2017843681

2017842291
2017840881

ERADICATING SENSELESS DEATHS CAUSED BY SO-CALLED BROTHERS:

Proposed Amendments to the Anti-Hazing Law Commented [SLP1]: Great title.

I. The need for amendments to the Anti-Hazing Law

A. Current situation of hazing in the Philippines
I. Statistics on Deaths due to Hazing
Based on news reports, and records for the SC, Senate and House of
Representatives, there were at least 31 deaths caused by hazing or
initiation rightsrites of fraternities and training institutions since 1954, the
year when the first hazing victim was reported.

Of the 31 deaths due to hazing victims since 1954: Commented [SLP2]: By “victims” you mean killed?
Technically, those who were beaten and abused during
 15 or more from public learning institutions (State Universities or these rites are still victims even if they survived. What is
Colleges, and High School) your delimitation here?

 13 from private schools and institutions

 1 from Philippine Army
 1 from DepEd's Alternative Learning System
 1 has no available data
(Data as of October 3, 2017)

B. Jurisprudence on hazing in the Philippines

 Hazing is defined in R.A. 8049 as an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial,
silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him
to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
Hazing has been a phenomenon that has beleaguered the country's
educational institutions and communities. News of young men beaten to
death as part of fraternities' violent initiation rites supposedly to seal
fraternal bond has sent disturbing waves to lawmakers. Hence, R.A. No.
8049 was signed into to law. (Dungo vs. People) Add a portion on what
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
defines hazing; what is the purpose of hazing and its attachment to the
concept of “brotherhood” – this is in your title, after all.

 People v. Bayabos (Extent of liability of schools and school authorities
under R.A. 8049, the Anti-Hazing Law)
 Dungo v. People (Violation of R.A. 8049)
 Villareal v. People (Before the enactment of R.A. 8049, thereby making the
accused guilty of the crime Reckless Imprudence resulting Homicide as
there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.)
 People v. Bayabos (Extent of liability of schools and school authorities
under R.A. 8049, the Anti-Hazing Law)
 Dungo v. People (Violation of R.A. 8049)
 In Bayabos, the criminal information charging the respondents do not
include all the material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to hazing.
There was also no allegation that the act of hazing employed was a pre
requisite for admission or entry into the fraternity.
 In this case, Petitioners Dungo and Sibal’s conviction was affirmed by the
Supreme Court because the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution was overwhelming enough to establish the guilt of the
petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact of hazing, the identity of
the parties as officers of their fraternity, and their participation were enough
to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

expand on this some more. This is the only decision so far which handed a
guilty verdict. You have to explain why this case was different. What was
done differently; what facts make this case distinct. Commented [SLP3]: I think this flow in the discussion
makes more sense.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering


II. Proposal: Who to make liable?

A. Who are currently liable for death and injuries due to hazing
Sec. 4 of R.A. 8049
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
 Officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who
participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals if the
person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical
injury or dies as a result thereof.
 The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an
accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
 If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the
fraternity, group, or organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals
when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to
take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
 School authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who
have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the
same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing
committed by the perpetrators.
 The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or
sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts
constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals.
 A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present when the acts constituting the
hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from
occurring shall be liable as principal.
 The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the
acts punishable herein.

B. Persons proposed to become liable under proposed amendments

1. School
2. School officials

C. Justification: , why make them liable? For what purpose?

1. What is fair, define.
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
Fairness means the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or
injustice; evenhandedness. It is the quality of being reasonable, right, and just. It
is usually related to the concept of justice which involves what is right and equal.

