Leading up to the Honor votes today, much of the conversation about Options 1 and 2 has revolved around the single sanction’s connection to the University’s identity. In his guest piece published earlier this week, my friend Rick Yoder writes, “There are few institutions as distinctive as the University’s Honor system,” underpinned by a single sanction that is “unequivocally [the system’s] ideal.” While there certainly is something unique about honor at the University, the single sanction is hardly as distinctive as we’re often told. Instead of isolating the referenda in a discussion of the University’s culture, we should put them in context of the broader push for criminal justice reform and call the single sanction what it is: a mandatory minimum. At a time when all levels of government are moving away from harsh, blanket punishments, a public institution like the University should not cling to a policy whose time has passed.
In comparing the University’s policies to those of other institutions, it is crucial to first be clear about what exactly mandatory minimums are. Best defined as “laws [which] set minimum sentences for certain crimes that judges cannot lower, even for extenuating circumstances,” mandatory minimums limit the flexibility of judges while denying defendants the possibility of being spared from the most draconian punishments. How is the single sanction any different? The University registrar’s website leaves no room for interpretation in clearly stating, “Students convicted of an honor offense are permanently dismissed from the University” without qualification. Despite the years of training, casework and immersal in the system, Honor support officers are in no way allowed to propose alternative sentences. Similarly, the students who comprise the juries for Honor trials receive very little of our community’s trust with a “not guilty” verdict — the only available option for jurors uncomfortable with the single sanction.
Given these philosophical parallels, it’s no surprise the problems plaguing Honor find analogues in the broader criminal justice system. Just as more than half of students cite harsh sentencing as a deterrent to reporting Honor offenses, 77 percent of Americans support eliminating mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses and allowing judges to make decisions on a case by case basis. Much in the same way Honor’s own literature cites jury inconsistency as a problem, The Nation notes jurors are increasingly using nullification to fight overly punitive outcomes. Most disturbingly (and I would argue most importantly), with the application of national mandatory minimums and in the University’s version, there is ample evidence of disparate racial impact. The suggestion that all of these flaws in the criminal justice system could be overcome with more education and outreach would rightly be met with head scratches; the same reaction should follow such proposals (especially after years of doing just that) at the University that do not address the root cause of these issues, namely the single sanction.
In response to this, many supporters of current policy might argue it’s unfair to call the single sanction a mandatory minimum, because accused students have the option of submitting Informed or Conscientious Retractions. Let’s take a second to apply this logic to the real world. If someone is arrested for a drug offense with the threat of a mandatory minimum hanging over her head, she is more likely to make a panicked, uninformed choice than if she knew her punishment might fit the crime. Indeed, prosecutors have often preyed upon defendants by using the threat of guaranteed harsh sentences to coerce guilty pleas. Proponents of the single sanction also sometimes make the contradictory argument that while enacting further changes to sanctioning would ruin the ideals upon which the Honor system is based, in practice the existence of the Informed Retraction means we don’t have a single sanction anymore. This doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. Just because the defendant in the hypothetical drug case I mentioned has the option of confessing his guilt in exchange for a plea bargain, this doesn’t change the fact that the mandatory minimum sentence awaiting for him clouds his decision process and leaves him with no alternative once the trial starts.
To be sure, there are huge differences between how mandatory minimums are applied in the outside world and at the University. While the Honor trial process might be stressful and unfair, it can never compare to the life or death consequences of the criminal justice system. I also have nothing but respect for the Honor support officers on both sides of this issue who do their best to navigate an imperfect system. At the same time, just because expulsion isn’t the same as being thrown in jail, that doesn’t mean the University should continue to model the system it views as inseparable from its self-conception upon the most punitive and illiberal aspects of the prison system. To that point, I also find it puzzling so many people who otherwise consider themselves progressive support a policy that is in so many ways deeply reactionary.
In Washington and in our state capitals, it feels like we are finally moving toward a criminal justice system with greater emphasis on proportional sentencing, judicial discretion and most importantly, forgiveness. At a University guided by the principles of one our country’s founding civil libertarians, we should expect no less from ourselves.
Gray Whisnant is an Opinion editor for The Cavalier Daily. He may be reached at g.whisnant@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: A defense of the Batten Curve
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayStandardization is an important idea in a school to make grading as fair as possible — all inconsistencies in teaching assistants or exam writing are ironed out.
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 5 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | December 20, 2024At the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
