|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Sept 11, 2009 10:47:03 GMT -5
Presently "the law on hazing" is extremely pro-complainant, broad sweeping (punishes everyone in sight) and usually does not allow for case-by-case analysis of facts (but generally, if it looks and smells like hazing, somebody's catchin a misdemeanor).
If you could influence the law to be more cognizant of issues specifically affecting BGLOs (NOT your organizational policy, but the law itself), what things would you say to your state legislature to try to enlighten them on how "we" work?
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Sept 11, 2009 11:03:18 GMT -5
Presently "the law on hazing" is extremely pro-complainant, broad sweeping (punishes everyone in sight) and usually does not allow for case-by-case analysis of facts (but generally, if it looks and smells like hazing, somebody's catchin a misdemeanor). If you could influence the law to be more cognizant of issues specifically affecting BGLOs (NOT your organizational policy, but the law itself), what things would you say to your state legislature to try to enlighten them on how "we" work?
The Nat Turner Rebellion!
Pi*r^2
Cheese Steak!
 |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Sept 11, 2009 11:09:21 GMT -5
Leja,
I would think that for criminal hazing, they have to prove BRD that hazing occured. How many cases have you seen went to trial? Although consent is not a viable defense, I don't think many juries would convict unless serious injury occured. All the cases I have seen involved a plea deal.
*sideline*
<= will NEVER EVER PLEAD. EVER. There are too many procedural requirments to pull off a flawless trial.
*end sideline*
I would ask that hazing (in Texas) be specific intent rather than general intent. That would limit the broad, punish everyone aspect. Also, I would remove the "crime" of hazing and allow civil recovery only. NOTE: Battery and Assault would criminally cover the "bad" hazing although consent is now a defense.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingdelta on Sept 11, 2009 13:36:56 GMT -5
An event would only be considered hazing if the hazee protested at some point.; if they willingly participated, even if they said they were intimidated, throw that shyt out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bathroom Model on Sept 11, 2009 13:42:05 GMT -5
An event would only be considered hazing if the hazee protested at some point.; if they willingly participated, even if they said they were intimidated, throw that shyt out![/quote] I support this message. our orgs could be a richer if we could add that into the policy. throw in a lie detetor test too. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Sept 11, 2009 18:22:25 GMT -5
If it's physical hazing- charge folks with assault/battery
If it's financial hazing- robbery, blackmailing, extortion, etc
If it's mental hazing- harrassment, stalking
Call things what they are. Consent should not be a defense because in of the power-control issues involved. I agree with Kyng that there should be some criminal court proceeding such as a trial. It's not fair that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent... then again that about sums up the justice system right now
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Sept 12, 2009 9:37:25 GMT -5
well certain physical and mental challenges are good for the purpose of a "pledge" process. In several other cases, its just grounds for complete brutality and has nothing to do with tradition...
|
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Sept 12, 2009 15:50:26 GMT -5
An event would only be considered hazing if the hazee protested at some point.; if they willingly participated, even if they said they were intimidated, throw that shyt out! I think this is fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Sept 12, 2009 18:22:07 GMT -5
I concur with King!
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Sept 13, 2009 17:22:42 GMT -5
Thanks you guys! I need someone who is non-greek to volunteer to read a paragraph from an article about the legal treatment of hazing in BGLOs for me and rate its "accessibility." You will be compensated for your time. Hit my inbox. Please and thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Sept 14, 2009 8:49:22 GMT -5
Hmmmm.....
Consent is not a defense. It's not a defense when a 12 year old girl has sex with a 32 year old man nor is it a defense when a two prisoners have sex with each other. Why is it not a defense?
Want to change hazing laws? Good luck. That's gonna be like cancelling or recinding a middle class tax cut or credit. Most people in this country neither understand hazing and our organization nor do they give two shits to try to understand. MOST people in this country see the hazing law to be good as is. As far as they are concerned, a bunch of grown folks making other grown folks do stupid stuff so they can buy some friends and take on an elitish attitude is childish.
