"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.

"I'm not aware of any set of facts and circumstances that could remotely serve as a basis for a conviction of a crime," he said.

Standing with Campbell after the hearing, Cipparone said his client had received many supportive phone calls and e-mails. He described Campbell as a "very caring dean of students."

If convicted of the hazing charge, the officials and fraternity members would face a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

Prosecutors said the defendants "knowingly or recklessly organized, promoted, facilitated or engaged in conduct which resulted in serious bodily injury" to DeVercelly and another student, William Williams, who survived.

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.

"This involves a watershed event where the public has to recognize that universities have to be safe and have to take these kinds of events seriously," said Fierberg, who's been retained by DeVercelly's parents.

Henry Nuwer, a college professor who's studied campus hazing for years, said the case will send a strong message to higher education officials about their accountability for hazings.

"Who wants to go through a perp walk? That would scare anyone to death. It's not what you go into teaching for. The pay isn't good enough," said Nuwer, an assistant professor of journalism at Franklin College in Franklin, Ind.

Nuwer said it will be difficult for prosecutors to prove Campbell and Badgley committed a crime.

"I haven't seen the reckless disregard you would need for a conviction," Nuwer said.

Campbell and Badgley are still employed by the university. A university spokesman, Jonathan Meer, has said a decision on their status is expected next week.

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





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5374






Comments

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.

Fritz J.   ·  August 10, 2007 10:37 AM

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.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



August 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits