"The judicial system was really important because it was so obviously justice that you were involved in... You knew how difficult it was. You were on both sides, or all sides, because you might be... a witness, or a complainant, or the alleged violator, or a member of the judicial committee."

The judicial system at Sudbury Valley is one of the keystones of the school's structure, and has long been our pride and joy. We have always felt, based on the values of the American experience, that due process of law is an essential element in a school embodying the principles of personal liberty, mutual respect, and political democracy. Early in the first year of the school's existence, the School Meeting devoted long hours to establishing the legal principles and juridical structure of the school, with results that quickly produced a stable social order and a prevailing feeling among students, staff, and parents that here everyone got a fair shake when brought before the bar of justice.

Before proceeding to the particular, some discussion is in order about the general. There are five distinct stages to the judicial process. These are, in serial order:

Allegation -- A person is alleged by someone to have committed a misdeed. In the world at large, this allegation can be brought by private individuals (by which I include groups, partnerships, corporations, committees, or other privately organized entities) or by governmental agents.

Investigation -- If the allegation is considered to merit further action, an investigation is made of the circumstances surrounding the allegation. In the outside world, the investigation can be carried out by the police, by members of the justice division of the government, or by private individuals.

Charge -- If the investigation is deemed to have yielded sufficient cause for further action, a charge is made that a specific law has been violated, and the alleged violator is brought to trial. The laws concerned may or may not be written (statutes vs. common law) and the alleged wrongdoings may lead to criminal trials or civil suits. In the outside community, the charges can be brought by individuals or by government officials, in the latter case usually by agents of one or another department of justice.

Trial -- Once a charge is made, the case comes to trial. The trial must follow prescribed rules of procedure that are known and considered fair. In the community at large, the trial can be held before a judge, with or without a jury, or before an arbitration panel, with or without right of appeal, depending on circumstances; usually, however, there is some mechanism for appealing a decision against a defendant. The trial delivers as its culmination a verdict or decision. In our system, there is no double jeopardy, which means that a person found innocent of a particular charge of wrongdoing may not again be brought to trial on the same charge.

Sentence -- If a person is found through the trial process to have done wrong, that person is sentenced (by which I include, for purposes of this discussion, civil decisions assessing damages, penalties, etc.). In the world at large, sentencing is usually carried out by a judge, most often the trial judge, but occasionally by the jury in certain types of jury trial. There is always an opportunity to appeal a sentence on certain specified grounds.

The entire five stage process outlined ever so briefly above constitutes the generally accepted juridical system in most societies. Where societies differ radically from one another is in the way these steps are carried out the "rules of the game." In this country, we have laid great stress on having the whole process take place according to "due process of the law," a phrase which over the years has come to be laden with meaning for all Americans. Generally speaking, "due process" assures each and every one of us that we are to be given a fair shake at every one of the five stages of the juridical process. "Fair shake" is not, of course, any more specific or enlightening than "due process" in and of itself, but a great deal of legal history has given rich content to these words, and most citizens of this country, from all walks of life, have a rather good idea of what they mean.

Let's put it this way. We do not expect to be subject to frivolous or trumped-up allegations. We expect investigations to be thorough and complete, not whitewashed and not such as fabricate "facts" or suppress truths. We expect charges to be specific, relevant, and not ex post facto. We expect trials to be open, fair, not biased, and such as give full rights and opportunities to the accused to be adequately defended. And we expect sentences to be fair, and to reflect in a balanced manner society's need for rehabilitation, retribution, and prevention. Any society that does not fulfill these expectations in its legal system is considered by us to be severely, fundamentally, flawed.

Let's take a close look, step by step, at how the judicial system works. The school appears by now to have a well established tradition that all allegations of misdeeds be made by individuals, without the need for any school officials to supplement this course. This is as it has been from the beginning, and as long as there is a full complement of socially responsible people at school which, in effect, is as long as the school will continue to function according to its basic principles there does not seem to be a reason to modify this approach. For the sake of a clear record, all complaints are written, and there are plenty of people around who are glad to help the illiterate put into writing their oral complaints, by serving as scribes and assistants.

The next step is the crucial one. At the time the complaint is presented, no one knows whether it is serious or frivolous, whether it does or does not involve a breach of the rules, whether the alleged accused was or was not involved and, if so, whether alone or with others. These uncertainties are the reason an investigation is needed, and the Judicial Committee carries out such an investigation (as its mandate expressly requires). But the important point is that at this stage what we want is a report on the facts; there is yet no concrete charge, no trial, no plea.

Only when the JC has completed its investigation (and only if it has succeeded in finding out something of substance) is a charge entertained, by the JC itself. It is in the best possible position to zero in on the exact violation that appears to have been committed, and on the exact parties involved. In a very real sense, the JC is properly the school's grand jury, collecting all the evidence, and then preparing charges for trial where there is sufficient reason to proceed. And the very constitution of the JC, being a cross section of the school, assures everyone of fair treatment by their peers.

Once a charge has been made by the JC against someone, the wheels of due process can turn, and nothing is to stop them from turning smoothly and promptly. The JC clerk notifies the person charged, and a plea is entered. If "guilty," a trial is not needed, and sentence can be imposed.

If the plea is "not guilty," a trial must be held. The trial is scheduled by the presiding officer, the School Meeting Chairman, within a day or two of the time when the defendant was notified and pleaded "not guilty;" six disinterested School Meeting members serve as jurors; the JC, as bringer of the charge, arranges for a prosecutor; the accused can defend himself or enlist assistance in the defense; and the trial is open to all School Meeting members, as it should be.

Sentencing is in the hands of the JC. In most cases, the investigation, charge, guilty plea and sentence take place in one continuous sequence, since the overwhelming number of infractions are of a nature where this can take place with no violence to justice. In the few complex cases, a little more time is needed; but the JC's involvement from beginning to end gives it a unique vantage point from which to come up with a fair sentence, and again its constitution as a cross-section of peers is a critical reassurance of fairness to all who come before it.

When all is said and done, the above analysis reaffirms the essential soundness of the existing juridical process. By clearly separating investigation, charge, and trial, we make everyone aware of the need for clearly drawn charges, based on clearly promulgated rules; for full notification of each defendant as to precisely what they are accused of doing; for an impartial trial; for an opportunity to prepare the best defense available. In this way, due process is joined to fairness in the uniquely constituted judicial system of the school.

Permission to freely copy and distribute this document is given, provided that the text is not modified or abridged and this notice is included. For more information about SVS available electronically, check www.sudval.org.