More on the Duke case: I was reading a long, stirring letter/post from a Duke alum, who identifies herself as Meadow (posted on Liestoppers):
Last spring, one of the only groups that stood up against a tirade of prejudices were the members of the Duke Women’s Lacrosse team, led by their courageous coach, Kerstin Kimel. While the rest of the world was condemning the Men’s Lacrosse team as guilty, Coach Kimel was actively supporting the students and her players' choice to show their support by wearing wristbands with the numbers of the indicted players. Rather than highlight the fortitude and commitment to the truth of these accomplished female athletes, the media rained criticism down in the most sexist and dismissive ways. Some examples:
Duke Free-falling from Grace (Stephen A. Smith)
“I never believed the day would come when we’d see an educational institution so flagrantly stupid, so selfish, so conspicuously aloof. Evidently it’s Duke, supposedly one of America’s more honorable institutions of higher learning.”
Duke Women Not Innocent (Kevin Sweeney)
“And what lesson has the women's team taken? They apparently have learned that pack behavior is a good thing. They are speaking as one, and are proclaiming the entire men's team, as one, to be innocent. Team unity trumps all.”
“By making such a public stand of unity before the facts come out, by saying so clearly that the accused is a liar, the women of Duke's lacrosse team won't make it any easier for other women to step forward. I can only hope that none of them will ever be in such a position — where they may be a victim, want to step forward, but sense ultimately that it just isn't worth it.”
Duke Women Show Lack of Sensitivity (Jeff Schultz, quoting Katherine Redmond)
“These are stupid, spoiled little girls. It smacks of high school. Maybe one day when they’ll read about one of their friends who was raped. Then they’ll rethink this.” said Kathy Redmond (founder of the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes). Redmond goes on to say, “More than any other sport, there’s this mentality with women lacrosse players of, ‘We’re as tough as the men.’ It’s almost like a competition. It’s like they try to carry themselves with a masculine edge. They want to be looked at as being just as good as the men, yet they still look to the men for validation."
Coda: Bodies of Evidence (Karla Holloway)
“They were athletes themselves, as well as "true fans." In a moment that called on more action than I had will for, I wanted to write to them to ask if they might, instead, consider writing the word "justice" onto their gear, a word whose connotations run deeper than the team-inspired and morally slender protestations of loyalty that brought the ethic from the field of play onto the field of legal and cultural and gendered battle as well.”
Amazingly, in face of all of this unsupportable ridicule, Coach Kimel told reporters after the women lost in the semi-finals:
“Any attention we got for the wristbands paled in comparison to having the media staked outside of our practice and the girls' dorms. Of watching your friends be arrested; watching your fellow students not support fellow students; watching professors not support students."
Did Duke professors choose to support these female students dismissed as “little girls” in the press? Was calling collegiate women “little girls” a social disaster? Apparently not. Has anyone come forward now that the women’s lacrosse team was obviously correct to acknowledge their heroic courage and apologize for the response they received?
The women of the Duke lacrosse team knew that their friends on the men’s team were innocent because they had talked with them, they knew that the rape story was implausible, one of the men had an airtight alibi, and, of course, the Duke suspects had already been exonerated by the DNA evidence.
Meadow writes about all the people who need to apologize, but I was thinking that some of the courageous people who spoke up for the truth relatively early on should be recognized and honored for their efforts. Every year Duke gives many graduating students prizes for contributions to the community. Every graduating member of the Duke women's lacrosse team (as well as perhaps the chief reporters and editors of the Chronicle) should be given the William J. Griffith University Service Award:
The William J. Griffith University Service Award will be presented to a select number of graduating students whose contributions to the Duke and larger communities have significantly impacted University life. Students whose efforts demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities of effective university, communal and global citizenship are eligible for this award.
To have stood up for justice and the best principles of the Duke community in the face of opposition from some members of the faculty, the administration, and the press was an act of bravery that should be rewarded. When one compares their behavior to the usual activities for which such prizes are given to students, these student-athletes engaged in actions that risked real sacrifices of the kinds that one can't list as credentials on applications to graduate or professional schools--risking their own grades, reputations, and honor.
Such obviously deserved prizes would show real contrition on the part of the administration.
There appear to be other awards that these students have also earned. The most ironic award that one of these brave students might be eligible for is the “Karla F.C. Holloway Award for Service to Duke.” The fact that it is given out by the African & African American Studies Department may mean that none of the Duke women’s lacrosse team members would qualify (I have no idea what their majors might be), but one of the team members would certainly fit the description of "Service to Duke."
The administration should also consider faculty service awards to law professor James Coleman, coach Kerstin Kimel, and whoever was behind the Duke economists’ faculty letter. These are people who tried to uphold the highest values of the Duke community in the face of attacks from both within and without.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Duke Women's Lacrosse Team Should Be Honored.--
- The Duke Case.--
Certainly the faculty and students who jumped on the PCer-than-thou bandwagon, and seized on an inverted To-Kill-A-Mockingbird fable to conveniently embody their nightmare image of privilege/race/class exploitation, are justly subject to ridicule today for their ridiculously overheated statements and actions.
But shouldn't the bigger lesson be that wisdom requires withholding judgment on disputed facts early on, even when an allegation seems to confirm some belief to which we're predisposed? It seems that finding a way to impart something like THAT to students, would be much more valuable in a university environment than rewarding someone who chose sides well, given later developments. The economists' letter did seem pretty sensible, I must say.
Intelligence is hardly the same as wisdom; it's a shame that so many Duke professors who should have known better were so eager to be on record making absolutely idiotic statements, so as not to be outflanked by their peers.
P.S. This thread and the previous one should resurrect the poster who thought that because there was an indictment there should automatically be a trial and anyone with an opinion critical of the case's merits, even after all that's come out by now, was exactly like a "lyncher-" he was amusing.
