ON MARCH 20,2005, the University Judiciary Committee officially created the Ad Hoc Subcommittee for Sanctioning of Hate Crimes. The creation of this subcommittee was motivated in part by the referendum that appeared on the Spring 2005 ballot asking students if they wanted the University Judiciary Committee to "create specific and severe punishment guidelines for judicial offenses primarily motivated by hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability." This referendum passed with 70.1 percent of those who voted. Though the referendum was neither authored nor sponsored by the UJC, the Committee was certainly aware of these results when it voted to form the subcommittee.
This subcommittee met for the first time on Wednesday, April 26, to discuss its objectives and establish the direction the subcommittee would take in the coming year. The primary purpose of this subcommittee is to evaluate the effectiveness with which the UJC currently handles hate crimes and to investigate possible revisions to this protocol.
The majority of business handled by the UJC on a daily basis is restricted from the public due to confidentiality, so much of our operations remain out of the public eye. However, anytime issues affecting the student body come before the UJC, it is imperative that the entire student body be made aware and partake in the discussion. This is especially true in this instance due to the complexity and controversial nature of the issue. In order for the discussion of hate crimes to be a productive one, it requires an understanding of how hate crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the UJC, how allegations of hate crimes are brought before the UJC and the process by which these allegations are adjudicated.
The UJC has jurisdiction over hate crimes insofar as they constitute a violation of the University Standards of Conduct. Thus it is possible for a hate crime to fall under multiple different standards depending upon the specific incident in question. Regardless of the particular standard in question, the important thing to remember is that the UJC's jurisdiction is over the Standards of Conduct, and thus it is helpful to think of "hate crimes" as a violations of the Standards of Conduct which are motivated by hate.
It is important to understand that the UJC doesn't prosecute students; we review complaints of Standard violations. Anyone, regardless of his or her affiliation with the University, can bring a case against a University student. Though the Standard brought can be changed up to the trial, the need to know the identity of the student is pertinent to the hate crimes issue since the identity of the offender is often hard to determine.
All trials are heard by a panel of five student representatives who serve as judges, and proceedings consist of two consecutive trials: a trial for guilt and, if the student is found guilty, a trial for sanction. Understanding this two-trial system and the distinction between a trial for guilt and a trial for sanction is essential to addressing the hate crimes issue.
The purpose of the trial for guilt is simply to determine whether or not the accused student violated a Standard of Conduct. An accused student's motivation is typically not addressed in a trial for guilt.
The purpose of the trial for sanction, on the other hand, is to arrive at a proper sanction for students found guilty of violating a Standard. The task of the trial panel is to craft an appropriate sanction that serves the best interest of the University based on the specifics of the case. Factors such as the motivation, contrition, restitution, patterns of behavior of the accused or any additional circumstances, are examined during a trial for sanction. The UJC doesn't operate under precedent, so the sanctions administered are entirely up to the discretion of the judges on the trial panel.
The fact that there are no prescribed sanctions for specific violations may be seen as a fault by some. However, it enables each trial panel the ability to craft a sanction that is the most appropriate for each individual case. This a great advantage of our system since it allows a trial panel the ability to reach a decision that serves the best interest of the community in each instance, independently of what may have been decided in a previous case.
The mission of the subcommittee on hate crimes sanctioning is to look into the effectiveness of the current system, to determine whether or not there is a need for a revision of these sanctioning procedures, and if so, what revisions would be the most effective and appropriate. One potential modification would be the creation of specific and severe sanctioning guidelines, as suggested by the referendum.
The adoption of specific sanctioning guidelines would be a fundamental change to the UJC's process and would ultimately be subject to the approval of the student body. Thus, for the discussion of this issue to be productive, it is imperative that the current system is properly understood.
Tim Ormsby is a Cavalier Daily contributor. He is the chair of the University Judiciary Committee.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
