In my last post I wrote that "The StFX Disciplinary Code clearly works under the presupposition that all students are guilty until proven innocent." Pat and I are in disagreement about this issue. I just spoke with him on the phone about this disagreement and it became evident to me that the article in reference (the preamble to Article III) to the community code is neither "clear" nor "evident".
The point is that I stated that Pat Connors misinterpreted something pretty clear and said this partially debunks a major part of the foundation on which he stands for leadership. When we talked Pat made it agreed that the Community Code is written in a way that one can be confused. However, most laws aren't written that clearly (it is why a law degree is hard to obtain).
Pat has been advised by the Dean of Students, the RLM, and others that he should interpret this article to read "innocent until proven guilty".
I told Pat on the phone that I would apologize for misconstruing the point. I realize now that this is not the case. I have not entirely missed the point. Pat trusted some people close to him and he can't entirely be blamed for their wrong interpretation or misleadings.
I would like to apologize to you, all candidates, and specifically Pat for making his inaccurate statement about "innocent until proven guilty," seem to be entirely his fault. As a result I came down to harshly. I should have also blamed a partially corrupt University Disciplinary System for some of the fault that resulted in this interpretation.
However, in our conversation and my subsequent contemplation on the issue I realized that, ultimately, the onus still falls on Pat. As a defender of students he shouldn't have accepted the explanation of the Dean of Students or the RLM at face value. He also should admit where he is wrong.
I was wrong as well. The Community Code isn't "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty". The Code specifically reads,
"Finding of innocence or guilt under The Rules of Conduct is decided on the basis of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, not on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt."
This means you begin the process in a gray area. When I was an advocate I took a harsher stand in the defense of students and approached all cases as though the student was already assumed guilty. This forced me to argue more convincingly and be more prepared to defend the innocence of students.
I don't know how effective Pat is as a Student Advocate. What I do know is that he used other people's interpretations of an important rule instead of his own. He used the opinion presented to him by the people in direct opposition to the Student Advocate office (The Dean and the RLM) rather than really questioning their agendas. Finally, I know that Pat would rather argue than listen and not admit that he is wrong.
I am sorry that I accused Pat with an overly aggressive post. We both were wrong in this issue. I thought the code was black, Pat though it was white, when really it is gray. However I am happy that right before posting closes and the polls open I was able to call a spade a spade and Pat is still trying to bluff when he doesn't have a full house.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Brian,
I stand by my argument. The Community Code is based off of Civil Law. Civil law presumes that someone charged with an offense is innocent until proven guilty by the preponderance of evidence and the balance of probabilities. This is how the Community Code is written, and it is how it has played out in practice in my dealings with it this year. And, I have always ensured with utmost prudence that any student I represented had their rights protected.
This has come quite far from what the original question asked at the debate. The question was wondering whether or not the Discipline Process should be moved within the purview of the student body.
Again, I stand by my original point stated at the debate. Students alleged to have violated the Community Code should have their cases heard in private behind closed doors. Whether you think the process starts from the premise of “guilty until proven innocent” or “innocent until proven guilty” this comes down on the side of protecting student and their rights.
Thanks,
Pat
Brian,
As a sitting member of the appeals committee I cannot believe how mistaken you are in your interpretation of the community code. As Pat said, University Law is an extension of Civil Law, which makes the fundamental assumption that all those taken before judicial bodies of any kind are presumed innocent until proven guilty. For you to say anything different demonstrates your complete and utter misunderstanding of the entire process. Former advocate or not, you are simply WRONG in this matter.
The section you have quotes regarding the preponderance of evidence is taken completely out of context. This is meant to guide those who sit on the Discipline Committee and Appeals Committee of how to weight the evidence before them (the evidence which is given to them AT TRAIL).
As part of the judicial process here at X I am offended at your accusation that this system is corrupt. You certainly like to throw that word around. Perhaps the system is not so much corrupt as you simply have a slanted, misguided, and ignorant view of all bodies of authority at this university. The best thing which will come from the end of this campaign, next to the election of new campus leaders and the hopeful passing of the referendum question, is that the campus community will be finally spared your horribly misinformed commentary which would be humorous if it weren't so disgusting.
Glenn Horne,
Student Senator
Appeals Committee Member
Glenn,
Thank you for your biased opinion as Platform Development Officer for the Pat and Scott campaign.
