Prison for Krzyston is unfair and won’t curb underage drinking
This story’s language has been clarified to emphasize that Krzyston has not been convicted of a crime.
On Jan. 14, Alexander Krzyston will attend the preliminary hearing regarding his role in the death of Matthew Sunshine, who died after playing a drinking game with others in his residence hall. Krzyston, who police allege provided the alcohol for Sunshine and others on the night of the death, was charged on Dec. 14 with the felony count of “unlawful delivery of liquor to a minor.” This makes him culpable in Sunshine’s death, according to the Evanston Police press release.
If Kryzston did supply alcohol on the night of Sunshine’s death, the law implicates him as responsible. The 21+ law exists precisely to prevent deaths like this from happening, as 21 is supposedly the age where we can be trusted to handle the responsibility of alcohol. But to hold Krzyston up as the single cause of Sunshine’s death is unfair. Underage students obtaining alcohol from older friends is a frequent and common occurrence on college campuses, and making an example out of Krzyston won’t teach anyone safer drinking practices.
Freshmen and sophomores face few obstacles in procuring alcohol. The majority of students in Norris and on Sheridan Road informally polled said that they had either illegally obtained alcohol or given liquor to someone younger than 21 in the past. Most of the underage students who admitted to getting alcohol from an older student went on to say that they have multiple friends who could provide alcohol for them. If John can’t do it one night, then Sally certainly can. If Krzyston didn’t provide the alcohol that night, somebody else would have.
It’s nothing short of devastating when someone dies as a result of alcohol poisoning, but it is important to note that underage students aren’t being forced to drink the alcohol. They ask for it. It is their decision to drink. Although the Evanston Police Department wouldn’t comment on whether the authorities believe Krzyston forced the alcohol on Sunshine, it’s not likely that anyone was coerced into drink that night. And while nobody drinks expecting the night to go horribly wrong, social drinking, whether legal or illegal, safe or unsafe, is a personal choice.
In tragic circumstances like Sunshine’s death, it’s human to want to find someone to blame; but pointing the finger at a single person accomplishes very little. After MIT freshman Scott Krueger’s death at a Phi Gamma Delta rushing event in 1997, the MIT committee on discipline revoked the diploma of Charles Yoo, the Phi Gamma Delta pledge master, making his role in Krueger’s death comparable to Krzyston’s role in Sunshine’s death. That disciplinary action was taken against Yoo is fair, but that MIT singled him out was undeserved. Both Krzyston and Yoo are essentially made into scapegoats in these circumstances. Yet, Phi Gamma Delta was made up of a brotherhood of men, not just Yoo, and a drinking game cannot be played alone.
Making one person take the fall for these deaths does not make up for the loss of Krueger or Sunshine nor does it make any progress toward curtailing unsafe drinking habits on college campuses. Research by the American Psychiatric Association shows that four out of five college students drink and about half of college student drinkers engage in heavy episodic consumption. Furthermore, binge drinking trends among college students, in fact, has neither dramatically risen nor declined in the last 15 years, according to the Monitoring the Future Project at the University of Michigan. Despite the example made of Yoo and the potential example made of Krzyston, college students still drink and will continue to drink.
As Krzyston’s hearing nears, we should remember that the goal is to promote safer drinking practices, not to prosecute someone that could’ve been anyone. As there are 1,400 alcohol-related deaths per year among college students, it’s clear that there’s a breakdown in communication between universities, public authorities, and students. It’s not a matter of whether someone is 18 or 22 years old. It’s a matter of counseling college students of all ages on safe alcoholic consumption.
Although the loss of Sunshine is a grievous and painful memory, sentencing Krzyston to 1-3 years in prison and making a criminal of him is not the way to promote better drinking habits among students. Perhaps, it would be a step in the right direction to model Krzyston’s punishment on that of Michael McCullough and Brandon Overlie after the death of University of Minnesota student Kyle Sharbonno, 19, in 2007. Like Krzyston, McCullough and Overlie (21 and 22, respectively) faced possible prison time for providing alcohol to an underage student who passed in an alcohol-related accident. Instead of prison, however, McCullough and Overlie were sentenced to two years of probation and 80 hours of community service. Additionally, they were required to wear electronic monitors for six months and attend alcohol awareness counseling.
The probation, community service, and counseling prescribed to McCullough and Overlie will undoubtedly do much more to lessen unsafe underage drinking than will sentencing Krzyston to prison. At the very least, training and counseling is more of an appropriate punishment than putting an average college student behind bars.
