Student Judicial System Needs a Tuneup - And Your Help

Trinh, the computer science student whose Honor Court appearance in October of last year sparked controversy about the system's unfairness, can't get a fair shake, much less a break in the rain.

A full three months after his initial trial, Trinh skipped a day of classes to prepare for his appeal, scheduled for Jan. 22. Just an hour before the proceedings were to begin, he was told that his hearing had been postponed.

It seems the appeals panel was suddenly shorthanded after the group's chairman "fell through" the preceding Friday. He has been asked to check his calendar for the week of Feb. 5 to give it another shot. It's doubtful that rescheduling would have been so easy if it had been Trinh who "fell through" an hour beforehand.

Trinh has faced numerous obstacles unbecoming of an acceptable system.

But don't pin this one on the Honor Court or the attorney general's office -- or even a major flaw in the process.

Instead, chalk it up as the latest in a series of horrifying examples of the carelessness with which life-altering decisions are made about students' futures in our student judicial system.

Reform wouldn't just be nice -- it's necessary.

Enter William Hashemi, founder of the Independent Defense Council, a student organization offering an alternative source of defense representation for students facing charges of Honor Code violations.

It's forward thinking like his that might finally bring justice to our judicial system.

Indeed, Hashemi has identified and addressed two of the system's most glaring shortcomings.

First, the student attorney general's office is responsible for both prosecuting and providing a defense for accused students.

That just doesn't make sense -- two separate, independent offices should handle those two responsibilities.

Unfortunately, the IDC is not quite the solution to this problem. Hashemi has vowed to seek advice from law professors, clearly a wise move.

But the student judicial system doesn't operate according to the rules of the traditional legal system, for better or worse. When critics suggest that IDC "lawyers" would lack training in and experience with the student judicial system, they're right.

Additionally, the IDC lacks institutional recognition. The attorney general's staff is under no obligation to mention its existence to accused students, and the staff is under no obligation to cooperate with IDC representatives.

Instead, the student attorney general's office should officially separate its prosecutorial and defense branches.

At the very least, student "lawyers" should work exclusively as prosecutors or defenders -- not both simultaneously, as they do now.

What's more, defenders and prosecutors should answer to different leaders, not one attorney general. The present arrangement is clearly a conflict of interest.

The second flaw that Hashemi's innovation addresses is the system's pervasive, albeit passive, arrogance.

The attorney general reacted negatively to news of the IDC's creation in an article in last week's Daily Tar Heel, suggesting that IDC members were mere Matlock wannabes who simply wanted power over the Honor Court.

Any student who volunteers to defend fellow students through any organization presumably has the best intentions in mind. To mock the fledgling group and suggest its members' motives are any worse than one's own is sheer arrogance.

If the attorney general's staff is so noble-minded, it should not be difficult to understand the motives of other students seeking to improve the University by providing a fair judicial system.

Unfortunately, Hashemi's organization cannot address the arrogance of the Honor Court -- the group of students who serve as the judge-jury combination in trials.

Undoubtedly, it takes a certain amount of audacity to volunteer to judge your peers. Mind you, it's no easy job; and it's certainly not something that Honor Court members take lightly.

But the fact remains. Despite what are likely the best of intentions, students' fates are determined by a group of students who believe themselves, even if subconsciously, to be more honorable than the rest of us. The students on the court are no doubt good people. And their service to the University is exceptionally valuable.

Nonetheless, the same intrinsic arrogance that drives people to volunteer to judge others makes them more likely to return guilty verdicts. Although moving to a strictly random jury-selection process is impractical, steps should be taken to make the Honor Court less exclusive. Clearly, given the court's inability to provide untainted jurors in the computer science cases last semester, more students need to be added to the "jury pool."

These issues do not carry blame -- the system simply needs an overhaul.

Most cases are likely decided correctly, and most students likely receive fair trials.

But problems persist.

Innovative leaders like Hashemi should continue to step forward with ideas and plans to improve the system, and students should ask those running for student body president about their plans for addressing the problems.

What's more, students should volunteer to work within the system to improve it -- the Honor Court is presently accepting applications.

Regardless of how students act, we cannot afford to dismiss this issue.

Don't presume that you'll never be the one brought up on charges.

Assumptions like that will only leave you caught in the rain.

Brandon Briscoe is a senior journalism and mass communication major from New Orleans. He proudly claims both Mike Trinh and several members of the attorney general's staff and Honor Court as friends. Reach him at bbriscoe@email.unc.edu.