Having elected jurors is a good idea, and it probably would strengthen the conviction rate, because only those who really care about honor would choose to run. But offering a one-year suspension if you’re caught? Please don’t argue that’s not a second, lesser sanction. And is it really wise to promise beforehand that if you’re caught, the worst case is a year off where you can work or volunteer to pad your resume for that first tier grad/law/med school you so coveted you were willing to cheat in the first place?
The single sanction of expulsion is the reason students do not support the system. No other criminal system in the world does not recognize degrees of wrongdoing and sentence accordingly. Is the student who copied one sentence or phrase into her paper deserving of the same punishment as the one who bought an entire paper, or the one who lied to a professor about being sick to get an extension on handing in a paper deserving of the same punishment as the one who copied all the exam answers from the person sitting next to him? Seriously?
I always was a supporter of the single sanction system. But if more enter the University from a culture of cheating in high school, few are reporting violations, and fewer are voting to convict, obviously it’s a broken system. Instead of giving everyone one free shot with virtually no consequence, which may encourage cheating, study the ramifications of multi-tiered sanctions. Perhaps start with violators of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Attorneys, where depending on severity of the violation, sanctions can range from private reprimand to public reprimand to suspension to disbarment. If the punishment is proportionate to the crime, I think more will report violations and vote to convict.