The Indiana State University student conduct system is an administrative process and responds to alleged violations of University policy. Students facing concurrent civil or criminal actions for the same event, may also face adjudication procedures with Indiana State University
This depends on the impact the off campus behavior has on the campus community. In the introduction to the Code of Student Conduct, "students agree to abide by these policies as a condition of admission and are expected to know the regulations of the University and conduct themselves in harmony with these regulations." It also states, "students and student organizations will be subject to these regulations for conduct occurring away from the campus when that conduct affects the educational interests or mission of Indiana State University."
The Indiana State University Mission Statement and Values Statements can be viewed here.
Double jeopardy only applies when a person is charged twice with the same criminal charges.
No. Criminal proceedings may take several months to years for a verdict to be reached. An administrative decision should occur within a reasonable amount of time after the incident is initially reported. Another key element is the standard of proof is different in a criminal case versus an administrative case. A criminal case rests on beyond reasonable doubt while the administrative process focuses on a preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of Evidence: This standard of evidence is currently the standard for all administrative decisions as it relates to student conduct. This means, a person filing a complaint has provided enough evidence to show their version of events is more likely than not the correct version. If looking at this standard of evidence on a percentage chart of likelihood, anything over 51% certainty would meet the standard of preponderance.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: This standard of evidence is used in a criminal proceeding but not the administrative process of Indiana State University. Under this criminal standard, if there is any reasonable uncertainty of guilt, based on the evidence presented, a person cannot be convicted or found guilty. Those deciding on guilt must be able to view the result of a situation with "moral certainty" the evidence presented proves guilt with no level of uncertainty.