Did you read my post? I wrote:
The Women's lacrosse team did not wear the armbands of support "without knowing any of the facts," as you claim. It was already public knowledge that the prosecutor sought DNA evidence which would exonerate the innocent, and that none of the 46 players matched the supposed rapists' DNA. Most of the women's lacrosse team also knew that the three men charged didn't fit the description given to the police, that the lineup was intentionally designed not to get reliable IDs, and that one indicted player had multiple airtight alibis. Then there is the physical improbability of the woman's account in such a tiny bathroom.
Beyond the presumption of innocence, the women knew that their friends were innocent for most of the same reasons that we (who were not following the case) now know that the players were innocent.
Jim Lindgren
Stupid, spoiled little girl, indeed.
When contemplating effective manipulation of the American public opinion in this subject, the Duke Student Body's and Faculty's roles were minor. I readily admit that I have not been a regular reader of this forum for very long, and it was Mr. S. Horton's honourable stand against the current administration's unjust acts toward the detainees of Mr. Bush's War Upon Terror, that caused me lurk around here recently, and I may well have missed it. So I am respectfully asking that you point me to your outraged posting about a principle spreader of this reprehensible disinformation across America, the despicable Nancy Grace.
Or is your motivation instead to use an argument of reverse class/race as a vehicle to bootstrap your personal ideology up upon a soapbox, and into the spotlight? It is damn fortunate that the kids in this instance are the progeny of wealth, whose families could afford capable and aggressive attorneys for their defense.
Had it instead been Hispanic cafeteria workers at Duke falsely charged with rape, with representation from a young, overworked, inexperienced, under-compensated, and poorly budgeted public defender's office caught in the withering enfilade fire coming from an overzealous prosecutor, and a led by the media hub in their nose public, they would most likely already be serving long sentences at a North Carolina Penal Institution after copping a plea, which despite their innocence, was the best option available for them to choose.
Prosecutors will abuse their State power if allowed, they will hide behind a defense of antinomianism if discovered, and the media pundits will let them walk free. This a real source for the ills which brought this hell upon the Duke Lacrosse Players, yet you attack at the periphery, while the disease within America's legal system continues to metastasise. The real culprit is an unmuzzled leviathan, and an acquiescent citizenry unwilling to struggle in the worthy effort of will and force to compel our government to act justly; to apply fairly and equally, due process of law to all. This must assuredly reach to the government's treatment of those perceived as America's foes.
Our beast must again be chained, or America will be eaten alive.
Your post was persuasive until your invocation of the Karla F.C. Holloway award. Not only was that unnecessary, but it spoke volumes.
For many observers, the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich white family that can afford excellent counsel, then you will achieve justice. As the previous poster noted, that is not often the case. Where is the outrage for all the other victims of baseless prosecution?
Further, unless you want all future high-profile athletic and celebrity legal cases tried in the media, maybe hold off on the proclaimations of "innocence" (which is not the same as "not guilty") until the legal process runs its course, Mr. Lindgren? Or should we cherry pick the cases that you are sure can be tried in the press, with the high-priced lawyers never needing to step inside a courtroom?
Ditto Loki13. Mr. Lindgren sounds a bit... emotionally involved, rather than really caring much about Duke or those "whose contributions to the Duke and larger communities have significantly impacted University life."
I think you are blurring the line between what you know now and what the women really knew then. And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including their male counterparts' well-earned reputations for drunken excess and one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies.
Friends deserve praise for standing up for friends. Absolutely. But friend-for-friend loyalty isn't the same thing as omniscience, and it isn't usually the stuff of campus service awards.
It seems like if one is going to praise the women's lacrosse team, to the point of commending them with awards, one should have some sort of conclusive evidence that their defense of the men's team was principled and well reasoned rather than reflexive circling the wagons. At least one women's lacrosse player in May explained her wearing the "innocent" headband by saying, "All the athletes at Duke all kind of stick together,. To be fair, the only other student quoted gives a more reasonable "innocent until proven guilty" defense, but nothing in any story I've seen shows that the women's lacrosse team had any sort of special knowledge that the accused were innocent, or that there had been any sort of prosecutorial misconduct.
Perhaps jumping to a conclusion of innocence based on character assessments is less egregious than jumping to a conclusion of guilty based on victim's statements; but aren't the real people deserving of praise here those who withheld all judgement until the facts were in?
Is this actually true of the Duke lacrosse players or are we simply assuming that white boys at Duke come from rich familes?
Jim, as a Duke grad myself (MS '88) I have two reactions: (1) you're right, and (2) fat chance. At least until some rich alum threatens to cut back on a contribution. (Melinda Gates, are you listening?)
ReVonna, it's "innocent until proven guilty", not "not guilty until proven guilty."
Jim, people like Eric, who probably believed that the accused were guilty just a few weeks ago, despite the mountain of evidence the other way, aren't going to give credit to someone who came to the obviously correct answer months before them. Getting the answer right when they got the answer wrong is evidence of moral fault, but not theirs. That's why Eric can point to a post that calls these women lacrosse players, who were were right, "simpletons" without noting that the author of that post insisted that we couldn't know whether these young men were innocent or guilty, but we knew the accuser was a "victim of sexual violence." The more wrong you were, the better a person.