What do I think? I believe there is some value in a well structured and standardized pledge process. I also believe that society is constantly evolving and that respect for others and their persons is at an all time low. So couple that lack of respect with a 19-24 year old in authority and you get something that BEGS for regulation.
To your question....I would remove some of the language about mental stress....it's a bit much. Also, some of the stuff about personal hygene, servative and other foolishness.
I believe that if its a crime and it's committed WHILE A PERSON is hazing then it should carry a more stiff penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Sept 14, 2009 9:58:13 GMT -5
^^ so you think that hazing could be an aggravator of another crime...for example, 2nd degree assault carried out in the course of hazing activity should be elevated to 1st degree? Like that?
Or like a death that occurs in the course of hazing is automatically raised from manslaughter/wrongful death to felony murder?
(btw, thanks for focusing at the end of your rant, lol)
To answer your question, consent is not a defense in hazing for the same reason its not a defense in statutory rape. Supposedly the person doing the consenting is automatically (by virtue of the fact that he is pledging) not competent to give consent. Control aspects and so on. By a similar token, I think it offends public sensibilities somewhat to acknowledge that people actually consent to being brutalized for the purpose of joining organizations that are present at almost every school in the country. I think courts believe such an admission would cause a nationwide parental freak-out. Organizations and pledges alike argue that grown people are indeed capable to decide for themselves whether they want to be hazed (physically or otherwise) and the law should reflect it.
Also, for the record, I don't think changing hazing laws will be as hard as your analogy. Judge-made law has nothing to do with what most people in this country understand or "give two shits about." Has everything to do with unanimity of thought and action as far as possible on legal arguments that BGLOs assert in court.
1. Stop settling out of fear of negative press
2. stop encouraging members to plea (!)
3. employ attorneys who understand our culture and who have done research on the way the law is slowly shifting in our favor and who are not afraid to make the arguments
4. play the race card to our advantage
5. Adjust internal policies to reflect the change we wish to see in the law and abide by them (courts look to our policies first when it comes to determining how to treat us legally)
6. stop fighting the universities who are joined to them in lawsuits...work together
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Sept 14, 2009 10:34:57 GMT -5
^^ so you think that hazing could be an aggravator of another crime...for example, 2nd degree assault carried out in the course of hazing activity should be elevated to 1st degree? Like that?
Or like a death that occurs in the course of hazing is automatically raised from manslaughter/wrongful death to felony murder? That's exactly my point. (btw, thanks for focusing at the end of your rant, lol) You're welcome.  To answer your question, consent is not a defense in hazing for the same reason its not a defense in statutory rape. Supposedly the person doing the consenting is automatically (by virtue of the fact that he is pledging) not competent to give consent. Control aspects and so on. By a similar token, I think it offends public sensibilities somewhat to acknowledge that people actually consent to being brutalized for the purpose of joining organizations that are present at almost every school in the country . I knew this but wanted you to break it down for those who may be still singing this tune. I think courts believe such an admission would cause a nationwide parental freak-out. You think it wouldn't? Organizations and pledges alike argue that grown people are indeed capable to decide for themselves whether they want to be hazed (physically or otherwise) and the law should reflect it. I disagree....but we already know this. Also, for the record, I don't think changing hazing laws will be as hard as your analogy. Judge-made law has nothing to do with what most people in this country understand or "give two shits about." Has everything to do with unanimity of thought and action as far as possible on legal arguments that BGLOs assert in court. Ok den...let's examine those recommendations...shall we? 1. Stop settling out of fear of negative pressWe are talking about brand management. It's all about negative press. Also, even if "we" win a case, the public image will be tainted for the NEXT trial...since it will definately happen again. 2. stop encouraging members to plea (!)Chances are...it's the best thing for them. You're examining the cases, I assume. Look at what they have against these members. Now think about how these actions are in some way a function of a lack of control from the National Organization. 