The new Student-Faculty Judicial Board attempts to right the perceived wrongs of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) at almost every step of the judicial process.

The Judicial Board is designed to hear cases "on which there is no clear precedent or consensus in the community about the impermissibility of the actions or the appropriate response," according to the proposal which the Faculty approved yesterday. The Administrative Boards, on the other hand, will continue to hear cases of "infractions of established University regulations."

For 17 years, students charged that the CRR was a University tool created to squelch political protest on campus. Students have traditionally boycotted the controversial body.

Supporters on the Judicial Board say that it will not bear the stigma of a political tribunal, but will be similar to the Supreme Court, establishing precedent and campus common law.

However, the CRR was also originally seen as a precedent-setting body. According to its charter's preamble, the CRR would "help to establish a body of precedent and a species of common law for the academic community."

But the two proposals for the bodies delineate different modes of procedure.

Under the new system, the student accused of misconduct can choose whether he wants the Judicial Board or the Administrative Board to hear his case.

If the student chooses the former, only a majority of the body can overturn the request, sending the case to the Ad Board. In the past, only the accuser could request that the CRR hear the case by filling a charge that the student had violated the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, which the CRR was created to uphold.

Presuming the Judicial Board decides to hear the student's case, eight voting members must be present to conduct business. As the body consist of 12 voting members--half students and half faculty--it cannot meet unless two students consent to serve on it. On the CRR, faculty members held a majority of the voting delegates and therefore it could meet without students.

Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence chooses the Judicial Board chairman, who votes in the case of a tie on a routine procedural matter. Four undergraduate and two graduate student representatives will be chosen by random lottery from all registered students.

The Judicial Board, which is supposed to meet regularly throughout the year and not sporadically like the CRR, will convene its hearings promptly.

The accused student can request a faculty or staff member or another student to serve as his adviser at the hearings. The defendant can request an open hearing, but the Judicial Board can close the hearing to the public by a two-thirds vote. CRR hearings were closed to the public.

Both the Judicial Board and the defendant can call witnesses and present evidence. The defendant also has the right to examine and to the respond to all evidence against him.

The Judicial Board cannot hand down punishments more severe than the Ad Boards can. The decision cannot be appealed to either the Judicial Board or the Ad Board, but a vote of the full Faculty can overturn it. The Faculty had no jurisdiction over the CRR, the decisions of which were final.