Most ong term members of the defense bar I have asked about it will say they've seen one or two really innocent defendants in a few decades' work. You've watched way too many movies if you think the courts are littered with innocent defendants. Most appear in court about as often as the average judge. I did have a couple clients who were mischarged for their (admittedly culpable) actions (like getting popped for car theft when it was really carjacking), and one or two who were only marginally capable of forming mens rea, but I never had a question about whether the client had been involved in something seriously bad; any doubts (due to protestations of innocence) were usually quickly dispelled when I did my factual investigation to prepare their case. In spite of being Matlock Jr., Lawyer of the Damned, I did pretty fair work for them. While money may get you a white shoe firm, it doesn't necessarily get you better representation; sometimes it just gets you overbilled. I managed to get a lot of rotten, vicious guilty bastards set free because the state couldn't carry its burden or manage to comply with basic procedural requirements - simple and fairly cheap legal defense work. You don't like it, move to France where they don't have such procedural due process niceties. My favorite client (who should have asked for a bulk discount on court fees and bail deposits) was a recidivist car thief / rapist who always protesting his innocence - the only problem is he kept coming up on surveillance films, DNA tests and in possession of stolen goods. It's tough to make a public case you're being railroaded, when the boxcars are full of physical evidence. His career highlight occurred on a single day when I represented him in two separate matters. First thing in the morning, I got a car theft case against him dismissed on procedural grounds, as the state mishandled some evidence and lost other evidence. Later that day, I managed to keep him out of jail in a parole revocation hearing related to the morning proceeding, even though there were felony charges pending against him in a neighboring county (the state failed to ask about that, and it wasn't my duty to volunteer the fact). Later that afternoon, he was picked up in another stolen car in a third county on his way to go rape a 13 year-old. (Long story... not a terribly attractive one).
Mmmmmm... now that's some tasty social justice, don't you think Loki? You think lots of people in the criminal justice process are completely innocent and getting railroaded? I suggest you take a job as a public defender to help win justice for some of these poor underserved folks. Let me know how that works out for you.
You'll note that I said that the post to which I linked was "closer to right" than Jim's. The reason I said "closer to right" was precisely because I didn't think that the word "simpletons" was a fair characterization of the women. That characterization aside, I do think that the linked piece is essentially correct in characterizing what the women showed as loyalty (which it was) rather than "correct knowledge" (which Jim L. says it was, but it wasn't).
A hispanic worker would not get falsely charged with rape under these circumstances, because the whole prosecution and trial-by-media owes itself to the PC idea that these guys must be rapists because they are white male frat boys.
That doesn't mean the defendant's haven't been mistreated. It seems they have.
But all in all, the Georgia prisons have had just as many innocent men incarcerated for more than a decade for rape as the Duke Men's lacross team has had charged with rape in the last year.
Isn't that enough? It was more than most were capable of.
I've seen this sentiment expressed a number of times in different ways and there is some truth to it, but it misses the bigger point. Certainly the mix of race, sex, violence, and athletics that made this a big story is immaterial to the moral issue of guilt and innocence. Certainly there are many victims of baseless prosecution who deserve a better defense whose cases will never receive such attention.
But the bigger point is that justice is not a zero-sum game. Anyone who cares about justice can use the Duke case as leverage. If one prosecutor runs amok, use it to call attention to others.
Once you dismiss the Duke case into an example of identity politics, you lose that chance.
I read your post, thanks so much for asking. Did you read mine, and think about it? I don't mind if the women's lacrosse team made a decision out of loyalty or friendship. People align all the time with someone they have a connection with. But to say that they "knew" the male players were "innocent" because they had "talked with them" is laughable. Should the police have just relied on this sleuthing by the women's lacrosse team and closed the file based on their rigorous investigation?
Did the alleged victim's family "know" she had been raped? After all, they had "talked with her," right? It seems to me that crediting people who made decisions out of loyalty is pretty much a wash. If someone's daughter says she was raped, do we expect her dad to call her a liar?
My comments were mainly directed at people who had no connection to any of the people involved in the disputed events, flying off the handle and pronouncing a verdict.
This is an out &out lie.
All of the players cooperated with the investigation and were refused on several occasions to meet with Nifong.
This is hilarious to watch someone who has an obvious emotional investment in the "white boys raped that black girl" narrative fly of the handle in such an unhinged and embarrassing manner.
Take a deep breath clown, you are a fool.
Er, one of the kids falsely accused has the "rich" background of his dad being a city fireman in NY.
You are a pompus, ill-informed jackass.
Your emotional investment is embarrassing.
Before getting lawyered up, "... the three roommates—Flannery, David Evans, and Matt Zash, who were team captains—had already let the police in and had shown them around the place; when asked if they would go to the station to answer some questions, they agreed. By the end of the search, the police had seized evidence including four laptop computers, three digital cameras, a bathmat, a bath rug, five artificial fingernails, a bottle of K-Y jelly, and a stack of twenty-dollar bills.
"At the police station, the three young men offered to take a polygraph test. The police declined the offer, but questioned them extensively about the night of the party and sent them to the hospital to have DNA samples collected. The boys had no legal representation during this visit with police."
- The New Yorker
"Isn't that enough? It was more than most were capable of. "
It is. Medal-worthy, I don't know. In any case, it's clear from the other girl's statement, as well as statements made by the coach, that many (if not most) of the girls made their decisions based not on universal principles, but on loyalty, and because the character of the boys was such that they couldn't have possibly done such a thing. That strikes me as understandable, but not necessarily rational, and certainly not medal worthy. The fact that they were eventually shown to be right (about the boys' essential innocence, if not of their strong character) doesn't prove their reasoning was sound or commendable.
Do you mean Colin Finnerty? His mother's grandfather was a NYC firefighter. While others on the team do, in fact, claim a direct firefighter patrilineage, I was not aware that they were charged. And, without getting into the payrates of NYC firefighters...
The boys sure did pay for some good attorneys. Which makes me happy, as it appears they were innocent, and people end up getting the Civil Proceedure they can afford.
DNA results released in May 2006 showed no match with the Duke lacrosse players..