How long have you been sitting on that appeals committee as if memory serves you only recently won the by-election to senate? Or were you sitting on it as a student before you were elected?
As has been stated before, Merely saying you have a presumption of innocence means nothing if there is nothing to back it up. What guarantees are there in the community code that prevent the possible abuse of the system?
Saying that the decisions based on the preponderance of evidence do not imply a reverse onus for burden of proof is ridiculous.
Since it is obvious that you did not look at or have never heard of R v. Oakes we'll bring it up again!
Here's the link again: R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
StFX SYB,
The case you are referencing is one in which the reverse onus clause has been struck down because it is unconstitutional! In R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 the accused appealed because the Narcotics Act under which he was charged required him to disprove the charges (thus creating reverse onus). I would like to also refer you to R. v. Laba (1994) which the Supreme Court struck down for the same reason.
We can exchange barbs all day long but the fact of the matter remains, section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures all those brought up on charges are presumed innocent until proven guilty in all matter criminal, tort, civil, you name it. I am quite certain I am going to take the words on the Charter over those of yourself or Mr. Cauley.
And in your response to my bias accusations, I don't see how this topic has anything to do with the campaign, as it seems to be little more than another chance for Brian to blow his own horn. And with regard to my sitting on the appeals committee, I have been doing so for some time, as my Senate election has nothing to do with this position. I was simply signing as a Senator to indicate my frustration with the constant baseless corruption charges which have been levied against almost all bodies of authority at this university by Mr. Cauley. There are a lot of amazing people working very hard to make this campus community a better place, and to be continually linking them to something as negative as corruption is simply wrong, thus my frustrated tone. I do not wish to denigrate anyone, unlike what Brian does time after time, I simply want to correct Brian’s fallacies.
Glenn
Holy shit Glenn, are you thinking before you’re writing any of this? SYB explained that the reverse onus inherent in the StFX system is bad, and cited a Supreme Court case that supported that position. And in rebuttal, you think he’s wrong because the Supreme Court found a reverse onus unconstitutional. I’m not sure how you think you’re disproving his point by further explaining the evidence in support of it.
Section 11(d) of the Charter gives the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.” The StFX Community Code is NOT ACTUAL LAW, but just rules that the university has chosen. The Charter does not apply here at all.
This topic does have something to do with the campaign. It’s gotten a little off track, but Brian called Pat out on completely misunderstanding an issue extremely relevant to his role as a Student Advocate, which reflects poorly him and is information highly relevant to students’ voting choices. The bloggers have a responsibility in this blog to point out things like that to inform the students who are voting, which is exactly what Brian is doing.
Brian also has the right to criticize the university. Everyone has the right to criticize the university. It’s what free speech is about. If you think he used excessively strong language, call him out on that, but don’t try to say he doesn’t have a right to comment on the topic.
Here’s my favourite part. You just said “I do not wish to denigrate anyone, unlike what Brian does time after time, I simply want to correct Brian’s fallacies,” less than 12 hours after you posted “The best thing which will come from the end of this campaign, next to the election of new campus leaders and the hopeful passing of the referendum question, is that the campus community will be finally spared your horribly misinformed commentary which would be humorous if it weren't so disgusting.” Reasonably now, I think that’s pretty denigrating, don’t you?
This needs a bump up to the top blog post. To make a really informed choice, it wouldn't hurt to check out:
http://stfxdecides2spoil.blogspot.com/
My argument is that reverse onus (guilty until proven innocent) is not employed in the community code. The cases cited detail how it is not constitutionally employed in criminal or civil cases in Canada. And the university judicial process is based on civil law. The Code is constructed on the advice of students with the guidance and the University Lawyer who ensures what is outlined within is legal and proper.
Reverse Onus is not used in the Community Code, that is the overall point here. While, granted, it is not explicitly outlined it is implied and that is the manner in which all members of the Discipline and Appeals Committees interpret it.
Wikipedia: "A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof on to the individual specified to disprove an element of the information."
All hearings at StFX start with an allegation that a student committed an offense. In the case of the majority of Community Code infractions, this takes the form of an incident report.
If the student does not appear to defend themselves against the accusation, or appears and does not demonstrate that the incident report is false, it will be accepted as a demonstration of guilt.