III. Proposal: Total ban and an improved implementation

A. During the existence of the Anti-Hazing Law, there has been only one acquittal for
violation of the said law. This despite the fact that there has been at least 18 cases of deaths due
to hazing since its enactment. Moreover, there are only a few cases of death due to hazing that
has reached the Supreme Court simply because some were dismissed from the lower courts for
different reasons such as procedural grounds or lack of evidence that would establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt on the part of the accused in their participation in the act of hazing.
With the facts established in the cases of Villareal and Dungo, initiation rites that include
hazing are done by the fraternities/organizations as a whole wherein several members of the
fraternity will participate through various roles and in different situations which could break the
chain of events that will establish whether an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be
criminally liable for hazing.
It was recognized in Dungo that secrecy and silence are common characteristics of the
dynamics of hazing. Fraternities, sororities, or organizations conducting this would resort to
different schemes in order for them to conceal such activity. Secrecy and silence will only be
broken after someone is already hurt and would require medical attention.
Due to this nature of the dynamics of hazing, it is almost impossible for Sections 2 and 3
of the Anti-Hazing Law to be implemented. Commented [E4]: HELP express: Hazing is usually done
secretly and physical harm is always an integral part of
initiation rites to solidify brotherhood and relation between
You should discuss here local cases you have examined which led to acquittal. You need brods/sisters. Tolerance of hazing in RA 8049 is almost
useless. Total ban on hazing could prevent acquittals the
to justify your proposal for total ban by using these acquittals as your basis. Will total ban prevent fact of conducting hazing alone would be a violation of the
law
these acquittals? What “improved implementation” are you proposing? Maybe you should
subsume here your discussion on making schools and school officials liable as part of “improved
implementation”?
B. How to what? Commented [E5]: Dito siguro yung methodology?
C.B. Is it possible to what??
1. Compare with Anti-hazing law of other countries

Summary of American Legislation

2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
Several states have legislation specifically aimed at outlawing hazing. The
statutes generally prohibit any willful acts that recklessly or intentionally
endanger the physical health of a student. Some statutes include mental
health as a component of hazing; and some including drug and alcohol
abuse. Other states do not have specific anti-hazing statutes; instead they
continue to apply traditional criminal statutes to the specific aspects of
hazing.

Alabama – Code, ss. 16-1-23

- Alabama has enacted legislation making hazing a Class C misdemeanor.
The legislation prohibits “[a]ny willful act which recklessly or intentionally
endangers the mental or physical health of any student.” It includes willfully
striking, beating, bruising or maiming, as well as attempting or threatening
such acts. Furthermore, the Code prohibits encouraging, aiding and
assisting in hazing. An additional punishment for knowing participation or
knowing permission by students or institutions is the forfeiture of, and
ineligibility to receive, public funds and scholarships.
(Alabama Code, Education, online at:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm)

Arkansas – Arkansas Code ss. 6-5-201 to 204

- Arkansas has enacted legislation making hazing a Class B misdemeanor.
The statute prohibits the specific act of hazing as well as aiding or assisting
in hazing. The statute contains a very broad definition of hazing (6-5-201).
Interestingly, an additional punishment is the required expulsion of any
convicted student from the educational institution he or she attends.
(Arkansas Code, Education Section online at:
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau/Publications/Arkansas%20Code/Title
%206.pdf)

Connecticut - Crimes 53-23a

⁃ Connecticut legislation prohibits the endangerment of the health and
safety of a person for the purpose of initiation. Individuals may be fined up
to $1,000. Student organizations may be fined $1500 and they forfeit their
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
rights at the educational institution.
(Connecticut Crimes, Offences Against the Person online at:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap939.htm)

Colorado – Criminal Code s. 18-9-124

⁃ The Colorado provisions pertaining to hazing recognize that existing
criminal law provisions may not be adequate in addressing the health and
safety of students. The statute provides that hazing is a Class 3
misdemeanor. It prohibits the reckless endangerment of the health or
safety of others for the purposes of initiation.
(The Colorado hazing provisions can be found in the following database:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp)

Delaware – Delaware Code, Title 14, ss. 9301 to 9304

⁃ The Delaware Code makes hazing a Class B misdemeanor. It assumes
that initiation is a forced activity. Additionally, all institutions are required to
adopt and enforce a written anti- hazing policy.
(Delaware Code, Education, Anti-Hazing Law online at:
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/c093/index.shtml)

Florida – Education Code, s. 1006-63

⁃ The reckless or intentional act of hazing another person resulting in
serious bodily injury or death is a third degree felony in Florida. ‘Hazing’ is
a first degree misdemeanor when it creates a substantial risk of physical
injury or death. The governing provisions require anyone convicted of
hazing to participate in a hazing education course. Consent is not
considered a defense to hazing. The provisions further require educational
institutions to adopt written anti- hazing policies and penalties.
(Florida Education Code online at:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&
Search_String=&URL=Ch1006/Sec63.HTM)

Idaho – Hazing s. 18-917

⁃ In Idaho, hazing is a misdemeanor. Their Code prohibits members of
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
student organizations from engaging or conspiring to intentionally haze.
Hazing is defined as physical harm or danger.
(Idaho Code online at:
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH9SECT18-917.htm)