The story you link to dicusses testing "that found DNA from multiple males in the accuser's body — but none that belonged to the accused players, according to a defense motion filed Wednesday." This is even more helpful to the defense than the May '06 results for reasons cited in the story.
(btw, i fixed your broken link)
"I think you are blurring the line between what you know now and what the women really knew then."
How can you make this statement if YOU do not know what the women really knew then? Are you omniscient? First though, can we assume the women at least followed the situation via public reports and court documents? We knew then from public statements and court documents that none of the laxers or anyone else in the party left DNA evidence on the woman's person or clothing, yet we did know that there was a sperm sample insider her from another source (alleged source was boyfriend) notwithstanding her claim that she had no sexual contact in the prior week (we did not know of the multiple other male samples on her until months later courtesy of Nifong's withholding of evidence, but that's another topic altogether). We knew then that the line-up proceedings did not follow state guidelines (again another topic). We knew then there were inconsistencies in her description of the alleged attackers and the laxers she picked out of the lineup. We knew that she had given multiple and inconsistent accounts of the alleged attack. We knew then that the "leaked" information of the extent of the alleged victim's injuries were incorrect and that there were no rips, bleeding, tears or other injuries consistent with a brutal vaginal/anal rape but rather only "diffuse edema" which is consistent with numerous activities, including casual sex. We knew then that the initial reports that the laxers refused to cooperate were bogus and in fact they offered polygraph tests. We knew then that Reade Seligmann filed an alibi motion based on a timeline that matches the initial account of the accuser (now conveniently changed) and independent witnesses. We knew that there were odd proceedings from the DA (improper public statements) and LE (trial of the cabbie). We knew then that Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans were the indicted laxers.
That's what they would have known publicly. But there is no one here that can state for sure what else they know or don't know. Its been reported Colin Finnerty also has an alibi for the timeline and he later went to a restaurant. I don't know if that's true or not, and neither does Professor Muller. If it is true again neither of us know what company he was with at the restaurant. Neither of us know if possibly a women's laxer was present if the event took place. Neither of us know whether or not a women's laxer had a phone conversation with any of the male laxers that evening or otherwise know of any other information. We do know that one women's laxer, Catherine Krom, is the sister of a male laxer. Neither of us know of they had any conversation or other contact that night. We just don't know anything, yet Professor Muller can insinuate "what the women really knew then?" Its pure speculation on what any of them know or don't know.
We knew And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including their male counterparts' well-earned reputations for drunken excess and one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies.
Friends deserve praise for standing up for friends. Absolutely. But friend-for-friend loyalty isn't the same thing as omniscience, and it isn't usually the stuff of campus service awards.
"And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including their male counterparts' well-earned reputations for drunken excess and one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies. "
Complete obsfucation, but that's pretty much the only thing left for people who've hitched their political and philosophical capital to a sinking ship. Its almost a year later, Nifong has effectively been removed from the case and faces serious ethical charges, the alleged victim's story has changed (yet again), we know more of more DNA evidence that was eventually turned over, but its not about rape at all, its about drunk rich, white boys and a meathead that sent a stupid e-mail. Ridiculous.
the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich white family that can afford excellent counsel
to
the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich family (or a middle class friend of said scion that is charged at the same time) that can afford excellent counsel
Better?
Let's say that another way, paraphrasing Gore Vidal (?). It is not that an innocent black person be acquitted or exonerated. But rather, for many of these people, an innocent "scion of a rich white family" (any scion of a rich white family), must be found guilty.
That it takes the means of the rich family to bring such broader misconduct to light, is immaterial.
why the outrage? I only have a passing familiarity with the facts of this case because I didn't really care. It was interesting only in a 'man bites dog' sort of way. When you get incidents like the Tulia fiasco (never see any outrage about that on Volokh), there is little popular press. The officer responsible recieved probation, and the various officials who knowingly benefitted received promotions and bonuses. In this case, we have prosecutorial misconduct aimed at young, white, collegiate men.
Now.... now there's outrage. *shrug*
I saw your post after I posted. I don't think it will change a thing.
-This is all Nifong's fault.
-This is a rogue prosecutor.
-Nifong will face sanctions.
-The criminal justice system works, because the boys got off!
And then all of these angry posters (after making their gratuitous digs at the mainstream media, and the PC college campuses, and gratuious references to the African-American studies department) will go back into complacency without any structural reform.
Obviouisly we hate black people.
I first heard about the Duke case when they were harping on it every night on Sportscenter (ESPN) for like a month. It was supposed to be the big expose'. "Rich white jocks rape poor black stripper". It gave every person with an axe to grind against the supposed culture of "athletic-celebration" or "white male dominace" an instant cause celebre'. I read article after article about how these Duke players were an indictment of college athletics, the fraternal system, etc. etc. Have you followed the case, these charges led a group of Duke's own faculty to publiclly trash the defendents of all the percieved ills that exist in today's society.
And now, with a pushback, the initial claim is unraveling. And the consequences of people's initial reactions are beginning to take on entirely different ramifications. I always want people to get their fair day in court, but I take offense at the implied "You racists wouldn't have cared if they'd been _insert minority group here_". This case became very much one of national concern.
why the outrage?
Because there was outrage from the "they're guilty" contingent (e.g., Nancy Grace) from the beginning. Initially, before Nifong was disgraced and when many commentators believed him, there was a great hue and cry regarding the lacrosse team's conduct for weeks. You can't then uncork the genie of news coverage when the facts don't fit the original narrative--once something's news, it's news.
(full disclosure--I graduated from Duke last spring and my perspective may be somewhat skewed regarding the initial news coverage)
And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including...one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies.
This doesn't strike me as fair, as the author of this email was not one of the indicted players, as I recall. What does that have to do with the women's players supporting the accused three?
