Proper punishment for off-campus HS hazing?

Great Debates
41

zwaldd you asked why they didn’t run away. I answered a, they were outnumbered and b) that they’d been told that things would be worse if they did. Now, of course when they were told the ‘things would get worse’ the ‘things’ involved was ketchup, not entrails. So, when they agreed to the original thing, the ‘things would get worse’ still no matter how you look at it, would not be ‘gee, they might break my ankel’

re: your belabored assumption about ‘friends’. you apparently are suggesting that unless you use the first definition of ‘friend’, that you cannot and should not assume “this person won’t hurt me”. And again, I submit to you that’s an absurd position to take.

I get on an airplane with absolute strangers and assume that I’m not gonna get hurt. Yes, I might end up being wrong about that, but I’d hope that you wouldn’t hold passengers on airplanes responsible for ‘putting themselves in a position where they could get hurt and not have a way out’.

you also dodged the other point made - that if your position (they shouldn’t have gone to this public place w/these folks if they weren’t friends of the first definition), is the correct one, then they shouldn’t have gone to school w/them either.

42

No I didn’t.

My position is that they shouldn’t have submitted to a hazing ritual in which leaving was not an option. If school was a hazing ritual in which leaving was not an option, then I agree they shouldn’t have been going to that school.

43

IT was a powder puff football game that contained a ‘bit of light hazing’. It was held in a public place. Once they got there, then they discovered that they were grossly outnumbered (there were about 100 in attendance and a small number were being hazed), they had no reason to not believe the statement ‘you’re not going to get hurt’.

they agreed to a game where ketchup, mustard, whipped cream would be dumped on them but that they wouldn’t be hurt. That if they didn’t run, that’s all that would happen. They had no way of knowing that:

1, IN addition to food stuffs, paint, feces, etc would be dumped on them.

  1. that they would be subject to choking w/ entrails, have paint cans and other large objects thrown at them.

  2. they’d be out numbered

  3. they’d suffer broken bones and concussions.

The rules were changed on them after they no longer had a chance to get away. Unless you can show me how they should have known not that something bad could happen, but that some thing bad would happen in advance, I cannot hold them responsible for criminal activities of others. the phrase you’ve quoted from me isn’t sufficient, since, once again, the ‘things will get worse’ referred to light hazing (especially since it was defined for them as ‘ketchup, mustard, whipped cream messed in your hair’. Some thing worse, could be hot sauce or hair dye, corn oil.

not feces, paint, broken bones, blood, entrails etc.

44

No freedom of choice, i.e., if you run you will be tackled and dragged back, is something bad. They were aware of this caveat in advance, therefore they knew something bad would happen.

45

zwaldd, if you guys are playing chess, you were check-mated several post ago. Agreeing to be hazed under one set of conditions does not mean you agree to be hazed under another more uglier set. Using your logic, a woman who has been date raped shouldn’t complain because, afterall, she knew what she was getting into when she agreed to go out the guy, right?

46

As I think about this situation I am coming to the conclusion that the seniors should be punished both criminally and scholastically.

They were wearing school sports uniforms when doing this act portraying the school in a bad light. Plus they were breaking the law when they didn’t allow the students to leave after they said they wanted to go.

I think it falls under Assult and Battery and unlawful abduction since they didn’t allow them to leave when they wanted to, or begged to.

I think as a law, extreme hazing (that involves physical and psychological harm) should be specifically listed under a law that provides jail time. Maybe 1 to 5 years depending on how involved one was. Of course that’s just my opinion.

47

This is the crux of the matter, in my view. After all, many companies have policies that if an employee commits a crime and that results in bad publicity for the company, they can be fired. Right or not, this is the same line of thought I think the school officials had.

I don’t really disagree with it, either. These students may have been doing this outside of school, but the activities were directly related to school, so while it is arguable whether it was the proper course of action or not, it’s not totally unwarranted either.

48

Whether the victim “volunteers” for it or not, some things are NOT acceptable behavior. Among them those unacceptable behaviors are whacking people on the head hard enough to give concussions, causing injuries requiring stitches, and breaking bones. Folks should learn this around the time of kindergarten, much less senior year of high school. Concussions were induced, stitches were required, an ankle was broken. So the “hazers” were wrong in their actions. Period.

Also, who the hell takes a baseball bat to a “hazing”? You could kill someone whacking them in the head with that. What was she thinking?

Punishment:
For those parents who bought alcohol for underaged kids - prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. There is no doubt in my mind that alcohol contributed to this fiasco.

The hazers - prosecution for assault and battery and, if possible, unlawful restraint. This was a mob action where the victims were outnumbered and intimidated. Violence was pre-meditated in this case, not just something that “got out of hand”. Seriously, why WOULD you bring a baseball bat to a “friendly” hazing or powder-puff football game?

Should the school be involved? Was this represented as a “Glenbrook High School” event, with or without the school’s consent? Were these girls wearing jerserys that indicated they were students of that school? When they reserved the permit from the Park District (assuming they had one) did they put “Glenbrook students” on it in some way? If any of the above apply then the school was made to look bad, very bad, and yes, I think they have some say in meteing out punishment because the school’s reputation has been dragged through the mud (and paint and feces and fish guts…) not just locally but world-wide. You do not have the right to besmirch the reputation of an organization you are a member of in that manner. Should that rate expulsion? Maybe not… but I think it could be argued.

