EDITORIAL: Justice, You Shall Pursue

The current judicial systemThe current judicial systemneeds a major overhaul. WeThe current judicial systemneeds a major overhaul. Weoffer a few suggestions.The current judicial systemneeds a major overhaul. Weoffer a few suggestions._____________________________ With the burgeoning of the legal profession and the increased litigiousness of our society, it is clearer now than ever before how much our society – with all its competing interests – requires justice to survive. At the University, we are no different. The national spotlight that shone last semester on the problems with our school's judicial system did not reveal anything new. For the past decade, everyone from sitting judges to student activists have criticized the Judicial Inquiry Officer system for its handling of cases. With these trends in mind, the Daily Pennsylvanian decided to undertake an investigation of the JIO system and the controversy surrounding it. The resulting series, "And Justice For All?," ran everyday last week. From the information gathered in the series, it became apparent to us that some radical, systemic changes need to happen now. We feel that alterations to the system must make the system as fair, just, and open as possible. We believe that revisions to the judicial process made for the sake of expediency also seem to be made at the expense of fairness. It may take a long time to find justice, but we would rather pursue it than give up. With these beliefs in mind, we offer the following revisions to the judicial system. Openness. As the now infamous "water buffalo" case proved, when the process is put under public scrutiny, its failings and abuses are brought out and change can be affected. Yet the other lesson in the water buffalo case is that both sides must be able to say whatever they please to the press. In the judicial process itself, all correspondence and notes taken by the JIO should be made available to both sides, and a transcript of the proceedings should be made. Pending the outcome of ongoing litigation regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, the University must make as much public as it legally can. In cases in which a group is tried, FERPA does not apply, and the process should be made public. But openness is not a panacea. The system itself needs to be overhauled. The JIO. First, the JIO's role must be changed. Presently, the JIO is a investigator, prosecutor, and judge. Assistant JIO Robin Read's gut instinct is now the only thing that determines someone's initial guilt. And it is from that premise that the JIO works during a settlement process. During the five percent of the cases that go to a hearing, the JIO also acts as a witness and a prosecutor against the defendant. Our remedy is not a new one. The JIO must be bifurcated into one that investigates and finds the facts without forming an opinion, and another that decides whether to press charges and is the prosecutor in the case. Rules of Evidence. During any hearing, the JIO must use the standard rules of evidence. A short game of "whisper down the lane," should easily prove the lunacy of using hearsay evidence in a judicial proceeding. In addition, "clear and convincing" should be the burden of proof standard in most cases, and in cases involving a possible criminal proceeding, the standard should be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet in any case where someone is charged with a felony (e.g. rape and kidnapping), the case should be turned over to the district attorney. As past bunglings prove, no one gains when these cases are tried in house. Counsel. During the whole proceeding, we advocate the admission of lawyers as representatives of the parties involved. And if the University is so concerned that this will detract from a sense of community, then limit the pool to thousands of alumni lawyers in the city. Jury system. Finally, the present hearing board system should be abolished. In its place, students should be randomly chosen for jury duty in the University's judicial system. As in real life, people could be excluded from service due to biases. This innovation would not only be more fair, but it would also involve more of the student body in the running of its own affairs, thus building more of a bond to the welfare of the community. In addition, the separate hearing board for fraternity and sororities should also be abolished. If they violate University policy, they should go through the same channels as anyone else. In sum, we disagree with those who defend the present system by claiming that the University has different needs and values than in the real world and that the process must play a didactic role. Justice is a value that even permeates into the value systems of those of us stuck in the ivory tower. A judicial system in which all students are involved and informed of its doings will gain respect and will educate all of us about what to expect when we leave the friendly confines of Locust Walk. Our advice to the our new JIO and those studying the policy is simple: Justice, justice you shall pursue.