University of Virginia Library

Bomb Threats

As we have noted in past years, the
newspaper usually refrains from running any
stories or comment on bomb threats made at
the University. The reason we do this is that
an article reporting a threat inevitably gives
the student making the threat some sort of
satisfaction (not unlike the satisfaction that
other criminals feel when they see their
exploits dramatized in the press), as well as
giving other students jaded ideas.

Whoever is responsible for yesterday's
threat that resulted in the cancellation of
afternoon classes in Rouss Hall must surely
know of the inconvenience they cause
students who have perhaps stayed up all the
night before studying for an examination or
writing a paper. We write this editorial to
inform those responsible and those who may
be contemplating a bomb threat of the serious
legal trouble they face when, and if, they are
caught.

In November 1967 a third-year student at
the University was caught after he phoned a
bomb threat into Cabell Hall. He was
summarily dismissed from the University and
later, at his trial, pleaded guilty and was given
a two-month suspended prison sentence. In a
1968 summer school case two students were
sentenced to one year each in jail after they
had pleaded guilty to bomb threat charges.

Commonwealth's Attorney John T.
Camblos will not bend over backwards to
show clemency for those who are nabbed
phoning in bomb threats. Telephoning in a
bomb threat is a felony carrying a possible
one to ten years in a state penitentiary, and in
addition a fine of up to $500. The sentences
for those found guilty of this crime have been
rising in the past few years.

In the mind of the State Commonwealth's
Attorney, phoning in a bomb threat is no
longer considered a mild boyish prank, rather
a serious crime that will be acted upon
accordingly by the authorities. When and if
yesterday's "bomber" is caught, he or she
should expect little mercy from the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Students who have telephoned bomb
threats in the past have soon been dismissed
from the University resulting from a breach of
the Honor System. In each case the student
was accused by one of his peers, and was
found guilty of the offense of lying at his
separate honor trial.

Yesterday's threat was probably motivated
by the selfish interests that have characterized
past threats. The student was either too lazy
or too stupid to complete his academic work
for the following day, so instead of facing the
fruits of his non-labors he chose to hide
behind a threat and thereby cheat not only
his classmates who had done the required
assignments, but also the students and
professors in other classes in the economics
building.

We condemn the actions of this guilty
student and hope that he will soon be brought
to justice.