Paper Example on Standards for Campus Sexual Assault Cases

Introduction

There are different forms of evidentiary standards when it comes to the gathering of evidence in most cases. The rules set the requirements for the claim to be sustained which may either be high or low. When it comes to sexual assaults, the cases have been on the rise in college campuses. There is also a need to have a standard way of handling them that will not be costly for the colleges involved as most of them are public entities. This paper is of the assertion that a higher standard is not needed for campus sexual assault cases.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The colleges and universities are under obligation to use the preponderance of evidence in addressing their sexual assault cases. This is one of the preconditions set for them to receive federal funding as it had been noted that higher standards were problematic for them. This system does not require the use of rigorous methods like the case in the criminal law based institutions (Woody & Greene, 2012). Using the college Title IX proceedings an accused will be declared guilty if he is deemed to have committed the offense by more than 50 percent. That means that if one is 49 percent less likely, then he or she will be redeemed of the offense.

The system that is used is similar to the one that is practiced in a civil case which does not require a burden of proof. Hogshead-Makar & Sokolow (2012) agree that the preponderance to evidence system is easier and faster for the college to decide. It does not require the kind of high expertise that will be present in a court of law. The college's mandate is not to deal with criminal cases, and that is why this one will be more suitable as it will save them time to handle what they deal with best. In such systems, respectable members of the given community are invited to assess what is placed before them and may ask a few questions from where they will vote either for or against.

One more reason for proposing this system is because of saving resources for the college and the students involved. There is no need of getting additional evidence in the form of forensics to determine that the given acts happened. There are no attorneys who are required as this will be expensive for the ones involved where the professionals will have to be invited to attend the hearings (Cohn, 2012). There is no time to cross-examining the accuser and the supposed witnesses which would take more time than anticipated. The system does not provide for an appeal in case of any dissatisfaction with the decision that was reached at, and their ruling is binding.

The ones against the system state that it is prone to mistakes since all the devices are not utilized in addressing any given case. There is a high possibility of convicting the ones who are innocent and having them suffer for what they had not done. According to Woody and Greene (2012), there is a lack of due process as there is no evidence that is presented before a verdict is reached. It does not need the jury to be presented with clear and convincing evidence for them to assess and reach a verdict.

The additional reason that is given by its opposers is the denial of the basic rights of the students involved. Article IX is one of the statutes that is violated which provides that all the American students have the right to equal educational opportunity (Cohn, 2012). It also violates criminal laws which provide for proof beyond reasonable doubts, and it is possible for one of the students or a group of them to set up one of their own to destroy his or her future. The result of having an increase in the number of students who are dissatisfied with the system is having a high number of companions to the federal government.

The need for an evidentiary standard of proof increases the burden of the college being exposed to several challenges. The preponderous system by itself provides an equal opportunity for the defendant and the accused which may not be the case with the criminal system. The college tribunal is not mandated to jail the students or impose any fines. If this were the case, then it would have been acting as an extension of the state's judicial system. Hogshead and Sokolow (2012) argue that it eases the burden that would have been there if now and then law enforcement agencies were to be invited to the campuses to deal with a matter of such a nature. If the college system is exposed to the criminal system, they may end up losing in compensations that would exhaust funds set for the institutions. Their decisions are made to be binding which makes it easy for the matter to rest and not get dragged outside the college (Cohn, 2012). Therefore the ones who are enrolled in the colleges and universities and the system itself will have an easy time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, if colleges and universities had to increase their standards, it would have demanded a higher evidentiary burden to the ones involved. It is easy for the institution to lose focus on its initial mandate of provision of education and skills to the ever increasing number of students. This also makes them qualify for government funding for which they would have been exempted if they did not have the required preponderance standard in place. The system is more lenient considering the punishments that it gives out compared to the criminal system. It is imperative for all to accept it as the best way for colleges and universities to handle such cases given their limitations regarding time and the lack of the required expertise.

References

Cohn, J. (2012). Campus Is a Poor Court for Students Facing Sexual-Misconduct Charges. Chronicle of Higher Education. p. A31.

Hogshead-Makar, N., & Sokolow, B. A. (2012). Setting a Realistic Standard of Proof in Sexual-Misconduct Cases. Chronicle of Higher Education. p. A76.

Woody, W. D., & Greene, E. (2012). Jurors' Use of Standards of Proof in Decisions about Punitive Damages. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 30(6), 856-872. doi:10.1002/bsl.2027