|
August 10, 2007
"Who wants to go through a perp walk?"
Here's an update on the case I posted about over the weekend in which a university dean was charged with something (criminal negligence, I guess), because a student drank himself to death in a hazing ritual. The dean, Anthony Campbell, has pleaded not guilty. What this means is that apparently the DA thinks he has a criminal case against the dean, although I still can't figure out precisely what the legal theory of criminal liability is. Neither can the dean's lawyer: Before yesterday's hearing, Campbell's lawyer, Rocco Cipparone Jr., said his client wasn't at the party and played no role in arranging it.Let's say you're a dean. Students have a fraternity party, and one drinks himself to death. Does the fact that you know the fraternity is there, and that underage students might at some point break alcohol laws constitute "organizing, promoting or facilitating"? The most I can see is possible civil negligence. But the theory seems to be that the dean committed a felony by failing to adequately police these young men (some of whom were legally allowed to drink, some of whom were not). As I said before, if he's criminally liable for their drinking, then why not their sexual behavior? I don't think they have a good case, and while I initially suspected prosecutorial grandstanding, for some reason the DA is neither quoted nor mentioned in today's report. But the desire to send a message is: Doug Fierberg, a lawyer who's represented hazing victims since the mid-1990s, said it's rare for a university official to be held responsible for hazing.I'm wondering why the DA (Joseph Bocchini Jr.) isn't mentioned, and why he isn't spelling out his theory of the dean's crime. If he brought this case just because wanted to "send a message to deans across the country," that's not enough. By his status of being a dean sitting in his office (he had nothing to do with the party), he had less direct involvement in student drinking than the liquor store which sold them the booze, and no DA would charge a liquor store owner criminally for legal sales to adults -- notwithstanding the fact that liquor sales could be logically construed as "facilitating" fatal alcohol consumption. I think this is a bad case. posted by Eric on 08.10.07 at 10:08 AM
Comments
Didn't the fate of Nifong "send a message" to all the other DA's in the country? Political grandstanding cases will backfire on you. Brandon · August 10, 2007 11:35 AM I cannot wait for the specious arguments to be laid out. If the dean is guilty by proxy ... what of the security guards ... and the alumnus, and the parents who paid for it all! And WHO sold this alcohol? Who distributed it ... who made it? mdmhvonpa · August 10, 2007 12:10 PM Political grandstanding cases will backfire on you ...once every couple centuries or so, maybe, but never too badly. Nifong's not facing prison, will still likely collect his pension, and has merely been disbarred, and removed from duty. The only significant harm he's sustained is to his name. No prosecutor has ever received real criminal punishment (i.e., jail time) for misonduct, however egregious. There's no risk. They can do anything they want. So they do. Suspect · August 10, 2007 01:34 PM "No prosecutor has ever received real criminal punishment (i.e., jail time) for misonduct, however egregious." I'd say it's time a young hotshot attorney changes that precedent! Nothing gratifies the citizenry more than to see a tyrant in the government locked up. Brett · August 11, 2007 09:16 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Day in recovery
How guns make good criminals bad Problems in Asia Might As Well Be Walking On The Moon Gavin Newsom speaks, but with credibility? Prohibition works almost as well as socialism! "Who wants to go through a perp walk?" Climate Audit Hit Yes, terrorists sell drugs too. queen of clean for a day?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I agree this is a bad case. Under that line of reasoning any public employee could be held guilty if anyone in a state dies of alcohol because the state licenses the sale of it. In fact you could even go after the president and congress because of Federal regulations and laws which were broken.