Criminal offenses committed off-campus may no longer be out of the jurisdiction of the University. Two pending amendments to Stanford’s Student Judicial Charter could significantly expand the control of the Board on Judicial Affairs, as well as the statute of limitations on violent crimes.

While on-campus offenses currently fall under the authority of the Board, the first proposed amendment would add a clause to the Charter’s introduction that would expand the Board’s jurisdiction to include some events that occur off the Farm. The amendment specifically states that, “University judicial policy applies year-round to all on-campus activities, and to any acts that threaten the safety and integrity of the University community regardless of where such acts occur.”

Education Prof. Eamonn Callan, former co-chair of the Board on Judicial Affairs, says that without this amendment, Stanford is paralyzed in dealing with matters that occur away from campus.

“Someone who commits assault on University Avenue would not be in our jurisdiction,” Callan said. “If it happened on Palm Drive, however, it would be.”

He stressed, however, that the amendment was created to address major off-campus offenses, not minor infractions.

“If you get drunk and trash your bedroom on campus, you’re in trouble,” Callan continued. “But, if you get drunk and trash your bedroom in New Jersey,” the incident is unlikely to reach the Board.

Graduate Life Office Assistant Dean Laurette Beeson, a former judicial advisor in the Office of Judicial Affairs, added that the amendment is in line with the Fundamental Standard, which has been the guiding principle of conduct at Stanford since 1896.

“The Fundamental Standard describes expectations for students’ behavior ‘within and without the University,’” Beeson wrote in an email to The Daily. “Yet, the previous jurisdiction only governed misconduct that occurred on campus or in association with a Stanford event off-campus.”

Some faculty were concerned by the amendment’s vague language when it was presented at last week’s Faculty Senate meeting for approval.

Beeson recognized these concerns but defended the statement.

“While I understand the importance of spelling out expectations,” she said, “I have also come to appreciate the value of the expansive language of the Fundamental Standard and to a lesser extent the Honor Code. There is in fact a danger in trying to be too specific because it does not leave room for the unanticipated behaviors and/or changes in social norms and things like technology.”

At last week’s Faculty Senate meeting, History Prof. Albert Camarillo supported the amendment and said that he trusted the judgment of the Judicial Panel members.

“I’m not so troubled by the language knowing that the process of review is very [strong],” he said.

A second proposal to the Board would further expand the statute of limitations for certain violent crimes. The current Charter states that charges must be filed within six months after alleged misconduct occurred or was reasonably discovered. The amended Charter would read: “In cases involving alleged sexual assault, dating/domestic violence, sexual harassment, stalking, a hate crime, or physical assault ... a charge [must be] filed no more than two years after the alleged misconduct occurred. If compelling new evidence becomes available after these stated times, a case may be charged since a Panel maintains the ultimate authority to dismiss or allow a case.”

Beeson stressed that though she would encourage a student to come forward as soon as possible, it is often difficult for a victim to deal with trauma within a six-month time frame.

“The subcommittee’s goal was to reduce barriers to reporting,” she said. “[We] believed it was critical to give a survivor additional time to both recover from the trauma and to carefully consider their options without losing the ability to file a complaint with Judicial Affairs.”

The addition to the Charter is closer to the standard of California’s statute of limitations. State law requires that charges must be filed within six years for non-aggravated rape. There is no statute of limitations on aggravated rape.

“My interpretation is that we’ve given victims a second option,” said Faculty Senator Gilbert Chu, professor of medicine and biochemistry. “Rather than just having a choice of pressing criminal charges, they can go through the [campus judicial] process.”

The amendment was influenced by the input of the Sexual Violence Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, which Beeson co-chairs, formed a joint subcommittee with the Board on Judicial Affairs to formulate the recommendations.

The amendments are part of a broader initiative to cut down on violent crime led by the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, the Sexual Violence Advisory Board and the Stanford Partnership to End Violence Against Women, which received a grant from the Department of Justice.

The ASSU and Graduate Student Council both unanimously passed the two amendments last spring when they were first introduced. They finally reached the floor of the Faculty Senate last week, where both passed despite contention over the vagueness of the first amendment. The amendments have been forwarded to the office of President John Hennessy, where they must receive final approval.