University of Virginia Library

Obligated

As the only officer from the
Law School that has been
present during Honor
Committee Meetings for the
entire year and as one of the
four law students that
submitted the law school
proposal for graduated
penalties to the Honor
Committee, I feel obligated as
an elected representative of the
law school to reflect my
opinions concerning the
upcoming referendum at this
time.

My initial reasons for
submitting the graduated
penalties proposal were: 1) my
"gut reaction" to the single
sanction is compassion on the
person found guilty of an
honor violation, 2) the Honor
Committee needed a departure
point to start from in
evaluating the poll and 3)
initially, I thought the poll
appeared to show student
support for the graduated
penalties system.

After extensive Honor
Committee discussion and
analysis of the poll, I found
that the poll at best was
inconclusive on the question of
penalty-thus the reason for
the referendum. However,
during these discussions, I
myself changed, by viewpoints
from support of a graduated
penalties system to a single
sanction system for the
following reasons:

1) The Honor System
should be concerned with only
the base level of dishonesty
(that which warrants the single
sanction), and not with trivial
matters (that which a
graduated penalties system
would encompass). A
graduated penalties system
would only widen the scope of
the system-a result which the
poll indicates students do not
want.

2) By having a single
sanction, the Honor System is
continually kept in the minds
of the students. The one aspect
of the System that every
student grabs onto during
orientation is the single
sanction. Thus, every student
convicted of an honor violation
has advance notice of the
sanction to which he subjects
himself.

3) If there were a system of
graduated penalties, this does
not mean that people will be
more inclined to accuse people
for honor violations since the
accuser would not know in
advance which penalty will be
imposed by the Honor
Committee upon a verdict of
guilty.

4) The simpler an honor
system is the better it is
understood and operates in a
university community.
Procedurally, a graduated
system of penalties would add
another burden to the trial
proceeding.

5) A person is found guilty of
an honor violation by the
Honor Committee only upon
being found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. With a
graduated penalties system,
"compromise" verdicts would
be an ever-present danger.

6) If the argument for
graduated penalties is
rehabilitation, I question
whether the Honor Committee
has the facilities and the
professional "know-how" to be
a rehabilitative agency.

7) Other University honor
systems that have gone from
the single sanction to
graduated penalties have
eventually collapsed.

The foregoing are my
reasons for deciding after
extensive Honor Committee
meetings and thought, that a
single sanction system, not a
graduated penalties system, is
the only feasible way for our
Honor System to exist.

Lastly, when you vote in
the referendum, please try not
to be influenced and caught up
in the "cavalier-savior"
approach of one member of
the Honor Committee.
Remember this is your decision
upon the single sanction and
should be made only after
careful reflection about both
sides of the issue.