3. employ attorneys who understand our culture and who have done research on the way the law is slowly shifting in our favor and who are not afraid to make the argumentsI am not an attorney and do not fully understand the intricate details of legal pugiling but i'll pull on my Matlock and CSI knowledge and give it a shot. :-) I'd call witnesses from schools in the area...put them on the stand or collect a statement about how hazing is not only a part of pledging but it has become an inextricable part of our fraternity culture. See where that slop slides you. 4. play the race card to our advantageThat will only last so long and may not work at all. White fraternities haze all the time. As a matter of fact, they do so as much as if not more than we do. Why do you think they settle? We would be fucking up their game too. 5. Adjust internal policies to reflect the change we wish to see in the law and abide by them (courts look to our policies first when it comes to determining how to treat us legally)I agree 100%. If you want a six week process then write it in the policy. If you want pledges to have a pledge uniform then find a crafty legal way to write it into your process. But you can't say, "They sign up, we have a weekend of fun and then they are members" and then have 6 weeks of smile wipes, "fitness sessions" and "board meetings" and expect the courts to overlook it. This is the biggest reason we DO settle. 6. stop fighting the universities who are joined to them in lawsuits...work togetherInterestingly, universities are starting more and more to see us as liabilities. If we don't straighten up our act....we wont have a place to exist except in graduate chapters. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Sept 14, 2009 10:54:17 GMT -5
Thanks, Cam. I'll be back in a few to go back over these. Btw, I'll be representing what my (exhaustive!) research seems to say and not my own opinion (unless asked specifically what Leja thinks)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Sept 14, 2009 11:09:02 GMT -5
I would expect nothing less from you, Leja. Although I've found it's often the case that people's exhaustive research leads them to conclusions which tend to favor their pre-research views. Be careful.
Oh, and check your Inbox. Gotta question.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Sept 14, 2009 12:01:43 GMT -5
LoL @ the warning. I got this, Papi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Sept 14, 2009 12:17:48 GMT -5
<<== likes it when she calls me Papi
|
|
|
|
Post by BKupInHere on Sept 14, 2009 14:02:44 GMT -5
<<== likes it when she calls me Papi She called you Papi cuz youre OLDER than her father. DONT GET GASSED CAM!!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Sept 14, 2009 14:23:45 GMT -5
I don't care....some stuff sounds good. She could have called me Collard Green Sandwich in another language as long as it sounds sexy. LOL!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Sept 14, 2009 14:25:54 GMT -5
1. Stop settling out of fear of negative press[/color]
We are talking about brand management. It's all about negative press. Also, even if "we" win a case, the public image will be tainted for the NEXT trial...since it will definately happen again.
"We" get the negative press anyway. Most of the hot BGLO hazing news never even makes it into a court of law. As for public image being "tainted," again, that doesn't matter on the appellate level. In the real high-stakes game, there are no juries. These days more and more courts are losing patience with plaintiffs who sign up to get whooped on and snitch expecting a big payout in return. Now is the time to start allowing aspirants to see that BGLOs refuse to take the entire hit because of activity to which they contributed
2. stop encouraging members to plea (!)[/color]
Chances are...it's the best thing for them. You're examining the cases, I assume. Look at what they have against these members. Now think about how these actions are in some way a function of a lack of control from the National Organization.
Certainly not. A full scale trial is far too complex to pull off without some inappropriate appeal to out-of-court information. A lawyer who is worth his salt will "object!" until he gets tired or the case gets thrown out. Either way, frivolous snitches will eventually realize that the majority of people suing orgs are coming out with nothing. (This is true.) If a hazer is gangsta enough to hospitalize someone, they should be gangsta enough to say "so sue me!" And not for nothing, only deep-pocket National bodies really have any pleading-power. Individuals who plea for hazing usually go to jail anyway.
3. employ attorneys who understand our culture and who have done research on the way the law is slowly shifting in our favor and who are not afraid to make the arguments
I am not an attorney and do not fully understand the intricate details of legal pugiling but i'll pull on my Matlock and CSI knowledge and give it a shot. :-) I'd call witnesses from schools in the area...put them on the stand or collect a statement about how hazing is not only a part of pledging but it has become an inextricable part of our fraternity culture. See where that slop slides you.
