[23056] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] On Expulsion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roberts)
Wed Oct 30 06:27:10 2002
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:35:45 -0500
Reply-To: Daniel Roberts <daniel_roberts@CORE.COM>
From: Daniel Roberts <daniel_roberts@CORE.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3DBF4419.4040107@cs.com>
Enshrining a policy based on the definition of felony is a bad idea. I agree
with Mr. Vehlow's analysis here. There is also the issue of proof in
criminal cases which is beyond a reasonable doubt. This contrasts with the
much lower standard for civil cases. As a result a person may be acquitted
at trial in the criminal matter and yet be held responsible in a civil
action to the tune of large sums of money. A couple of other points:
1) Plea bargaining occurs for a variety of reasons, sometimes, particularly
in the case of sexual assaults to protect the victim from the additional
trauma of trail.
2) Jurisdictions vary. An offense taken very seriously in one county may be
ignored in the next county over.
3) Juries are unpredictable. In my personal experience, this USUALLY results
in caution that favors acquittal when there is doubt. This has generally
been considered a good thing in our system as we like to think that
convicting an innocent person is worse then letting a guilty one go free.
In sum, the resolution of a criminal case is not the be all and end all of
what happened in a particular situation.
Additional thoughts: The protections built into the criminal law are to
protect the individual from the power of the state. To protect the
individual from prison, serious fine, or death. With all due respect to the
importance of Alpha Phi Omega, expulsion from APHIO is not as serious a
matter as incarcerating a person in a correctional facility for more then
one year (the traditional definition of a felony is an offense for which
imprisonment of more then one year MAY be imposed.
Some felonies are worse then others. I would suggest that situations could
arise where a brother convicted of a felony SHOULD NOT be expelled. We see
in the federal and to a lesser extent some state court systems the effect of
mandatory sentencing in working unfair outcomes. I would suggest that
careful consideration of each and every situation by impartial finders of
fact possessing all the available information is far superior to any iron
clad rules dependent on the action of an outside agency. Yes, there should
be clear rules as to what conduct is not permitted but the specific facts of
each case should be carefully considered to evaluate mitigating and
aggravating factors.
Dan
Daniel Roberts, Speaking only for himself.
By means of identification only Alumni from Alpha Iota chapter with ten
years experience practicing criminal law.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List
> [mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU]On Behalf Of Robert Dean
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:30 PM
> To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> Subject: Re: [APO-L] On Expulsion
>
>
> I generally avoid commenting on proposed legislation, but the assertion
> that the proposal would somehow fix the current issue at hand is
> misleading and dangerous.
>
> While it would certainly render this debate moot, the proposal would
> have some serious consequences if enacted:
>
> 1) The Fraternity would no longer be able to choose the offenses for
> which expulsion is appropriate. This would be a bad thing because
> not all serious offenses fall under the category of "felony".
>
> a) Misdemeanors don't count.
>
> b) Serious breaches of University/College rules/policies don't
> count, unless a state legislature of Congress chose to make it
> a felony.
>
> c) Material breaches of trust and Brotherhood don't count, unless
> a state legislature or Congress chose to make it a felony.
>
> 2) The Fraternity would be forced to discipline members according
> to the timetable of the courts. It would lose the ability to act
> in a timely and decisive fashion.
>
> At the worst, these things would lead to greater, not lessened,
> liability for the Fraternity because failure to act on a serious offense
> can be as damning as anything. The Risk Management Policy exists for
> just this type of scenario.
>
> We can always reinstate someone who's been wrongly expelled (the section
> on expulsion provides for it). We can't unvictimize someone who got
> hurt through our lack of action.
>
> LFS,
> Robert
>
>
> Richard.Vehlow@OGS.STATE.NY.US wrote:
> >
> > On expulsion- please refer to my proposed bylaw amendment to make
> > expulsion a valid alternative only for someone convicted of a crime.
> > Passing this amendment would make the debatew moot, unless said brother
> > was proven guilty in a court of law.
> >
> > -Rich Vehlow
> > Section 88 fellowship coordinator
> >
>
