After two years of contentious debate, the University Judiciary Committee voted down a proposed referendum to extend the statute of limitations -- the amount of time following an alleged crime during which a person can file a complaint -- from 45 to 180 days in cases of physical assault.
The change would have required an amendment to the committee's constitution, a move that must be approved by a majority of students in an election.
The committee's judge pool voted 10-4, with one judge abstaining and six judges absent, not to send the proposal to the fall election for a student vote. Two-thirds of the judge pool must vote in favor of a proposal in order for it to become a referendum.
Opponents of the proposal said they believed the potential for abuse of the system outweighed the benefits that extending the statute of limitations for physical assault could provide.
"We can't see into the future -- we don't know how this will affect the system," Committee Chair Alexis Gregorian said. "I worry that we'd be setting up a messy scenario."
Some judges envisioned a scenario where students get into a minor fight at a party and then months later one of the students becomes angry at the other and decides to file a complaint with the committee alleging physical assault that occurred long ago.
"The retribution aspect is increased exponentially," Gregorian said. "To have it hanging over a student's head for that long, I just don't think it's right."
Opponents also expressed concern that extending the time period would allow more opportunities for evidence loss, particularly with graduated students who no longer can testify in a trial.
Proponents argued that physical assault cases are serious enough to warrant an extended statute of limitations, adding that physical assault can have emotional ramifications similar to sexual assault that could lead to a longer decision process in filing a complaint with the committee.
The committee is required by state law to have a one-year statute of limitations for sexual assault victims, but its constitution limits case initiations to 45 days after an incident in all other cases.
Advocates of the proposal referred to a specific case that inspired the creation of a subcommittee to examine the issue two years ago, in which a female student coming out of a physically abusive relationship tried to file a complaint with the committee against her assailant but was unsuccessful because the 45-day statute of limitations had passed. The assailant already had been found guilty in criminal proceedings, but the student said she still was disturbed by his presence in her classes. Had the case been brought to the committee within the 45-day limit and the assailant found guilty, the committee would have had the authority to suspend or expel the assailant, a power the criminal system does not possess.
"One case is a pretty serious abdication of our responsibility to the community -- it's more important to give standing to that one case of serious domestic abuse, where the girl had no other recourse, than it is to be concerned about letting some smaller ones in," said Jeff Tebbs, co-chair of the issues subcommittee that proposed the referendum. "Letting them in is not a breach of accused rights, it's just a matter of delaying a few smaller cases."
Tebbs said the subcommittee may decide to pursue the extension further, either by introducing the referendum through a student petition, which would require the signatures of 5 percent of the student body, or by proposing an altered referendum to the judge pool in the future.
In an informal poll after the vote, three of the judges who voted against the proposal said they might have voted for it had the time factor been different. Previously, the committee had debated extending the statute of limitations to 90 days or allowing a good cause exception. Along with the six absent judges, a change in their votes could alter the outcome of the committee's decision.
Read More
Board of Visitors ends support for racial diversity goals
By Brendon Bordwine | 9 hours agoThe newly approved resolution, titled “Advancing Free Inquiry and Viewpoint Diversity at U.Va.”, calls for efforts to create a campus environment that supports open political dialogue, constructive debate and respect for differing perspectives.
Student Council unanimously approves Summer 2025 budget
By Lauren Seeliger | 11 hours agoUtilization rates refer to the amount of money actually used within the allocated budget — increasing these rates to prevent wasted money has been a primary goal of Student Council.
Bert Ellis reflects on time as member of Board of Visitors
By Cecilia Mould | 18 hours agoWhile Ellis entered the Board with certain priorities in mind, he said that most had not been accomplished during his term, without a majority of Youngkin appointees on the Board.
