It’s assumed in American criminal law the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the standard necessary to find someone guilty is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s a foundation of the American legal system, which exists to ensure as few errors as possible and that an innocent person is not convicted of a criminal charge on the basis of an assumption or a capricious interpretation of the evidence.

So if this is the standard for the United State of America and most other major western democracies why isn’t it good enough for N.C. State’s Office of Student Conduct?

The University’s Code of Conduct provides for a moving burden of proof, and the most basic and common standard is set at 51 percent, or “more likely than not.” That’s a scary thought — before you even go into the office the cards are stacked against you. With NCSU’s behavioral conduct system that doesn’t even like to be labeled a judicial system, you’re expected to admit guilt, accept your punishment and pander to the administrator in hopes of showing progress toward achieving a higher goal of perfection.

There is really no chance at innocence, regardless of the case you present. A single individual has an almost supreme right to arbitrarily declare that you or your organization is guilty of whatever charge with very little recourse for an appeal unless it’s a violation of the very vaguely defined procedures outlined in the code of conduct.

Fundamentally, this process is flawed and puts the power of decision in one person’s hands.

As much as Paul Cousins, director of Student Conduct, believes whoever were to hear the case with proper training would agree with his decision is almost an absurdly preposterous statement.

With such a flimsy standard and the nature of human beings to interpret things differently, there’s almost no way that someone could take a case of conflicting evidence with no clear guilt established and determine whether someone is innocent or guilty on a consistent basis. The idea that this is the basis of our conduct system is frightening.

There really isn’t much more that can be done to change the burden of proof. I’ve written about it since I’ve been with Technician, and Chief Justice Lock Whiteside made that the cornerstone of his campaign the past two elections.

The Student Senate passed resolutions urging a reform of the code of conduct with no real results from the administration. The administration seems reluctant in general to change the burden of proof for whatever reason — but I won’t speculate.

So rather than the traditional call for a change of the burden of proof here’s another proposal of a way to make the Code of Conduct more palatable to the students — open up a more broadly defined appeals process. As stated above, the current basic appellate process goes solely to the administration on the basis of a procedural violation.

Open it up instead to an appeal of the decision made, let students appeal on the basis that there was not enough evidence necessary for a conviction or even an appeal of the punishment — whether or not it was unnecessarily tough or fit the violation.

Regardless, the system needs to be reformed, but the situation has gotten to a point where it isn’t realistic to change the nature of a system. Instead, it’d be productive to establish a new check and balance of our fundamentally flawed burden of proof.

Send Benton your thoughts on the burden of proof to [email protected].