It is recommended that institutions develop academic conduct policies to help preserve academic integrity, enforce compliance, and aid in legal defensibility. These policies should also articulate reasonable consequences for persons found in violation. The problem, however, is that all academic misconduct offenses are not created equal, and determining reasonable consequences for these violations can be particularly challenging due to their subjective nature. Thus, the purpose of this study was to introduce a novel method for more objectively determining reasonable sanctions for several academic misconduct offenses of varying degrees of severity. We utilized a variation of the Bookmark procedure, a popular standard-setting technique used primarily by psychometricians in high-stakes testing environments, to investigate empirical survey data and develop policy recommendations. We encourage others to use this procedure, where appropriate, to identify appropriate cut scores and ranges to aid in policy development across a variety of contexts.