That's not what I'm saying. At all. I can't tell if you understood me or if you were just trying to be negative. At any rate, for clarification's sake, I'm saying that there is no reason organizations need to hold themselves prisoner to laws that have been overturned (or that soon will be, based on the trends). It is no longer 1991. Lawyers who want to work will make the forward-thinking arguments that get "us" out from under the thumb of outdated bench law.
4. play the race card to our advantage
That will only last so long and may not work at all. White fraternities haze all the time. As a matter of fact, they do so as much as if not more than we do. Why do you think they settle? We would be fucking up their game too.
At this point, many people feel that the law is unjust and does not adequately account for our cultural particularities and our organizations suffer because of it. Facially neutral laws with an inordinate disproportionate impact are simply not permissible. Because of BGLOs' general paralysis on liability issues and avoidance of the court at all costs (even to assert their own constitutional rights), no one has thought to seek restitution. Someone has to raise the argument that gets the ball rolling in the other direction.
5. Adjust internal policies to reflect the change we wish to see in the law and abide by them (courts look to our policies first when it comes to determining how to treat us legally)
I agree 100%. If you want a six week process then write it in the policy. If you want pledges to have a pledge uniform then find a crafty legal way to write it into your process. But you can't say, "They sign up, we have a weekend of fun and then they are members" and then have 6 weeks of smile wipes, "fitness sessions" and "board meetings" and expect the courts to overlook it. This is the biggest reason we DO settle.
Interestingly, there is one organization that punishes its members so harshly for "MIP violations" (apparently in an attempt to show that they are serious about cracking down on hazing) that it actually implicates itself even further for each subsequent case against them. Ask me how/why if you care.
6. stop fighting the universities who are joined to them in lawsuits...work together
Interestingly, universities are starting more and more to see us as liabilities. If we don't straighten up our act....we wont have a place to exist except in graduate chapters.
This is sad but true. And the question is: If a BGLO is joined to a University in a lawsuit, how on earth do you NOT get your org banned for life from that school? The answer has to do with disclosure and cooperation. Universities are not "our" enemy. Not enough BGLOs recognize how important their buy-in is
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Feb 2, 2010 13:26:06 GMT -5
These days more and more courts are losing patience with plaintiffs who sign up to get whooped on and snitch expecting a big payout in return. Now is the time to start allowing aspirants to see that BGLOs refuse to take the entire hit because of activity to which they contributed [/color][/quote] In the end, it’s still the member that 1) Violated the rules, 2) holds the upper hand in the control relationship, and 3) represents the organization. It’s true that the pledge also violated the rules and their punishment should follow the guidelines laid out in the material which includes not gaining membership. That is their punishment. If the entire reason we are at this point is because someone wanted membership and someone else wanted to deny them membership. If membership is so valuable that one would be willing to break the law to protect it…then they should accept the consequences. The pledge will also accept the consequences but we can’t complain that their consequences aren’t as harsh as ours. …frivolous snitches will eventually realize that the majority of people suing orgs are coming out with nothing. (This is true.) If a hazer is gangsta enough to hospitalize someone, they should be gangsta enough to say "so sue me!" And not for nothing, only deep-pocket National bodies really have any pleading-power. Individuals who plea for hazing usually go to jail anyway. [/color][/quote] What is a “frivolous snitch?” I agree that hazers should be the one’s taking the blame but then again, how do we define hazing? As it currently stands, the fact that members go “off the plantation” during a process and add a little flava is considered hazing and usually ends up in the lawsuit as non-sanctioned intake practices. So the only way to ensure this doesn’t happen is for everyone to stay with the program. Also, many hazing incidents were acts that have been carried out many times without incident and then BAMM! One time it goes wrong and is found out. That’s how it happens. The fact that it had been done many times without problem doesn’t make it any more legal. I can't tell if you understood me or if you were just trying to be negative. At any rate, for clarification's sake, I'm saying that there is no reason organizations need to hold themselves