The burden is on the accused to prove their innocence. Plain and simple. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. In practice, reverse onus is used.
This same situation is true for any criminal or civil matter.... neither of which use reverse onus. I can only tell you how I have been instructed to approach a hearing, and how I do so in practice, which is with the assumption of innocence.
I think we should agree to disagree but I encourage you to talk with the Dean of Students.
Um, all hearings outside of st. fx start with an allegation that the person committed the offense. So that doesn't really help your position, Rat. Thinker.
However, it is still up to the state to prove the facts to make a person actually get committed of the wrongdoing. The same thing happens here at St. FX. When you go to a disciplinary hearing, the jury is supposed to be impartial and start the hearing with the assumption that the student is innocent until proven guilty by the evidence provided by the ADVOCATE FOR THE STUDENT CODE, who represents the university. (not the student advocate)
If you choose to not show up to your hearing, the verdict is decided based on the balance of probabilities, which if you aren't there to defend yourself, then the balance is on the only evidence provided by the RA/CP, etc. So, it's your dumb fault for not defending yourself and bringing that scale back to your side if you actually did not do the accused thing.
People need to clarify that if you are accused of something, it doesn't mean you are found guilty right away. This is the case at St. FX as it is in the Canadian Criminal Justice System. You are given the right to a fair trial, where you are innocent until proven guilty.
Brian was completely WRONG in calling Pat out on an issue that Pat has grasped a better concept about than Brian apparently did. I don't know about you, but I would rather have the person representing me think and believe me when I say I am not guilty prior to my hearing. If my defense lawyer, aka Brian as a former advocate, did not believe me, then where is the justice in that?
Brian and SYB and Rat. Thinker need to study a system prior commenting on a post that could possibily influence many people. These people are hopefully rational and will see that the three poeple just mentioned clearly are wrong and that these rationals readers will hopefully trust the judgement of those who are currently in the positions of student advocates, advocate for the code, chair of the discipline committee and member of the appeals committee.
You three people mentioned earlier, not the rational ones, are the biggest dumbasses that are at St. FX. The three of you have taken what could have been a great place for feedback or comments about the election and spoiled anyone else's opinion on how this school's community code works. I strongly incourage you to stop being a coward and come out from behind your computer and speak to someone who actually knows how the system works instead of basing all of your responses off of someone who has not been apart of the disciplinary side of things for a couple of years.
Nick: “Um, all hearings outside of st. fx start with an allegation that the person committed the offense. So that doesn't really help your position, Rat. Thinker.”
I clearly stated that, it was part of a larger point that the original allegation is almost always sufficient to find a student guilty in the absence of a defence.
Glenn: “This same situation is true for any criminal or civil matter.”
Nick: “…it is still up to the state to prove the facts to make a person actually get committed of the wrongdoing.”
It’s not the same because in a criminal or civil court you must be proven guilty by the state before you are convicted of anything. You can walk into the courtroom without a defence counsel and walk out unscathed if the prosecution cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. There is a very high burden on the state that must be met before the accused has to worry about being convicted of anything.
At StFX, however, what qualifies as a sufficient demonstration of guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but simply that it is more likely that you were guilty than not. RLCs, RLMs, and the Dean will accept an incident report, by itself, as an indication that you are most likely guilty in the absence of any defence. The burden on the “state” is extremely low. When an accusation is sufficient for a conviction, the burden lies with the accused to defend themselves, or they will be found guilty by default.
A few things are clear here:
a) There is no “proof” of guilt in the StFX system at all. It’s based on a balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence, not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
b) All references to actual civil and criminal matters in this discussion don’t really matter beyond serving as a reference point or basis of comparison. Legal rights protected in the Charter are not upheld in a tribunal based on rules created by a private institution, because they are not actually laws. Despite the fact that the StFX system was roughly based on existing civil law practices, that doesn’t mean they’re the same. There are a lot of differences
c) Brian has every right to post about this. If he’s wrong, then you’re being astute in responding to him, people will read your responses and/or consult the powers that be to get everything sorted out straight, and no harm is done. If he’s right, it’s been demonstrated that you’re all pretty foolish, so I can see maybe see why you’re all being so defensive.
d) Remember that this started up because Brian, as a blogger, was calling out a perceived weakness in a presidential candidate, which is one of the reasons this blog exists. Who have responded in criticism of Brian?
