Counter Point

Counter Point

Student newspapers and periodicals

Honor Council President, Beth Innis, wrote an article discussing Honor Violations, Judicial Violations, and double jeopardy.

Innis, Beth

Innis, Beth. "Counter Point". The Bullet (VA)

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.

1 JPG

300 dpi

English

68A

Fredericksburg, VA

There seems to have arisen some controversy over the specifics involved when a case deals with both aspects of Honor and Judicial Violations. Should such a case come before Honor, Judicial, or both and in what order? If the case comes before both courts of student action, does this indeed constitute double jeopardy? Does a policy need to be formed to cover all cases that fall in this category, or should each case continue to be decided on its individual merit? This article will attempt to deal with these considerations in terms of the alleged Honor Violation of Lying in conjunction with alleged Judicial Violations.

If a student is confronted with an alleged judicial violation, the accused is assumed innocent of that charge until proven guilty by the judicial court. Additionally the accused has the right to state his or her innocence to that judicial charge in one of several ways: by pleading the 5^th amendment in the right to remain silent or in pleading guilty to the offense as charged, and tailoring the case to fit the plea. However, under the present system, an accused student may compound a problem, expanding it to involve an Honor Offense as well. But only in a specific sense. For example, the accuser questions the accused in relation to a specific part of the offense that he or she was visual witness to , and the accused denies the fact. A misrepresentation of the truth is no less a misrepresentation becuase it is about a Judicial Offense. Granted, the lie would not have been an issue if a Judicial Offense had not come into play. There exists, however, a very real difference between maintaining one’s innocence through an impulsive lie to cover for one’s actions.

A direct lie to cover for one’s action is in our System, by precedence, taken to Honor. The reasoning behind this has been based in what has seemed fairest to the accused in terms of both Honor and Judicial. First, Honor deals with the lie, deciding on guilt or innocence and then hands down one of three penalties: No Dismissal, suspension, or Absolute Dismissal. These decisions are made only on direct evidence presented to the Council surrounding the lie itself. Then, if the case further warrants Judicial proceedings it will go to Judicial for a decision and Judicial penalty based only on the Judicial Violation charges. The Honor Council’s decision will not be known to, nor will it figure in the voting Judicial Council’s decisions.

Precedence in such cases has taken into consideration the power of the Honor Council’s decision and realm of penalty: that the Council can directly dismiss a student from the college. It seems ludicrous to think that a student should be subject to first one trial, receive a fine or extra desk duty; then to a second, and in the second trial face the possibility of Absolute Dismissal.

It is equally ludicrous to consider as a logical extension that since we may be charged with lying with the Judicial case, that if we plead “not guilty” is merely a formal courtroom procedure around which to build one’s case. An accused may plead “not guilty” even in the face of  “obvious” guilt if: 1) the accused believes that he or she is not guilty, or 2) if the accused is not willing to face the specific charges as they stand. Once a verdict and penalty are handed down by any judicial body (unless an appeal process is completed to the contrary) the decision stands, and the accused assumes (in effect, becomes) the decision of the court.

Another aspect to consider is that of double jeopardy. Because a case may come before both Honor and Judicial Councils, does this constitute double jeopardy? By definition of the two separate entities, it does not. Again, Honor will deal only with that which clearly falls under its jurisdiction. No case will be accepted that is not clearly within the realm. Neither our Honor System, nor our Judicial System claim to be qualified to deal with decisions in a real court of law, nor their penalties. In the particular type of case which we are concerned with here, there is no doubt that either body is dealing with “criminals.”

It appears that due to the delicate nature of each individual case, especially those that fall under this discussion, it is necessary to continue to decide the effect of Honor upon each case depending on circumstance. There are always fine line cases that will be difficult to classify. When such a case occurs it may be best to bypass the Honor Council. But, when a case is clear cut, and deals with lying and a Judicial Offense, both effects of the total violation must be handled separately.

With proper discretion, it is possible to avoid such conflicts. If the accuser uses thought and tact in addressing a potential accused, there should exist no set up for the probability of an Honor Violation. Inform a student that you are considering Judicial procedure—don’t provide them the unfortunate opportunity to react to a pointed question of accusation with a lie to cover for their actions.

 

newspaper

Kramer, Patricia

Williams, Megan