If all of the above results in the hazers not graduating – too bad. They can earn a GED. If it screws up their attendance at college next fall - too bad. Frankly, I can’t blame a college for not wanting these girls at their school, given they have demonstrated a wanton disregard for the safety and dignity of others. If these are really just “good kids” who screwed up and made a mistake (and I’m sure some of the hazers fit that category) then they can take their punishment and in a couple years, after earning that GED and demonstrating they’ve learned their lesson by behaving like civilized creatures, they can go to college, get an education, get a nice job, and have a wonderful life. Nothing they are going to suffer is going to “ruin” their lives forever, but they will learn that yes, their actions have very real consequences.

On the other hand, I suspect at least a couple of the hazers are NOT “good kids” (even if they may be good students in regards to grades and such) and will continue to get into trouble regardless. The one gal who was previously expelled for drinking (she was allowed back in on the condition she behave, which clearly she didn’t) is a case in point. She may grow up to be OK, but at this point she’s displaying a pattern of problems.

The hazees - no punishment. They’ve gotten their punishment already. Frankly, saying they’re at fault is on the same level as saying a woman who was raped "asked for it’. Yeah, on a certain level volunteering for a “hazing” of any sort is dumb. You know, I think they’ve figured that out now. They’ll probably have nightmares about it, off and on, for awhile. No need to traumatize them further. And yes, I do think being a victim of that kind of mob violence IS traumatizing and trivializing it (Oh, I’ve had broken bones, not that big a deal…) misses the point that this was not some accident that befell them but a delibrate intent to harm which has a psychological component missing from true accidents. Yeah, intentions matter - that’s why our legal system imposes heavier penalities for delibrate harm as opposed to unintentional harm.

49

Okay, maybe these hazers can’t be expelled. But they can be kicked off sports teams, stripped of any student government or “prom queen” type titles, and forbidden to participate in an extracurricular activities. These creeps certainly don’t deserve to represent their school at any kind of function. And counselors and teachers should discuss the hazing in any kind of college or job recommendation for the students (assuming the students would be such idiots as to ask.)

If I were a college that had already accepted one of the students, I would rescind that acceptance. These students have proven themselves a menace, and I wouldn’t want them on my campus.

And I agree with other posters that they should, in addition, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

50

Only if she knew in advance that if she tried to leave for any reason, she’d be tackled, dragged back, and subject to ‘worse’.

Bishop takes Knight!

51

zwaldd, would your argument be the same if someone had died or suffered a permanently debilitating injury like brain damage? Seriously.

In a similar vein, do think cops should be given permission to open fire on cars that don’t immediately stop when they are signaled to do so? Most people are aware that they face stiffer penalties by fleeing from a police officer. According to your (il)logic, people who do not immediately pull over are basically giving permission for the cop to shoot or beat them Rodney King style. Am I correct in this assessment?

I admit, at first I didn’t consider the hazees as true victims, but now I’ve changed my mind.

52

If you were trying for irony, you failed. Ifyou were trying for humour, you failed miserably.

53

Maybe as another form of punishment they should subject the seniors to the same thing they pulled on the Juniors. Maybe that would knock some sense into them that putting animal crap in ones mouth isn’t fun.

54

Yes, but I’d favor a stiffer penalty for the perp(s).

Without any other criteria? No.

No.

55

Well, now I’m confused. You believe the hazees at least partially agreed to be beat with paint cans and force fed feces. But you don’t believe that people running away from cops are at partially agreeing to be shot and brutalized? Can you explain why not?

56

I don’t believe people who don’t immediately pull over are agreeing to anything in particular. People who run away from cops are agreeing to whatever legal means cops require to stop them.

57

So then can’t we say that the hazees are agreeing to be hazed only under mild and legal conditions (whip cream and ketchup in hair) but are not consenting to assault and battery?

58

You can say whatever you want. That the hazees agreed to not be allowed to leave no matter what puts them partially at fault, IMO.

59

Would you then say that when a woman marries a man and promises to spend the rest of her life with him, if he beats her within an inch of her life and leaves her permanently scarred and maimed she was somehow “at fault” because when the relationship started she stated her intention not to leave?

zwald, you can believe whatever you want, but it’s MY belief that blaming the victim is wrong. The hazees did NOT agree to concussions or stitches, it’s that simple. What the hazers did was wrong for the simple reason that it is unacceptable to cause bodily harm to another human being except in self-defense - which this clearly was NOT.

Nor did the hazees agree to not leave “no matter what”. The agreed that the hazing would change if they started to leave, but there was actually no obligation NOT to leave.

There are also certain “contracts” that are not enforceable. You can’t, for instance, hold someon to a contract that involves committing a crime. Even if they had agreed in writing not to leave, I don’t think the contract would be enforceable once assault and battery (which are crimes) started to occur.

60

Then they should have left. I base this comment on the video I saw where it looked like they just sat there while things were thrown at them and dumped on them. If I am incorrect in my interpretation of the video, and they indeed tried to escape, that being their perogative - according to you and contrary to what wring said - and they were dragged back and assaulted, then yes I would agree that their willing participation in the initial hazing does not make them share the blame for what happened.