Illinois – ss. 720 ILCS 120/5 and 720 ILCS 120/10

⁃ Hazing is a Class A misdemeanor unless the hazing results in death or
great bodily harm, then it is a Class 4 felony. Legislation in Illinois prohibits
the performance of an act by a person at an educational institution that is
not sanctioned by that institution, or the act results in bodily harm to any
person.
(Illinois Compiled Statutes online at:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1880&ChapAct=720%
26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B120%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=
CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Hazing+Act%2E)

Indiana – Code s. 35-42-2-2

⁃ Depending on the severity of the outcome, hazing can be either a
misdemeanor or a felony in Indiana. The Code offers immunity for good
faith reporting of hazing. Indiana defines hazing as an act required for
membership that encompasses a substantial risk of bodily harm.
(Indiana Code online at:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch2.html)

Iowa – s. 708.10
- Hazing is a simple misdemeanor unless there is serious bodily injury
which makes the offence a serious misdemeanor. Iowa defines hazing as
a forced activity which endangers the physical health of a student for the
sake of initiation.
(Iowa Code online at: http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-
ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83)

Kansas – s. 21-3434
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
- Hazing is a Class B misdemeanor in Kansas. Their Code prohibits
intentionally demanding or encouraging another person to perform an act,
which could reasonably be expected to result in great bodily harm, for
initiation purposes.
(Kansas Code online at: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-
statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-3434.html)

Kentucky – Code s. 164.375

- Kentucky legislators have placed the burden for drafting and enacting
anti-hazing policies on universities and colleges. The Code states that
penalties to be included in such policies are expulsion or suspension. If
student organizations are involved in the hazing activities they too may be
expelled from operating on campus.
(Kentucky Code online at: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/164-00/375.PDF)

Louisiana –Code, Title 17, s. 1801

⁃ Louisiana’s hazing provisions prohibit any method of initiation that is likely
to cause bodily danger or physical punishment to a student. Punishment
includes fines up to $100 and/or imprisonment terms from 10 days to no
more than 30 days, in addition to expulsion from the educational institution.
(Louisiana Code online at:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=79979)

Maine – Education Code, Title 20-A, ss. 10004 and 6553

⁃ Maine defines hazing as “any action or situation which recklessly or
intentionally endangers the mental or physical health of a student enrolled
at an institution in this State”. The penalties and rules for such an offence
are to be drafted and enacted by the school board or the board of trustees.
The policies will then be disseminated to students.
(Maine Code online at: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/20-
A/title20-Asec10004.html)
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
Massachusetts - Title 1, Chapter 269, ss. 17 to 19
⁃ An organizer or participant of hazing in Massachusetts is liable to be fined
not more than $3,000 and/or imprisoned not more than one year.
Additionally, there are provisions for the failure to report an incident of
hazing. Such incidents shall be punished by a maximum fine.
Organizations are also responsible to acknowledge annually the receipt of
notification of state hazing law.
(Massachusetts Code online at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-
17.html)

Michigan - Anti-Hazing Act, MCL 750.411t

⁃ Michigan prohibits hazing at any educational institution. Hazing is defined
as “an intentional, knowing, or reckless act by a person acting alone or with
others that is directed against an individual and that endangers the physical
health or safety of the individual, done for the purpose of pledging, being
initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding office in, or maintaining
membership in any organization.” Consent is not a defense to a charge of
hazing in Michigan. Depending on the severity of the crime, the punishment
ranges from a misdemeanor to a felony.
(Michigan Anti-Hazing Act online at:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yovmnkyfmnmo5155khxpgn55))/mileg.as
pxpage=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-411t)

Minnesota – Code, ss. 120B.22, 128C.02 and 121A.69

⁃ Minnesota prohibits acts causing a substantial risk of harm to a student
for the purpose of initiation. School boards and school sports leagues must
adopt written anti-hazing polices and anti-violence education in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the Code.
(Minnesota Code online at:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=121A.69)

Missouri –Code, ss. 578.360, 578.363 and 578.365

⁃ Missouri includes both physical and mental safety in their definition of
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
hazing. Missouri has made general hazing a Class A misdemeanor.
However, it is a Class C felony if the act creates a substantial risk to the life
of the person. Furthermore, educational institutions must adopt written
policies prohibiting hazing by student organizations.
(Missouri Code online at: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-
599/5780000360.htm)

