Establish the crime of hazing and to provide a penalty therefor.
Summary
House Bill 1090 would create a new criminal offense for hazing in South Dakota. It defines hazing broadly as conduct that recklessly endangers a person’s health or safety, or creates a risk of extreme psychological distress or bodily injury, when done for purposes of initiation or admission into, or affiliation with, an organization connected to a school, college, or university. The bill makes hazing a Class 1 misdemeanor, but elevates it to a Class 6 felony if the conduct causes serious bodily injury.
The bill also states that a victim’s consent is not a defense to prosecution. At the same time, it carves out exceptions for reasonable and customary athletic practices, competitions, and events, as well as authorized law enforcement or military training. In effect, the measure would add a specific hazing statute to chapter 22-18 of the South Dakota criminal code and give prosecutors a clearer basis to charge harmful initiation practices.
Impact
If enacted, HB1090 would add a new criminal statute to South Dakota law and expand the state’s ability to prosecute hazing in school-related organizations. It would affect students, fraternities, sororities, athletic groups, clubs, and other organizations operating in connection with schools, colleges, or universities, while excluding ordinary sports and sanctioned training activities. The bill would also create a higher felony penalty when hazing results in serious bodily injury, increasing potential criminal exposure for severe incidents.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. In committee, it was deferred to the 41st legislative day by a 9-4 vote, indicating that a majority favored keeping the bill alive but a substantial minority had reservations. No transcript discussion is available, so the record shows support for addressing hazing as a safety issue, but not consensus on the bill’s approach or timing.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly hazing is defined, whether the criminal penalties are appropriate, and how to distinguish prohibited hazing from legitimate athletic or training activities. The inclusion of psychological distress in the definition may also raise concerns about proof and enforcement. Opponents may have been wary of criminalizing conduct in student organizations too broadly, while supporters likely viewed the bill as necessary to deter dangerous initiation practices and protect students from harm.