There is definitely no easy solution to reduce unsafe drinking. Otherwise, young men like Sunshine, Krueger and Sharbonno wouldn’t be so tragically lost. Clearly, though, the mechanisms that universities currently have in place are not working. Students are not receptive to the PowerPoint presentations they are forced to sit through during freshman orientation, and thus, there is no progress toward increased student safety on campus.
There are many different roads to explore, but however we try to achieve safer drinking practices, we should work together as a community. Krzyston, a member of this community, will hear a decision at his hearing that will change his life. If found guilty, I hope he will be given the chance to learn how to drink safely with us, not barred away from us.
| Print
Read more about the Krzyston case. Or you can return home.
I have to question a few of your statements. First I think you are too quick to assume that punishment for providing alcohol will have little effect on students decisions. Along the same lines I don’t see how community service and alcohol awareness counseling will “undoubtedly do much more to lessen unsafe underage drinking” than punishment would. One example has a much more dramatic effect than two people possibly realizing that what they did was wrong (probably after they are out of college). You’re right in saying that Krzyston is not the only one responsible, but our legal system works largely as a deterrent, and only some are punished for the protection of society. I think an intelligent person will recall the possibility that they may wind up in prison for two years if they give this minor a drink. It wont stop everyone of course, but knowing this risk will undoubtedly stop some (at least more than counseling two boys will). And it just might make the person providing the alcohol a little more conscious of the people he gives alcohol to; that person will know that he or she has a vested interest in seeing that they make it home alright. I think that benefit is not one to just be cast aside.
Bob
January 8, 2009 at 11:45 pm
“Speaking in strictly legal terms, Krzyston is guilty.”
Well, I’m glad we got that out of the way without assembling a single judge, lawyer, jury member or even preliminary hearing.
As for the rest of your argument, I’m not sure.
Nobody will argue with you that the crime that Krzyston allegedly committed does happen here thousands of times over every weekend. But providing enough alcohol that somebody dies certainly does not.
If found guilty, will the message of a prison sentence persuade others to at least be a little more careful in dispensing huge amounts of alcohol to minors? Probably not. Almost certainly not. But maybe.
And as for the dubious claim that I’ve already seen and heard countless times that “if Krzyston didn’t provide the alcohol that night, somebody else would have.” Maybe. Probably. But then at least something about that night would’ve been different, right?
Brian Rosenthal
January 9, 2009 at 12:46 am
I’d like to highlight one more flaw in your arguments here: Incarceration does not only function as deterrent. There is, in fact, a component of the conception of Justice at work. Matthew Sunshine is dead, and he is such as a direct result of the actions of Krzyston. Clearly he is blameworthy. The fact that others are too, well, perhaps they should be punished too. But Krzyston earned the lion’s share here. If people who furnish alcohol are not responsible at all for the results of their consumers, why are Bar Tenders culpable if they fail to cut off one of their patrons and the patron hits someone on the way home?
Ben
January 9, 2009 at 11:01 am
The laws of the state of Illinois are very clear in this case; it is illegal to provide alcohol to anyone under the age of 21, and failure to abide by this law is a felony. If the allegations against Mr. Krzyston are proven true, then he is guilty of said felony, and 1-3 years in prison is the punishment prescribed by the people of this state. Think it’s not fair, take it up with your elected representative.
The law, as originally intended, is to protect a minor (defined to be anyone under 21), who do not have qualified judgment, from causing themselves or others harm. The premise of the law is just, righteous, and fair. Personally, I object to 21 being the age de jour; 18, when one assumes all the other responsibilities of an adult, should be when they gain all rights as an adult, including the right to exercise their judgment, and take responsibility for their bad decisions (including committing crimes under the influence).
But as it stands, the law is the law; and one must abide by the laws whether they think them right or wrong. Such is the price of the social contract.
Peter
January 9, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Enough of this bullshit about deterrence and deserved punishment. If Krzyston is found guilty, I hope that the court finds the following to be a mitigating factor: Krzyston could not only have been any of us, he is just one of many who are just as causally implicit as he is. While Krzyston might be directly culpable for Sunshine’s death, his responsibility is minor in comparison to that of our society as a whole.
While only one person may have contributed the alcohol that directly led to his death, look around: how many of us gave him alcohol at other times over the year and contributed to his alcoholic tendencies and ultimately fatal behavior? How many of us made jokes about him, socially isolated him, heard him vomiting late at night after a binge or didn’t seek help at any point over the year? How many despised him, held “Sunshine Drills,” or read stories about the infamous MS in the dorm news pages? While Krzyston may have bought the poison, we all on some level noticed something was wrong, and we failed to do anything about it: his peers failed, Sunshine himself failed, his family and friends failed, Northwestern University failed to care enough to even make an attempt at an antidote before before it was too late. And for that, if Krzyston is held responsible, may we all be held responsible with him.
