THE DEBATE on the single sanction is over. The arguments for and against change have been exhausted, and any concerned student knows how he or she feels about the matter. In fact, the debate on the sanction itself has become so tiresome that my editors have refused to let me engage it directly. Two weeks ago, Hoos Against Single Sanction submitted a proposal to Honor's ad hoc committee on the subject to create a multiple sanction system. The proposal represents a viable framework for a new sanctioning process, and the student body should be able to vote on it accordingly.
The proposed system would eliminate the current "non-triviality" phase of jury deliberation that occurs after a defendant is found guilty of intentionally committing an Honor offense. Instead, jurors will select a sanction from a list "determined by the by-laws of the Honor Committee." The proposal also states that the trial chair and Committee observer -- both of whom would have more experience with honor trials than would jurors -- may advise jurors on the proper sanction.
If a multiple sanction system is to be introduced, a set of recommended sanctions provides the best way of assuring both flexibility and consistency. Prescribing exact sanctions for each type of offense defeats the purpose of multiple sanctions, as it would still take authority away from the jury and force them to apply inappropriate sanctions. However, establishing precedents in the form of a list of penalties gives some consistency to the system so that a student is not condemned to a harsher sentence based on the jury that is selected.
After a meeting with the ad hoc committee, HASS changed their proposal to give the jury full responsibility for determining the sanction. The change addresses concerns that the original proposal gave too much power to the Honor Committee by giving it the final word on sanctions. Giving this power to the jury avoids rendering the jury's decision irrelevant and retains the heavy involvement of outsiders to the honor system that keeps honor from becoming dictatorial.
Opponents of that change will argue that juries are bound to be inconsistent in the application of sanctions. This worry is the reason behind allowing honor representatives to advise to juries on appropriate sanctions. With the advantage of precedent, sanctions will be fairer and more consistent, but juries will remain in control. This system thus addresses concerns of both consistency and jury authority.
Sam Leven of HASS stressed that the plan "leaves in a lot of flexibility." The proposal's simplicity means that much of the details of the system would be worked out after its implementation. As with any new program, this kind of flexibility will be important as small issues arise. Further down the road, the fact that the amendment calls leaves much to the discretion of the Honor Committee allows for major issues that may arise from the amendment to be dealt with internally, rather than through a lengthy and complicated referendum process.
Another key element of the proposal is that it would be voted on twice. The first vote, in the spring, will be non-binding. Should the proposal receive 50 percent of that vote, a binding resolution will be voted on in the fall. This two-phase voting plan is doubly important. First, it makes sure that the referendum does not take students by surprise. A change this substantial to a valued University institution needs to be voted on by a constituency that understands its significance.
Second, it gives Honor a chance to modify the proposal. Should debate arise about specific clauses of the proposal, they can be amended after the first vote. It will be more difficult to maintain the reformist momentum after a binding vote, and Honor and HASS will likely only get one opportunity to present a change before the public grows weary of the efforts to reform. To get a true reflection of how students feel about multiple sanctions in general -- and not this particular proposal -- a preliminary vote is needed. Perhaps a referendum on multiple sanctions would also help to gauge voters' opinions in the event that the proposal is rejected.
Whether one supports the single sanction or not, a referendum passed by the student body over a year ago gave Honor a mandate to explore alternatives. Since then, committees have been formed, surveys analyzed and forums held, but no action has been taken. HASS has given us the best proposal that is likely to come around. The Honor Committee, the champion of student self-governance, should finally put this issue to a vote.
Daniel Colbert's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking 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 | 4 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 | 5 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.
