Sexual assault is unique among cases requiring on-campus discipline. The physical evidence in these cases rapidly deteriorates or is completely unavailable, and often the only witnesses are the victim and the guilty party. Such a dynamic makes it difficult to meet the current standard, since it is hard to accumulate enough evidence to meet the high burden of proof. This likely has the effect of discouraging students from pursuing claims of sexual assault in front of the Committee on Discipline because they feel that they will not be able to prove their cases. While the clear and persuasive standard may be appropriate in cases of theft, assault or drug use where there is often clear evidence and witnesses, such a standard is inappropriate in the case of sexual assault.
While over 40 assaults have been reported over the past few years, these accusations have resulted in only three punishments. The current high standard of proof is harmful to both the victims of these assaults and the community as a whole. Because of the high standard, victims have little chance to prove the veracity of their claims. Furthermore, failing to rightly find individuals responsible for sexual assault means that other individuals will be at risk of becoming victims of sexual assault. This is unacceptable, especially given the recent statistics highlighting the prevalence of sexual assault on campus. By changing the burden of proof, we would encourage more people to report incidences of sexual assault and ensure that those who commit these offenses are punished. Sexual assault has no place at Princeton, and changing the standard would help us better identify and eliminate it.
We recognize that some may worry that a lower standard would increase the risk of innocent people being found guilty and then being suspended; however, we would remind these students that the Committee on Discipline has more discretion with punishments. For example, the COD considers the context of the case in addition to consulting "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities" and precedents when assessing punishments. The COD can, therefore, consider the individual factors of the case, such as the level of intent, when meting out punishments. While all students who meet the preponderance of evidence standard would be punished, the COD would have the discretion to enforce the punishment they felt was most appropriate. Even within our new standard, the COD’s discretion provides a mechanism to balance the protections of the accused and the desire to address the needs of victims of sexual assault.
In light of the appalling number of students that have reported being sexually assaulted, it is important for the University to change its procedure to better address this problem. We believe that, by changing the standard of proof, we could better find and punish those who choose to assault their fellow students and, in doing so, make our campus safer for all members of our community.
DISSENT
Signed: Zach Horton
The majority is well-intentioned in seeking justice for those who commit sexual assault. I have no sympathy for anyone guilty of such a horrendous crime. The majority’s proposal to use a preponderance standard in discerning guilt; however, is problematic.
A 51 percent chance that it will rain today is enough to persuade me to carry an umbrella, but 51 percent of evidence in favor of guilt is not enough to confidently label someone as a perpetrator of sexual assault punishable by suspension. Moreover, quantifying evidence of guilt into a percentage is glorified hand-waving. Rather than quibble about some arbitrary majority of evidence, it makes more sense to retain the current standard, which demands that the evidence simply be clear and convincing. It is indeed lamentable that transient evidence may make this difficult. It would be more lamentable, however, to uproot the tradition of “innocent until proven guilty” by allowing the accuser’s testimonial evidence to carry more weight than the word of the accused.
The majority argues that the COD’s discretion in doling out punishment would alleviate my concerns that innocents could be unjustly charged and punished. This would imply that if there were only a preponderance of evidence, the COD could mitigate the punishment accordingly so that if the accused were actually innocent, he would be punished less severely. This misguidedly separates guilt from punishment. Rather, if someone is deemed guilty, he should be punished fully in proportion to his crime rather than the certainty that he did it.
Read More
Princeton must protect students from Trump’s proposed immigration policies
Jorge ReyesWith the presidential inauguration less than two weeks away, time is running out. Princeton, act now and show undocumented and international students the “energetic and vigorous support” you pledge before it’s too late.
With the presidential inauguration less than two weeks away, time is running out. Princeton, act now and show undocumented and international students the “energetic and vigorous support” you pledge before it’s too late.
The U. doesn’t want you to know about the camera project. Pay attention.
Frances BroganWhen the administration isn’t forthcoming with us about a policy that affects the entire student body, we should be suspicious. Princeton’s lack of communication about the camera initiative suggests a desire to avoid accountability.
When the administration isn’t forthcoming with us about a policy that affects the entire student body, we should be suspicious. Princeton’s lack of communication about the camera initiative suggests a desire to avoid accountability.
Princeton should incorporate well-being days into the academic calendar
Isaac BarsoumPrinceton must commit to ending its mental health crisis by making long-term care accessible, appointing a zero-suicide czar –– and yes, incorporating well-being days into the academic calendar –– to make the Princeton experience happier, healthier, and safer.