- Lauren, Student Advocate, which means Lauren Connors, C & M Events Coordinator
- Glenn Horne, Appeals Committee Member and C & M Platform Development Officer
- Nick, Advocate for the Student Code, which I think means Nick DeWolfe, C & M New Rez Respresentative
Lauren’s response was reasoned and polite, and I thank her for that. Glenn and Nick were downright rude and offensive. There’s no reason an intelligent discussion can’t be had without all the badmouthing. I see why you might want to come to Pat’s defence, being on his campaign team and all, but you’re not making Pat look any better. If his campaign team is full of inconsiderate people, how does that reflect on him?
What’s pretty disturbing and ironic, too, is that Glenn and Nick are two officers of the system trying to defend its integrity while acting like assholes. Why doesn’t everyone arguing this side of the issue identify themselves? Maybe because if by chance we have to go in front of the appeals committee before the end of the year, we won’t only have to worry about a terrible system, but a couple of jerks biased against us because they take reasonable discussions and turn them opportunities to be rude and insulting to people who disagree with them.
Grow up.
Rat. Thinker - "It’s not the same because in a criminal or civil court you must be proven guilty by the state before you are convicted of anything. You can walk into the courtroom without a defence counsel and walk out unscathed if the prosecution cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. There is a very high burden on the state that must be met before the accused has to worry about being convicted of anything."
When entering the judicial process at StFX the same can be said regarding the prosecution. If the Advocate for the Code does not do their job or does not have enough to "convict" then the accussed receives no sanction. As for the weigth of evidence I am afraid you are confused. Civil court (on which the university judicial process is based) conciders the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES. As you and I have stated previously reverse onus does not exist in civil court, therefore you cannot equate weighting of evidence on the balance of probabilities with reverse onus.
I am not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you. You are making the claim that anything but "beyond reasonable doubt" is reverse onus, but this is simply not true. Further to that, the weighting of evidence has nothing to do with the mindset of the judicial body when approaching a case. Yes, an accusation is made by Rez Staff or CPs to initiate the process, but before anything goes further a counter is made by the accussed. After consulting with advocates the accussed goes before one of the two judicial bodies where the case is heard. When entering the room he/her is pressumed INNOCENT until it is proven otherwise. Each party begins with a blank slate and a case is built. The final decision is made based on the proponderence or probability of the evidence at hand, just as in a real civil case heard before a real judge.
Yes the probability of evidence is a lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt. But that does not equate with reverse onus, just as it does not in civil court which uses the EXACT same threshold.
I am sorry if you tend to disagree, but the advocates for the code, the writers of the code, the enforcers of the code, and the practitioners of the code are all in agreement that your claim is wrong and reverse onus does not exist within the Community Code.
As a relatively uninformed observer, I'd just like to make the comment that in this argument, the Connors & Matheson campaign members have handled themselves very poorly. While they, under the guise of their various Advocate, Senator, and Committee Member positions, defend Pat Connors, they do so in a far more offensive and disrespectful way than SYB, Rational Thinker, and Brian Cauley ever have.
C&M's responses to any form of criticism, as well as the responses of their team, have been singularly narrow-minded, pompous, and evasive throughout this election. Brian Cauley has not once made attacks on their personal character, but has offered constructive and informed criticism of the issues that few other students would otherwise know. I cannot say the same for Cauley's many anonymous detractors, or for Glenn Horne's shamefully puerile attack of Cauley's supposedly "horribly misinformed commentary which would be humorous if it weren't so disgusting." On the contrary, it is the unnecessary violence of Glenn Horne's comment that genuinely repulses me.
In short, while the issue of the community code is clearly controversial, the true loss that has occurred in the argument is the integrity and honor of the C&M team. Perhaps Glenn Horne and Nick should consider that more was at stake here than winning a debate over interpretations of a community code before using ignorant, crude terms such as "the biggest dumbasses" to those that disagree with them.
As a voter, I am never going to vote for a team so clearly unable to receive and respond to criticism with dignity. I spoiled my ballot, not because of the urging of StFX Spoil Your Ballots, but because of the actions of the team itself. Congratulations.
Here Here, unimpressed voter.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment