Oh, and before I take off, I'll note that our justice system also reflects the difference between committing a crime impulsively and committing it with intent. Murder charges are different if you carefully planned the murder versus committed it in a "heat of passion." This same distinction applies here. I can't tell you which one the OP committed, and neither can anyone else.
OK, well, as with holding most jobs (those not under some binding contract, etc, being the exception--that is to say, those jobs not held under At-Will-Employment), post-secondary schools are not held to the same local, state, or federal judicial processes internally, in terms of how they work policies within their own system. In general, it's a little tougher for schools to dump you as compared with AWE-employers--
b/c the latter do not need a reason to terminate. They only have to worry whether or not the termination will come down to an EEOC issue--that's their big concern. In a similar way, colleges establish and run their own schools. Public schools may be a bit tricky compared with private schools, but
they still have policies that are internally developed and implemented--and they have nothing to do with our judicial system per se. Only if crimes occur therein,
which are prohibited by local, state, or federal law, do they have to abide and have things adjudicated within any of those aforementioned applicable judicial systems, generally speaking.
So your analogy is not really applicable when it comes to the internal rules established by a particular school--unless you are talking about something like EEOC violations, sexual harassment, that sort of thing-- and also, with the exception that legal cases could be made based on whether a school has demonstrated
that it has not consistently followed its own rules--and even that depends on the specifics. There are extensions and limits on that, but my point is this. ***
The school makes the rules. ***
They establish the policies and how they will go forth and be enforced, as well as how they will investigate and internally determine consequences.*** When it comes to academic honesty, they can't play fast and loose with this, and for the most part, they won't. Their name and livelihood depends on it. Once more, when it comes to cheating and issues of academic integrity/honesty--
the very integrity of the school/programs depends on consistency in these processes.
Now, if a student can prove or bring reasonable doubt to the accusation, then that is another situation. But whether or not you leaned over for X amount of seconds and looked at someone's paper, you as the student have probably signed, somewhere, an understanding that is a legally stated agreement with the academic honesty statement of the school.
And really for an ochem I exam, unless you have very sharp vision and an eidetic memory (which in most cases, then, you really wouldn't need to cheat in the first place--unless you had crap for comprehension),
um, how are you merely going to look at someone else's work for a few seconds and get something out of it worth taking? Getting anything substantial by intently looking would be obvious!!!
Geez, failing the thing is infinitely better than turning your eyes to the right or left when taking such exams. So, what does a smart person do when they take an exam? They keep their head and eyes straight and down on their own work. That's where they live. That's their whole universe during the duration of the exam. If you have to lift up you head and stretch, you do so with your eyes closed. If you want to look up at a clock, if there is one there, you do a 2 second sweep and immediately put eyes back down on your own work. Heck, you should fear even the misinterpretation that you are doing any other business but your own. Listen, I have taught students. Guess what? Most of the time, you can tell who is into their own work and who is not, or who is just lost or spacing out.
Seriously, the plausibility of what you are suggesting is on the absurd side of things. The OP
never said he was falsely accused.
Bottom line is this: he/she either moved off of his/her work on to someone else's or she/he did not.
It's not complicated unless there is a truly false accusation. There's none of this, "I only cheated a little versus cheated a lot" in terms of academic honesty policies.
You either did or your didn't. It's like being pregnant.
You either are or your aren't, period. So, it is you then that needs to please explain "I only cheated a little
by accident."
