Editorial: Time for a jury system

In critiquing the Honor Committee, students most frequently question the notion that the Honor Code truly represents the will of the students. With little understanding of the inner workings and processes of the Honor Committee, students often feel concerned that the committee is not truly a group of their peers or representatives but is a body intent on convicting students. In considering these concerns and looking to make the process both more transparent and more representative, the creation of a jury system within the current honor system would address many student objections. This jury would consist of undergraduate students who, in the absence of a conflict of interest, are compelled to serve. Though the number of jury members and other specifics can be left open, the jury ought to serve in an objective capacity to determine whether cheating occurred. Similar to the systems both at the University of Virginia and in the U.S. government, the jury would determine whether the accused committed a violation of the Honor Code. The Honor Committee would supervise the trial, assuring that procedures are properly followed and ultimately determining the punishment for those convicted.

The establishment of a jury would serve a twofold purpose within the honor system. In terms of adding legitimacy to the Honor Committee, a jury system would remove the stigma of secrecy and draconian resolve attached to the committee. At a deeper level, the establishment of a jury system would also help to fulfill the spirit of the Honor Code by making students an integral part of the entire process. By involving students in the trial process, they will feel more ownership over the honor system. It could be argued that a jury trial would inevitably lead to problems with confidentiality. While the increased risk of a breach of confidence seems marginal in comparison with the benefits of a jury system, students could still be given the option to have a trial before the Honor Committee rather than a jury.

Even if this jury system cannot be established, the Honor Committee must still improve several of the policies in the current system. Currently, accused students are notified that they must come before the Honor Committee for questioning but are not told that they have been accused and may seek peer representation before they are questioned. Such a system is inherently unfair to the defendants in these cases. Students must be informed of the accusation in their first correspondence with the Honor Committee. Moreover, from the initial stages of this process, students must be informed of their rights under the Honor Code and assigned a peer representative who can work with them throughout the trial process and provide aid.

Ultimately, the Honor Committee must weigh the desire to prevent cheating with the obligation to treat all students fairly. Establishing a jury system and extending more rights and protections to defendants would do much to restore balance to what is currently perceived as a one-sided system.

Oliver Palmer '11, Zayn Siddique '11 and Amanda Tuninetti '11 recused themselves from voting on this editorial.