Well that's convenient. It's also a bullshit copout.

Let's say a fraternity goes through hazing and one particulsr pledge they don't like is part of rush. They don't want him in, but he has legacy status so they "have" to let him rush. They give him a hard time and he enss up dying of alcohol poisoning or an "accident".

Are those fraternity brothers not collectively responsible? Are they not collectively guilty of manslaughter?

They were all in on it. They all participated. Not one of them stood up and put a stop to it. Or, suggested they get the fuck over themselves and let the kid make it or not through rush on his own merits. Or accept the consequences for not following the rules and by-laws.

Why don't you explain to us all how these young men are not collectively guilty? How does that work exactly?

Because most courts are going to determine that the loss of that promising young man is a direct consequence of their hubris, their callousness, their irresponsibility, and a conspiracy to harm. I'd even put money on the words "depraved indifference" being bandied about during their trial.

I'm aware of your attitudes about violence against women and how they're every bit as arrogant and reductive as "I just don't believe in collective guilt".