It's a concept that is common to criminal law lectures in Lewis Hall and the covers of best selling paperbacks in the Book Store. But increasingly it is a concept that is completely ignored by campus activists. Particularly in cases of alleged rape and racial harassment, the so-called "progressives" on campus seem to want to get rid of the burden of proof that is placed on someone who files a complaint. I say "so-called progressives," because their viewpoint seems to fall more in line with law-and-order Reaganism than classic American liberalism. In the debate on the University's racial harassment policy, for example, the "progressives" have complained that because President Hackney's proposal requires stringent tests before an action is considered harassment, the policy creates a system that "blames the victim." In the more recent campus discussion of acquaintance rape at the University, some of these same people fault the criminal justice system for a process that also seems to "blame the victim." It should be easier to bring the guilty to justice, they argue. It should be easier to impose law and order. But contrary to the arguements of these "progressives," and of Richard Nixon for that matter, making it easier to win a conviction is a bad idea, and against the law. These adjudication systems don't "blame the victim." They merely place the burden of proof on the alleged victim. And well they should. Rape is a criminal act punishable by decades in prison. In any criminal case, the law rightly requires a jury to find that the accused is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is the most stringent requirement in law. In civil cases, for example, a jury only has to find a "preponderance of the evidence" that points to one side in order to rule that way. The scales of justice need only to lean a little to one side. But in a rape case, the law doesn't even require the accused to present his side of the story. If defense lawyers feel that the prosecution hasn't proved their client guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," hasn't met their burden of proof, they can rest without presenting a single witness. The scales of justice must be heavily weighed against the defendant for a jury to find guilt. Clearly this forces the prosecution -- the victim -- to do most of the work, to prove what they charge happened really did happen. This may seem like it places undo blame on the victim or "puts the victim on trial," but when a government takes away one of a person's inalienable rights -- the right to liberty -- it better be damn sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is doing it for a good reason. That is why the burden of proof lies with victim. Innocent until proven guilty. The same should hold true with a campus harassment policy. Racial harassment is punishable by the harshest sentence the University can levy -- expulsion. Indeed, just last year a student at Brown University was expelled for shouting anti-black and anti-Semitic epithets in a drunken stupor. For that reason, a racial harassment policy should hold to the same legal underpinnings that serve as the foundation for the American criminal justice system. A person who alleges racial harassment should be forced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Anything less would be dangerous. President Hackney's current, and hopefully final, version of the University's harassment policy contains three conditions that must be met before an act is considered racial harassment. These conditions are there to force the alleged victim to prove his or her case. It places the burden of proof on the victim. Neither system is perfect. Guilty suspects do slip though the loopholes. But the structure protects the rights of the accused and protects the innocent wrongly charged. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the system is the worst on the planet, if you don't count all the other ones. Peter Spiegel is a senior History major from Phoenix, Arizona and managing editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. Laughter and Contempt appears alternate Wednesdays.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