prisoner to laws that have been overturned (or that soon will be, based on the trends). It is no longer 1991. Lawyers who want to work will make the forward-thinking arguments that get "us" out from under the thumb of outdated bench law. [/color][/quote] I’m not trying to be negative…not at all. I’m just saying that the arguments against these laws are bad. They were bad in 1991 and are bad now. While they make sense to those who have experienced a process, they don’t make sense to much of the rest of the world. Also, you run into people that pledged in college and are now in their 60’s, comfortable, and listening to stories of Sigma’s hitting pledges with frying pans or “Pikes” making pledges sit in a bathtub full of hot crab boil…you are not putting your reputation on the line to help these idiots. It’s not worth it. At this point, many people feel that the law is unjust and does not adequately account for our cultural particularities and our organizations suffer because of it. Facially neutral laws with an inordinate disproportionate impact are simply not permissible. Because of BGLOs' general paralysis on liability issues and avoidance of the court at all costs (even to assert their own constitutional rights), no one has thought to seek restitution. Someone has to raise the argument that gets the ball rolling in the other direction. [/color][/quote] You know I absolutely love you but this one made me chuckle a bit. At a point where fewer and fewer African American men finish high school, fewer enter college, even fewer finish college and yet we want to argue that we need the right to kick someone in the ass or AT LEAST make them do push ups? I don’t know, Leja. I guess the real question here is of what “cultural particularities” does the law not account? How do we account for the same hazing incidents occurring in non-BGLO’s? Interestingly, there is one organization that punishes its members so harshly for "MIP violations" (apparently in an attempt to show that they are serious about cracking down on hazing) that it actually implicates itself even further for each subsequent case against them. Ask me how/why if you care. [/color][/quote] I would love to know. This is sad but true. And the question is: If a BGLO is joined to a University in a lawsuit, how on earth do you NOT get your org banned for life from that school? The answer has to do with disclosure and cooperation. Universities are not "our" enemy. Not enough BGLOs recognize how important their buy-in is [/color][/quote] You get no argument from me on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Feb 2, 2010 16:48:14 GMT -5
Interesting convo... Just to chime in I hope most know that hazing laws around the country were "updated" in the 90's and early 2000's not implemented. An example is the state of Texas original hazing law was implemented in 1913. After the BGLO Presidents fraudently back doored their organizations using the NPHC as a body to do away with the process, shortly after you saw these laws being updated that in most cases were made for BGLO's specifically.
The greed of the President's for a meaker process to get more money from Undergraduates is what this was and is about. Until there is a dialogue in concern to that then this argument is pointless in my estimation. Getting hazing laws changed wouldn't be feasable because its to broad and would encompass other groups. Trying to obtain a historical and spiritual relevance clause would be more advantageous.
An example is Ernest E Just participated in a rites of passage called Seekin or term the Seekin Ritual which was a Gullah custom in James Island, South Carolina. The aformentioned custom was based on Angola tradition among other countries from Africa. We also have customs that took place in New Orleans, Florida, etc. Many rites of passage rituals BGLO's in some way shape or form have borrowed from. It can be shown how there is a connection thus proving historical and spiritual relevance. There would not be a circle march/step done as tradition in all BGLO's if there was not first a Ring Shout which was done on the plantation. Circumcision ritual rites of passage is still done throughout the continent of Africa to this day that all show similiarities to what BGLO's do.
In the end if folks don't like the pledge process and the physical/mental task/test that come along with it then I can respect that. My problem is when folks still want to be apart of an organization anyway. Our organizations have become beacons who cater to everyone for money and the inaction of some brothers and sisters who pledged shouldn't be the lynch pin of any argument as to why the pledge process shouldn't take place. Following that logic I guess if a parent has provided well for a child in every capacity but that child still succumbs to lifes twist and turns then the government needs to step in to replace the parents. As far as I'm concerned SOME long-term inactivity of members has no inclination that the pledge process is flawed.
|
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