Nebraska – Revised Statute, ss. 28-311.06 to 28-311.07

⁃ Nebraska has enacted laws making hazing a Class II misdemeanor. Any
organization whose members commit hazing may be fined up to $10,000.
Hazing is defined as any activity where an individual intentionally or
recklessly endangers the physical or mental safety of another for the
purpose of initiation.
(Nebraska Revised Statute online at:
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-311.06)

New Hampshire – Criminal Code, ss. 631:7

Hazing is a Class B misdemeanor in New Hampshire. The offence includes
failing to report hazing. Educational institutions may also be charged with
a misdemeanor if they "knowingly permit or condone” hazing or “negligently
fail” to take adequate measures to prevent student hazing.
(New Hampshire Code, online at:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-7.htm)

Ohio – Revised Code, ss. 2903.31 and 2307.44

Those found guilty of hazing are guilty of a misdemeanor in the fourth
degree. Civil liability for hazing extends to local and national directors,
trustees and officers who authorized or tolerated hazing. However,
educational institutions may use an anti-hazing policy as an affirmative
defense. Certain governmental immunity is waived for educational
institutions in hazing cases and university officials as well as national
fraternity officials may, under certain circumstances, be liable.
(Ohio Revised Code, online at: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903 and
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.44)

Vermont - 16 V.S.A.,. ss. 140(a) - (d)

Hazing is defined as an “intentional, knowing or reckless act committed by
a student, whether individually or in concert with others, against another
student” in connection with initiation. The statute provides for a civil fine of
not more than $5,000. The consent or acquiescence of the victim is not a
defense to a hazing charge.
(Vermont Code online at:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16&Chapter=001
&Section=00140b)

Virginia – Code, ss. 18.2-56

Hazing is a Class 1 misdemeanor, unless the aspect of the act would
normally constitute a felony. The definition of hazing in Virginia does not
include a connection to initiation. The definition simply states that hazing is
“to cause bodily injury, any student at any school, college, or university”. A
victim has the right to civil action against offenders regardless of their age.
(Code of Virginia online at: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-
bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-56)

Washington – Revised Code, ss. 28B.10.900 to 28B.10.902

Hazing is a misdemeanor in Washington. Any organization that knowingly

permits hazing is strictly liable for harm caused. The definition is limited,
however, to the hazing of students attending institutions of higher learning
or post-secondary institutions.
(Washington Revised Code online at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.10.900)

Wisconsin – Code, ss. 948.51

Hazing is defined as a forced activity and is a Class A misdemeanor if the
act is likely to result in bodily harm to a person. The offence is a Class E
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
felony if the act results in great bodily harm or death of a person.
(Wisconsin Code online at:
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=
stats&jd=948.51)

Please include in your outline your proposed methodology in crafting your Formatted: Left
proposed amendments. Also include a tentative conclusion part in your outline,
specifically which provisions of the law you think needs to be amended.

Formatted: Left

IV. Conclusion

The Anti-Hazing Law was enacted to discourage the use of hazing as means of
initiation rites for organizations like fraternities or sororities. However, in its 22 years of
existence, there has only been one conviction despite numerous reported incidents of
deaths due to hazing. Considering the number of deaths resulting from hazing activity
despite the existence of the law and the low conviction rate due to series of
circumstances which affect proving of the guilt of accused parties, merely regulating
hazing activities is not enough. Total ban on the conduct of any hazing activity and
imposition of more stringent penalties is the step forward towards curbing the culture of
violence and suffering to foster brotherhood among organization members.

Section 2 of the law should be amended such that no hazing or initiation rites in
any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed.

An additional section should be included imposing strict liability towards school

officials who permit, consent, and tolerate any form of hazing in all forms of organization
composed of students of their school. Such strict liability should also be imposed if the
school officials has knowledge of any hazing activity but did not do anything to prevent
such act.
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881

INTRODUCTION

He was going to be inducted as the newest member of the brotherhood, what was
supposed to be a night of celebration turned into the final night of a young aspiring law student.
Hazing is currently an issue that is wildly talked about in the Philippines. The death of University
of Sto. Tomas first year law student Horacio Castillo III sparked flames on the discussions of
proposed amendments to Republic Act 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law. The only wish of the parents,
relatives and friends of “Atio” is that his death be given justice, the perpetrators be put behind
bars and that his life, be the last life that is taken by the senseless violence brought about by
hazing through improving the current Anti-hazing law.