You seem to have a pretty strong and presumptive opinion for a passing familiarity. If you care to bother check out the NYT's coverage of this case and the critics of their coverage from many sources, including Stuart Taylor and New York magazine (which my wife subscribes to, I read occasionally, and find it pretty "liberal").
There are already enough posts on these topics from people who can't be bothered to uncover the basis behind their beliefs.
Loki, you are really missing the point. As one Duke professor (I believe) has stated, the lacrosse players were not prosecuted despite the fact that they were white male athletes at an elite university, but because of that fact. The outrage, as you call it, stems from the despicable conduct of not just the DA, but also the potbangers, the Gang of 88, the NC NAACP, and others, who are so quick to point out the real or imagined bigotry and prejudices of others, yet who rushed to judgment so quickly and publicly based upon little more than their own bigotry and prejudices.
I think many people are missing my question about the outrage...
Why are ...you.... outraged? I don't watch the TV so I don't know about the saturation coverage, but again... given all the problems with criminal prosecutions in our country, why all the outrage over this?
Oh yeah. Race. Because it's unfair. But... so? Our criminal justice system is unfair. Other than (as I wrote above) the 'man bites dog' aspect of this case (a prosecutor going after affluent white defendants) this was an unexceptional case. Moreoever, the system, in the end, worked. I try to save my outrage for cases like Tulia. You?
As a matter of fact, I am outraged when people are persecuted and publicly condemned on the basis of their race or gender, regardless of what their race or gender is. You...apparently not so much.
An unexceptional case? Name another case where dozens of professors, and even entire academic departments, made such inflammatory comments and publicly encouraged protesters to attack their own students as the Gang of 88 did in this case.
You're right, this case is completely typical. Its every day that a DA faces disbarment for his actions in a case including making prejudicial statements and witholding exculpatory evidence, every day that faculty members at a top tier university make public comments concerning criminal proceedings involving their students, and every day that a sexual assault case gets this much media coverage that turns a 180 once the initial judgment period ended and the facts arrived. You've already discussed your ignorance on the last point (and thus, the entire case), but surely by now you're cognizant of the first two, right?
Why would you be outraged about this case? After all you know nothing about it.
Comical.
Yet you're droning on &on about what you "know" regarding the matter.
See previous comments about your pomposity.
Wow, the persuasiveness of this is mind boggling!
The facts!
The evidence!
Seriously dummy, why. are. you. commenting?
Coming from the same crowd who makes up fantasies about "secret prisons" and innoncent people being detained by Darth Vader Cheney, et. al.
And yes, you're far, far too stupid to see the irony.
Gee, who knew "the system" consisted of the prosecutor conspiring to suppress evidence from the defense.
I bet you're a Harvard Law grad or something...
Better?
Um, no.
No statement you've made on this matter is true.
Are you seriously under the impression that secret prisons are a fantasy?
Bravo to you for injecting the real world into this discussion. People like loki13 seem to live in a Hollywood world where the white guy is is the real culprit while the innocent member of your favorite group of the month gets railroaded until Columbo sets everything straight.
But what ever the timeline the fact remains that the Duke Womens Lacrosse team through either acumen or instinct went out on a limb at a time when there were real risks to supporting the mens team. The fact that one of the players on the mens team was failed in a class for no other reason than his membership on that team illustrates the point.
As a matter of fact, the first place I ever read about Nancy Grace, and about her irresponsible commentary, was here at TVC.
When you're in a hole stop digging. People will respect you more. Or do you feel the need to play the fool here?
Once again- all this outrage for three Duke students who were exonerated and served no time. How many posts on volokh about Tulia (0)? Why was there the gratuitous dig about the Karla Holloway award in the original post?
Selection bias showing again.
A good point. The commenters who assert that the Women's team did nothing more than "support their friends" ignore the environment that existed at the time. The actions of the women's coach were particularly commendable given what had just happened to the men's coach.
Maybe we should ask the women's lacrosse team if they've got a plan for Iraq?
Being they're so heroic and all.
My how our standards have fallen...
The CIA operates secret prisons abroad for holding key suspects in the war on terror, President Bush acknowledged Wednesday.
Cite
Yeah, that George W. Bush, such a delusional conspiracy theorist.
Funny, I didn't realize all the charges have been dropped. Last time I checked there are still allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping, and their lives are still on hold.
At least you're consistent about getting facts wrong. Since you're so knowledgable about Tulia why don't you petition the VC to make a post so you can comment and educate all of us there, and leave the discussion here to people who are at least courteous enough to do some background research before telling other posters how they should think.
If you even have to ask that question, you obviously have no clue about the facts of case.
And as a whole the legal community was not, at least not apparently, as critical of Nifong as it could have been. That reticence extended beyond the legal community, but the legal community, conceived as a whole, did not perform in stellar fashion.
Why does so many people here have so much, um, angst, over this case? I can think of dozens (yes, really, dozens) of cases of prosecutorial misconduct that have had a much worse effect on the people wronged than this one. But it seems that a certain segment of the population is really getting their knickers in a twist over this. Why? Because of the NAACP was involved? Because of the mainstream media? It cannot be just because of the prosecutorial misconduct, because that's usually ignored.
*shrug*
Obviouisly we hate black people.
No, it's not obvious. Sometimes it's subtle.
for all the people who have been so horrified by what happened here, I ask you for constructive proposals. Less media coverage of trials (1st amendment concerns)? More accountability for prosecutors (how)? A higher burden (grand jury plus+) just to bring charges? How would this affect the criminal justice system?
Do you believe this is a one-off, or, if this is a systemic problem, what measures can be taken to ensure that it is less likely to occur in the future?
The notion that because the Duke 3 'are exonerated' (though I have not heard that a court has done that), they have suffered no injury is absurd.