I sincerely hope that Krzyston gets off easy for these charges; it is unjust and wrong for him to be made a scapegoat while so many others have blood on their hands.
In response to the above, some of whom are being assholes:
January 10, 2009 at 4:01 pm
does the inappropriateness of everybody else justify a specific persons mistake?
for example, assume there are a lot of people cheating in a test. Encouraged by this fact, you decide to cheat too. You get caught red handed. Would saying “but there were other people cheating too” be a good, or even a valid, argument against charges? Trust me it wont!
quick question for the above
January 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm
It doesn’t justify the mistake, but I feel it should require the equal punishment of others or, if this is not possible, mitigate the punishment. I feel there are hundreds of others across campus who are responsible for the events that took place; crucifixion of one without the punishment of others (who merely escaped committing the same crime through chance or who are guilty of ignoring the situation, ie knowing that others cheat but doing nothing about it) is unjust. If everyone is indeed cheating, hold us all responsible (fail the entire class). If failing the entire class is too draconian, then a lighter punishment is required.
quick response
January 10, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Re: In response to the above…
Your post is very disturbing. How many of you did “contribute to his alcoholic tendencies and ultimately fatal behavior? How many of [you] made jokes about him, socially isolated him, heard him vomiting late at night after a binge or didn’t seek help at any point over the year? How many despised him, held ‘Sunshine Drills,’ or read stories about the infamous MS in the dorm news pages?” I graduated some years ago, but this is totally alien from my experience; what is going on at NU these days?
Joe
January 15, 2009 at 9:17 am
Re: In response to the above…
Your post is very disturbing. How many of you did “contribute to his alcoholic tendencies and ultimately fatal behavior? How many of [you] made jokes about him, socially isolated him, heard him vomiting late at night after a binge or didn’t seek help at any point over the year? How many despised him, held ‘Sunshine Drills,’ or read stories about the infamous MS in the dorm news pages?” I graduated awhile ago, but this kind of malice is totally alien from my experience. What is going on at NU these days?
Joe
January 15, 2009 at 9:25 am
I agree with Joe. It’s really disturbing. It’s also consistent with some of the brutal posts on juicycampus. There is a strong undercurrent of a lack of basic kindness (at the very least) among a portion of NU. I think this is a small % of the student body – but the rest of the student body should be saying this is unacceptable.
agreed
January 15, 2009 at 11:30 am
i dunno if northwestern has changed. northwestern is composed of people, and a lot of the campus knew him, a lot didn’t like him and were mean to him, but they weren’t particularly mean or malicious people–lez remember that not evrybody at northwestern is a rich snob, many are genuinely nice people who work hard to help ppl. lez try and remember taht everybody in this case is a real person, not a caricature, and that if somebody is that mean, thers often a reason, and in this case, there were definitely more than a few. sunshine wasnt an angel and kids that go to school here arent much different at heart than kids who went to school five or ten or fifty or a thousand years ago. the kids in trouble should be applauded for bein acceptin of this kid; sometimes thigns are inevitable
anon
January 15, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Anon, I’m not talking about the kids in trouble. I am talking about the other kids around who saw what was going on. Sometimes if you follow online posts, NU seems like a really soul-less place. I don’t think that is true of the vast majority of students there. But there is a disturbing minority who get away with all this sophomoric behavior and attitudes way too often. It should stop – NU is too special a place for this awful juvenile stuff.
agreed
January 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I’m trying to understand your reasoning, Anon. If people were “that mean” to the kid, he deserved what he got because they didn’t like him. Meanwhile, the kids who gave him a lethal dose of alcohol and failed to call 911 when he was dying “should be applauded for being accepting of this kid.” (With friends like those….) And if a 19-year-old kid ended up dead–hey, sometimes things are inevitable.
I’m sure it’s true that many Northwestern students are genuinely nice people who know better than this; in fact, I hope nearly all of them are. If not, things have changed a lot more than you think since I was in college, when my fellow students were mature enough to avoid (rather than go out of their way to be mean to) people they didn’t like and to seek help for someone who was desperately ill whether they liked him or not.
Maybe “In response to the above” is right: If Krzyston is responsible, many more people are responsible with him. And maybe both students and administration should stop making excuses that boys will be boys and do some serious soul-searching to keep another tragedy like this from being “inevitable.”
Joe
January 16, 2009 at 12:26 am