(March 1, 2006) — It has long been a precedent that punishment should fit the crime. Our own constitution protects against “cruel and unusual punishment,” and it is a rule we therefore live by. Although recent events may not be federal crimes, and the consequences of those acts may not have been the death penalty, it has come to my attention that recently some “criminals” have been treated unfairly. In a recent grade tampering, school administrators dealt unfairly with some students involved in the incident and there are major discrepancies in the disciplinary measures taken by administration. No names will be mentioned, but one particular individual received the short end of the stick and was suspended during finals week as opposed to the others who were suspended during the following week. Despite the theories that have arisen from the event, it is undoubtedly unfair that a single person received a far more harsh punishment than the common penalty for the many others also involved with the incident. True, the crime was a morally bankrupt one, but shouldn’t the perpetrators have been dealt with equally for the same crime? The differentiation of the punishments for the people involved would be like the government executing Timothy McVeigh and permanently imprisoning Michael Ross. Same crime, different punishments. Both were appropriately extreme, but because of the timing of one, a student’s grades were ruined by way of some teachers refusing to let this student make up final exams. Yet legally, this student should have been allowed to make up these exams. The GUSD Procedure for Suspension: Item A (suspension by a teacher) No.4 states, “Students have the right to receive missed assignments although said assignments may not be graded.” However, the policy is nebulous regarding missed schoolwork in the case of suspension by administrative powers. It should also be taken into consideration that this particular individual was the only one suspended during finals week, and probably would have rather been in the same boat as the others who got the suspension the following week. The actual mode of punishment was not necessarily wrong, but for equity’s sake, there should have been no differentiation in punishment for all students involved. According to assistant principal Joan Shoff, students involved in a fight are all dealt with equally, despite degrees of involvement, and it would be only common sense that the same policy should apply to any other offense.