K.C. Johnson reports that legal expenses have been running $80K/mo, and this has been going on now for almost 10 months. That's per person, as I understand, and it appears that even non-charged players have run up legal bills, though I am not clear why.
At any event, if someone transferred $750,000 out of my pocket, I wouldn't consider that I hadn't been injured.
Um, they're still going to trial.
But then again, you haven't followed the case closely.
Yet you fail to name one.
We're shocked.
My Loki, you do love to label people, don't you? I bet it makes you feel all warm inside.
I'm sorry, I should have phrased it clearer:
The same crowd who thinks there are secret prisons in America and that people are "disappeared."
Happy now, clown?
Plus, this cost the one of the three who has already graduated a Wall Street job; there's the loss of salary and bonus there, which could be substantial, even for an entry level gig, plus the question of whether he's now "damaged goods" unlikely to get a position of trust in the future.
Yes, have fewer Democrats run for DA offices nationwide.
Just imagine if a Republican had falsely accused 3 black kids like this in order to get elected.
I'm sure you'd be asking "why the outrage?" and such.
Less bigotry and more maturity by the Duke administration, (some) faculty members, and (some) Durham leaders and residents.
Eric, can you tell me if we could know that the accuser was a "victim of sexual violence" in May? The post you say you agree with (save for the one point) says we knew that then. The same post says that we couldn't know whether the accused were innocent or not. As it happens, there was plenty of evidence making clear that the accused were innocent, and we never "knew" that the accuser was a "victim of sexual violence" because she wasn't in fact such. It seems to me you're still wanting credit for believing a false accusation, and wanting to denigrate these young women who rightly didn't believe it.
It's more commendable than the reasoning of folks who got it wrong.
You consistently miss the point.
1)When a gross injustice occurs, people of all stripes should stand up and speak up against it. If you think there are greater injustices in the world, then stand up against them as well. This whole attitude of "why care about these privileged white youths when so many other less fortunate suffer" presupposes that these kids don't deserve fair treatment because of the color of their skin, and is, well, offensive.
2) People can be horrified about what happened without having a constructive, or even specific proposal to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. Frankly, I'm not sure that there is a nationwide, systematic problem of prosecutorial misconduct like this. But the solution here is quite simple: drop the charges against the boys, prosecute Nifong for his misconduct, and expose the so-called "Duke 88" for their flagrant rush to judgment. The best way to prevent Nifong from bringing politically motivated charges without any bases is obviously to fire Nifong. I think this will satisfy those "so horrified" by the situation. Does this answer your question?
------------------
Also, as a duke alumni, and friend of many former female and male lacrosse players, I agree with Jim that it would be appropriate to honor the girls lacrosse team for taking such a principled and unpopular stance in support of their classmates and friends (although I think it is unlikely that they will be so honored).
On another note, I don't take anything Steven A. Smith takes seriously, and I'm not sure he does either.
I would be positively ecstatic if you were to:
1) Cite a legitimate media source (i.e., other than some 15-year-old "anarchist's" Myspace page) that makes that assertion;
2) Explain what relevance it could possibly have to the Duke rape case; and
3) Develop an appreciation for the fact that flinging gratuitous ad hominems, particularly in response to a comment that has just demonstrated your initial position to be glaringly wrong, only serves to make you look more foolish.
I suspect I'm doomed to disappointment, though.
I was responding to the language from another blog that linked to this one. He compared the women's lacrosse team's courage to Sen. Hagel's courage.
Funny how the standards have fallen.
Again, my how character standards have fallen if this is what we think is "strong".
The abuses in Tulia are essentially due to one rogue witness, that a jury found credible. But even in this case the prosecutor would listen to an alibi. From Wikipedia
We had similar alibis in he Duke case, but Nifong refused to even meet with the defendants’ lawyers and hear any exculpatory evidence. This is one of the reasons the Duke case has attracted so much attention from the legal community. The system failed in so many ways. The system continues to fail as all the charges have not been dropped.
"And no, this isn't about writing a law review article; it's about using common sense and showing decency towards a victim of sexual violence. "
It would appear that he seems to "know" that she was indeed a victim of sexual violence, yet I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant to put in "alleged" and just neglected to in the comments section. Call it a UVA alumni gift.
Still, both McCann and Muller are making assumptions that the women truly don't "know" what happened. Unless they are omniscient I don't see how either of them can make that claim. "Professors" of a feather flocka together?
Um, let's go here.
And for more distortions on the matter here
Happy now?
If you think this idea isn't prevalent among the modern libearals you're lying to yourself.
Explain what relevance it could possibly have to the Duke rape case; and
Um, as I already stated: a mindless liberal dipshit is here arguing "what's the big deal" while at the same time believing in the falsehoods perpetrated against the Bush adminsitration regarding "civil liberties"
So to slow it down for you since you have obvious problems with logic:
It's
The
Hypocrisy
Stupid
Develop an appreciation for the fact that flinging gratuitous ad hominems, particularly in response to a comment that has just demonstrated your initial position to be glaringly wrong
Except I wasn't wrong, clown.
More lies
Go ahead and call that an illegitimate source now clown.
You mean, his courage in taking a position the media will lionize him for?
Yeah, real courage, that.
But it seems that a certain segment of the population is really getting their knickers in a twist over this. Why? Because of the NAACP was involved? Because of the mainstream media?
Well ... yeah, actually. We depend on the mainstream media for virtually all of our information about that part of the universe that isn't personally accessible to us. When the mainstream media get the facts wrong, in such a spectacular and egregious fashion, then it's worthwhile to understand this and to try to discover how and why false information was spread. And when a media outlet such as the New York Times not only gets the facts wrong but fails to update its readers' perceptions of the case with the truth when it becomes glaringly obvious ... well, I think that's worth paying attention to as well.
