Reference no: EM133943573

Question

Michael was a nineteen-year-old pledge of the Pi Delta Psi fraternity. At an early December weekend retreat in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains, Michael and the other pledges were blindfolded, outfitted with backpacks weighted with sand, and forced to cross a frozen yard while taking blows from fraternity members. During the ritual, Michael kicked one of the men tackling him. In retaliation, fraternity members struck him more forcefully and pushed him to the ground, each knock amplified by the weight of the backpack. Michael lost consciousness. While some of the fraternity members searched the Internet for terms like "Concussion can't wake up," others tried to hide evidence linking them to his injuries. After an hour, three members took Michael to a nearby hospital, where he eventually died from brain damage. A doctor at the hospital determined that his head injuries were so severe that they would have required "hundreds of pounds" of force. At trial, one of the fraternity members known to have struck Michael was found guilty of third degree murder, or "acting with extreme indifference to human life. Under state sentencing guidelines, the penalties for third degree murder without a deadly weapon can range from six to forty years in prison. These guidelines are, however, not mandatory. You are the sentencing judge in this trial. You have several factors to consider. The defendant had no previous criminal record. As his lawyer argued, "This was a scared kid who clearly had no intention to commit any crimes that weekend. When the accident occurred, he used bad judgment." At the same time, the defendant did help try to cover up the crime and lied to police about his involvement in Michael's death. Furthermore, a harsh punishment would send the message that the criminal justice system does not condone violent fraternity hazing.

Choosing from the dispositions in the text, how would you sentence the defendant? Explain your rationale.