[wastedyears]

In our jurisdiction, the actual prosecutor would advise both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator to NOT cooperate with the school. If the perp actually did it, the criminal case could be compromised. If he didn’t do it, he could convict himself by statements made without counsel at the school tribunal.

So for my non-legal mind, that means if the alleged perp cooperated with the school, it would be much harder to get a conviction?

[MrEdd]

So for my non-legal mind, that means if the alleged perp cooperated with the school, it would be much harder to get a conviction? Or a college degree during his youth.

Follow the entire thought.

[oldplayer]

I wasn’t entirely clear. Victims that cooperate could easily hurt the case. The questioners ask vague and leading questions, the answers to which could look contradictory later. The defense would destroy the credibility of the witness with the slightest change in story or even demeanor. Defense attorneys that are good at their job, can take even the prior testimony of the perp and make a silk purse.

No it is better all around, if both the defendant and the victim avoid these kangaroo courts. These proceedings should be limited to parking tickets and alcohol offenses in the dorms.