, but I don’t know if they do,” an attorney for SAE’s national headquarters told The Ithaca Journal. (The national headquarters is a separate legal entity from SAE’s local chapter.)
The prosecutor was disappointed in the Cornell hazing death verdict. “We are not naive enough to think a fine will make up for death of a college student,” he told The Journal. George Desdunes’ family is also seeking $25 million in a wrongful-death lawsuit, which is pending.”