The enactment of the Anti-hazing law in 1995 did not put an end to the use of hazing as a
form of initiation or test for one to be admitted to a particular fraternity, sorority, etc. as can be
apparent from the numerous occurrences of deaths and injuries suffered by neophytes. It was the
case of Ateneo Law student Leonardo Lenny Villa in 1991 after he joined the Aquila Legis
fraternity and was killed in their initiation rites that the legislators found the necessity to create a
law that condemns hazing as a form of initiation in the Philippines. Despite the many reported
incidents throughout the years, however, the families of the victims are still finding it hard to get
the justice that they seek for. Up to the present there has only been one conviction under the Anti-
hazing law and it came only in 2015, 20 years after the law has been passed, with the case of
University of the Philippines Los Banos Baños student Marlon Villanueva in 2006 in the hands of
the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity.
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
There is a need for further amendments and improvements to the Anti-Hazing law
specifically a provision which imposes strict liability tort towards school officials when it is proven
that hazing is permitted by them to go on in sororities, fraternities, etc.

Sections 2 & 3 of RA 8049 must be amended.

“Sec. 2. No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a

fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without prior
written notice to the school authorities or head of organization
seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation. The written
notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities which shall
not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be
subjected to such activities, and shall further contain an undertaking
that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such
initiation rites.

Sec. 3. The head of the school or organization or their

representatives must assign at least two (2) representatives of the
school or organization, as the case may be, to be present during
the initiation. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no
physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte
or applicant.”

Right nowUnder the law, hazing is merely regulated. It is still allowed provided a written
notice that hazing will be done in an initiation rite is given to the school authorities or head of the
organization prior to such conduct and that a representative be tasked to supervise that no
physical harm is done upon the recruit.

The use of the term “physical harm” should be amended expanded to include not only
physical harm but shall include hazing as defined by the law itself as any embarrassing or
humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. If possible,
it would be better if the use of hazing in an initiation rite should banned altogether and albeit
completely.
2017843681
2017842291
2017840881
Furthermore, we believe that school officials should be made directly liable should any Commented [SLP6]: Since this is a formal paper, you
should avoid referring to yourselves in the first person.
form of hazing be done by any student enrolled in their school, this would be a good way to
implement the anti-hazing law because as of now, the law is not well implemented because of the
lacking participation of the school itself. The only measures that a school does to prevent hazing
is making the students sign an agreement as a condition of enrollment not to join any fraternity or
sorority orsorority or in some schools not to participate in any form of hazing and violence
in fraternities and sororities.

[We are of the belief], The trend in jurisprudence from different jurisdictions show that the
school should play a more active role in ensuring that students will not indeed participate in the
activities prohibited by RA 8049, for this we propose that the schools should be strictly liable for
any violation of the Anti-hazing law in order to make them more active in the fight against the
Commented [SLP7]: Again reference to yourselves
should be avoided. Also, you cannot just say that it is your
belief. What is your basis for stating that schools should
have more active roles? You cited a lot of cases from
different jurisdictions, didn’t you find anything here that will
justify your proposal?

senseless deaths caused by hazing. Formatted: Highlight

In the case of Mitchell vs. Cedar Rapids Community School District the Court drew a
distinction for “risks arising at school but materializing at some later time.” While the harm
D.E. suffered was ultimately caused by a third party, M.F., the Court held that that the school
district could still be found liable because the kind of harm she suffered was foreseeable by the
school district and could have been prevented with proper precautions. This is a case that proves
that a school may still held liable even if the harm was caused to the student outside school
premises which is usually the case in fraternities and sororities initiation rites.

This thesis will not only discuss Anti-Hazing law in the Philippines but shall also compare
the different Anti-hazing laws all throughout the world in order to be able to see where our lawthe Formatted: Highlight
Anti-Hazing Law of 1995 can be improved and to be able to get more ideas on how to better
implement such law in the Philippines. Jurisprudence will be examined so as to see where
complaints for Anti-hazing goes wrong as compared to the one case of conviction which
prospered leading to the imprisonment of the defendants in the case.

The need for amendments to the law is important and relevant because wasting lives,
especially of young students who still has the world in their hands, should be stopped. Even if one
says that they can be faulted because they joined such sororities and fraternities, it is still not a
good reason to justify torturing them and subjecting them to physical and psychological pain.
Brotherhood and sisterhood can be fostered through better means.