And the NAACP? I think it's noteworthy when a formerly admirable organization, one that I'd wager most of the folks who post here have supported, is taken over by people who spread racially inflammatory lies.
Do yourself a favor and read the comment policy at the bottom of this page. You'll notice that it asks commenters to be civil, to avoid profanity, to be calm and reasoned, and to "avoid rants, invective, [and] substantial and repeated exaggeration" (emphasis original). In a single comment you used "clown," "stupid," and "mindless liberal dipshit." Your language is not up the relatively mature standards of most of the commenters here, and I don't think I'm the only reader who would appreciate it if you would calm down. Please take a deep breath and try to conduct yourself as if you were an adult and a professional engaged in a serious conversation.
Unfortunately I can't read "shadowmonkey.net" through my office web filter, so I'm unable to comment on that link. As to the Salon article, perhaps I'm not quite clear on what, precisely, is the idea that you believe is "prevalent among the modern libearals [sic]." Is it that the Bush administration asserted the authority in the Padilla case, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, to designate a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant" and hold that individual in military custody indefinitely? That strikes me as a pretty fair reading of the government's argument (try reading it again: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf. My description seems pretty accurate unless, of course, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of those nasty liberals out to besmirch the government's noble intentions?), and, moreover, I note that your Revised Second Characterization of the Wild-Eyed Liberals' Baseless Slander is still does not describe Salon's fairly accurate summary of the government's position in Padilla. To the extent that the "libearals" seem to think that there are not-quite-secret military holding cells in which the government has claimed authority to detain American citizens without criminal charges, then their position seems well-grounded in reality. To the extent that you characterize that position as a belief that a secret network of federal prisons exists, and that American citizens are being snatched off the street and whisked away in the dead of night by men in black to never be heard from again, then you're simply erecting a straw man.* Either way, your criticisms are unfounded.
Again, seems like a pretty tenuous connection to me, especially since, as I noted above, the descriptions of the administration's policy in Salon and Time seem generally accurate, if we assume that CJ Rehnquist can be trusted to describe that policy fairly in Padilla. In any case, I think that a persuasive argument could be made that an officially acknowledged policy of the executive branch of the United States government is somewhat greater cause for concern about institutionalized disregard of due process than are the aberrant actions of one North Carolina prosecutor, who now faces disbarment because of those actions.
Then why did you feel the need to revise your position to say something entirely different, after I cited a quote from the President himself showing your first argument (i.e., that secret CIA prisons are a liberal myth) to be completely inaccurate?
Can you please explain to me how asking a question, an act which does not involve any kind of affirmative representation or statement of fact, can possibly be a "lie"?
* I note that the Time blog you cite contains basically the same accurate description of the administration's detention policy.
Problem is, I provided a link which says exactly that.
* I note that the Time blog you cite contains basically the same accurate description of the administration's detention policy.
Um, no it doesn't.
The DTA states:
As you can clearly see, that doesn't apply to US citizens.
Who asked a question?
Then why did you feel the need to revise your position to say something entirely different, after I cited a quote from the President himself showing your first argument (i.e., that secret CIA prisons are a liberal myth)
Comical.
I said no such thing.
I dare you to find the phrase "CIA prisons" in anything I typed.
Another comical comment.
Of course when you believe in "disappearing" and "torture" (which you can't define accurately) then maybe you actually believe this.
In fact, for conspiracy theorists KC Johnson at one point posted the average (or possibly median) incomes for the various cities the laxers were from and these 3 guys were from the top 6-8 (don't remember the actual number) cities. Us ex-mathematicians can calculate the probability that someone would select 3 people randomly in this subset.
here is how the left characterized the DTA:
If you read enough of those comments you would hopefully understand my point.
If you're concerned about civil liberties in that instance, one would hope you would be in the Duke case as well.
Somehow it dosen't seem most liberals do.
Funny that, huh?
You've nailed it. The women's team deserves admiration because given the despicable self-promoting savagery of substantial elements of the soft-side Duke faculty (and let's not forget their whack-job students) the atmosphere
would have been highly intimidating. As a young kid you
don't have the tools at hand to successfully deal with academic thugs.
I was initally impressed that none of the faculty in the non-whack job departments signed the outrageous nonsense from the gang of 88, who were all drawn from the departments involving thumb-sucking and navel-gazing "science" and the like. However,on reflection I have come to the conclusion that the non-signers are mostly just the same old cowards who wait until it is safe to come out (as was the case in the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam). So, given no powerful Duke faculty condemnation of the bizarre gang of 88 (said Duke U being embedded in a Democracy with a "Bill of Rights") one must admire these young women even more, not less than the Duck apologists and generalized detractors propose.
A reasonable person would have expected more from them,
if indeed the Duke faculty as a whole were among the best and brightest, and it should have been instantaneous and reflexive. Yet there was little from these losers, er, collegial Doctors of Philosophie.
The actions of these young women rose well above defending friends (loki 13 take notice)
because people who are jackasses to begin with, like the 88 and their friends, are likely to also take names of those who are dissagreable to them (what else would you expect of they who's very existence as faculty is based on egregious rubbish). Indeed, such funklty owe their existence on campus to the gutlessness OF THE OTHER faculty and administration, who tolerate these posers and
their idiotic, made-up departments/disciplines. It is easier to "go along to get along" in academia, rather than be true to demands for character and scolarship.
Thus you get gangs of 88 extruding their apalling, juvenile, vicious behaviors and "scholarship" (have you ever read some of their shit...incredible!).
What we know about these young lacrosse women is that
they are righteous in the face of risk, and their gonads (philosophically speaking) have descended a lot further than the punk Duck faculty and the wimps running the show, and most of you as well.
Admirable. Absolutely admirable.
Revonna! Back on your meds.
The above is opinion only, and marked "Entertainment".
There is anecdotal evidence that the team was so excited (at being NOT WRONG) that they pooled their money to buy Powerball Tickets.
You don't give community prizes just because people act logically and loyally like this, even if they're women.
Now if I were you, I would gush for paragraphs and paragraphs here to make my point. Stay inside and think up another special award for these women, maybe if you want to see them honored for their special works?
Yeah, real courage, that.
Actually, Sen. Hagel's been talking from the middle of the country for quite a while. See his comments on the Israeli Palestinian conflict from way back. He's a typical Midwesterner skeptical of fear mongering, and plain thinking enough to isolate cause and effect. Actions and results. You won't see many rushing to smear him, even VP Cheney.
Look to the polls, if you dare. Seems there's still an awful lot of fair thinking Americans who aren't buying what this Administration's selling anymore. Buck up and focus on American Idol and the Duke lacrosse scandal because the easy going bandwagon times are over. The instaexperts and academic scholars are going to have to eat what they kill, and there mark's been a little off of late. Indeed. Heh
I'm sure we can come up with a special award winning prize for that though...
Are you Duck faculty?
It's pretty clear that I was indeed offering up my admiration for people who act logically and loyally.
On your other issue, I don't give a rat's ass if they get a community prize. That suggestion was pretty obviously a vehicle, a device in the original post, not really meant.
That's been used a lot in the structure of discoursive argument in literature over the last 300 years.
Um, as I recall there are examples of that even in Wilder's "Our Town" (1938) and, of course, in the works of our pal Will.
Well, this has been fun. Gotta go, a test tube is calling.
The gender factor has, literally, nothing to do with it. While no one is suggesting they be awarded the Medal of Honor or the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an award commensurate to both their avowed and exemplified loyalty, respect, dignity, common humanity, etc., especially so in the face of the groveling and kowtowing behavior afforded superfical, politically correct attitudes, is fully warranted. Indeed, it would reflect well upon the women per se and would additionally reflect well upon the communities that decided to reasonably and responsibly honor these women.
Common decency is deserving of recognition when deeply rooted, systemic forms of social/political indecency need to be confronted. It was substantial segments of the legal and academic communities, most pointedly, that consciously chose to act in such an indecent manner for such a protracted period of time, and to some degree continue to do so.
Me thinks you're leg is being pulled a bit here.
How have these female lacrosse players significantly impacted University life?
They haven't. Be honest now, and fair to previous winners of this award. We get the point.
You're using the Duke women's lacrosse team to make a statement on the ill treatment of the men's team. Message received.
Now stop tainting such awards with silly suggestions that these women have actually qualified for it on their own merits. You might just get some gullible suckers believing you are serious.
Or worse, equating the award to some kind of military or political courage, in another leap of logic in connecting dots that aren't there. Silly litttle point, but then, that's all some of you have now, eh? Indeed.
Does women's lacrosse use a boundary line yet? I remember running around the athletic fields of my high school (track practice), trying to give a girl's lacrosse game room. As I cut between their field and the fence, I was suddenly in the middle of a play! I ducked out of the way, but it was weird. No lines on the field at all to mark boundaries, just a circle for the center of the field and goal creases.
People are so public about their wanking these days...
Heh.!
I'm more than a little confused as to what, exactly, we're talking about here, since it seems to change with each of your posts. First it's "secret prisons" that are a liberal myth, then, upon it being pointed out that we actually do have secret prisons, the problem becomes the alleged mischaracterization of the Bush administration's assertion of executive authority to detain U.S. citizens (such as Jose Padilla) indefinitely without charge, then when I point out that the Salon article you cited is essentially accurate in its description of the administration's assertion of that authority under the AUMF (as described by the presumably impartial Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Supreme Court's Padilla decision), your argument now seems to have something to do with the fact that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 does not appear to apply to U.S. citizens. That's a far cry from "secret prisons are a liberal myth," but in any case, I note that the DTA was signed by the president in December 2005, whereas the Time blog entry, as well as the Washington Post article that it cites, and also the Kos entry citing Senator Reid's floor statement, are from September 2006 and are discussing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the Post says would involve "a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" that "applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant." (Cite). Clearly, these articles are not referring to the 2005 DTA, and whether the DTA does or does not apply to U.S. citizens is not really relevant to the question whether the MCA does.
In any case, we're quite far afield from your original argument, which was, again, that "secret prisons" are a liberal myth.* You've also failed to identify any aspect by which any of the criticism of the administration's detainee policy (including its interpretation of the AUMF), the DTA, or the MCA that you've cited is demonstrably wrong.
Fair enough. In the spirit of conciliation, here you go: As a bona fide liberal, and a genuine, card-carrying member of the ACLU, I hereby state, declare, avow, and even exclaim that I am concerned about the civil liberties of the defendants in the Duke rape case. It seems as if they've been treated quite badly by the prosecutor in the case, and it appears more likely than not at this point that they are actually not guilty of any of the offenses with which they are currently charged. As one concerned about civil liberties, I sincerely hope that the remaining charges against them are dropped with all due haste (allowing the state AG reasonable time, of course, to review the evidence in the case so as to confirm that there is no colorable criminal case remaining against any of them), and that Mr. Nifong, if it is determined by the relevant ethics board that he acted in a manner unbecoming an attorney, is subject to the full extent of whatever legal or disciplinary penalties may apply in his situation. Lest I be accused of playing favorites, I also note that I'm quite concerned about the civil liberties of all other victims of prosecutorial misconduct, even those I've never heard of.
That said, I am much more concerned about the Bush administration's increasingly aggressive assertion of executive authority to indefinitely detain, without charge, those individuals (both U.S. citiens and otherwise) whom it deems "enemy co