The rap on Roy Cooper (the North Carolina Attorney General) among my friends who know a good bit about him is that he is overcautious — a smart guy who is too often hesitant and a bit of a plodder. People I know who followed the investigation closely were confident that Cooper's investigators had concluded that the charges against the lacrosse players were without merit and that the lacrosse players were in fact innocent, but the betting money seemed to be that Cooper would issue a bland statement saying that there wasn't enough evidence to support a trial and leave it at that. That, after all, is the easy way out — the path of least resistance. He could have said that there was insufficient evidence, and that he would not go beyond that characterization because no further statement about the strength of the evidence was necessary for his decision. And I imagine that his political advisors probably told him that this would be the politically safe route to take (I can see counter-arguments, but my guess is that would have been their advice).
I find it remarkable, then, that he went so much further, saying that the accused players were in fact innocent, that there was no credible evidence against them, that the accuser's many different statements could not be rectified and that she contradicted herself, etc. This was not a garden-variety statement about insufficient evidence but instead was about as complete a vindication as the defendants could have imagined. Indeed, I think that Cooper said just about everything that the defendants could have wanted. Cooper must have really been convinced.
One final note: A defense lawyer (or a libertarian) treating this as a cautionary tale about the awesome power of a "rogue prosecutor" to run amok is not a surprise. But an attorney general framing the case that way is more striking. Not that Nifong didn't deserve this drubbing — just that I wasn't betting on it.
what was just truly disgusting though, was the reaction from the left (sites like feministing.com and democraticunderground.com) who only see things in identity politix lens. these were roguish, thuggish, vile, rich, white boy rapists and the victim was an underprivileged black single mother.
the evidence did not matter. the race/privilege/woman as victim angle was ALL they could see. it truly disgusted me, and trying to discuss facts was impossible. they really did not matter when people had a cause to get behind. disclaimer: i played lacrosse in college, AND was a member of a frat. therefore, i must be a rapist.
cooper is a TRUE public servant. at least from the prosecution angle, it's all about a search for truth - NOT about convicting somebody for the sake of convicting them (or even worse - pandering to race hustlers and trying to win an election).
cooper has totally won my respect.
i wore a duke lacrosse t-shirt at the gym for months (but i did occasionally wash it) to show my support, and i got some nasty looks, but what the heck...
i think the duke women's lacrosse team were equally as heroic, in (on the whole) completely supporting the male players.
When an innocent man gets released after 20 years in prison, for example, you don't hear "we determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt." What you hear, and what you expect to hear, is "we screwed up, we imprisoned an innocent man, we're sorry."
This case was certainly a black eye for the justice system. It sounds like Cooper did his very best to set that right. My hat is off to him.
after all, our motto is: better to let 10 guilty go free, than convict one innocent. but there is no perfect knowledge. even "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean beyond any doubt.
what was clear in this case, was the prosecutor maliciously (to put it mildly) prosecuted these guys, ignore exculpatory evidence etc. it was a railroad job 100%. i also think it's really kewl that the suspects COOPERATED with police/prosecutors. they didn't do the "lawyer up" thang. they were innocent. and they protested their innocence and presented facts in their favor (Which nifong ignored and kept from the grand jury).
and it wasn't just nifong. whomever presented that COMPLETELY BOGUS photo lineup procedure seriously screwed up.
Do prosecutors ever get smacked hard for professional misconduct, even fairly egregious misconduct? How likely/unlikely is it that Nifong will get disbarred?
What about civil liability for Nifong and/or his employer? Has Cooper made it substantially easier for the now exonerated players to recover for damages?
prosecutors (like cops) have immunity(s), but they are not absolute. the pundits on teevee talk about "piercing" the immunity.
it sounds to me like what nifong did was borderline criminal. if it doesn't meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice, it certainly meets the moral one.
imo, the morally right thing to do is for the state/city, etc. to simply pay a nice settlement to the three men and their families. that would be the fair thing to do.
i would also love to see the cadre of professors at duke who blasted the players in their letter issue an apology. yeah, right... :l
he sounded like a frigging mouthpiece for the lacrosse players, which is a good thing, because they have been completely and utterly wronged.
the job of a defense attorney is to present stuff in the best light of their client, and to try to exclude everything that could harm their client. it has nothing to do with seeking truth or justice. it has to do with getting your client off. but a GOOD prosecutor (or AG) should want the truth to come out, even if it harms "their side".
i respect his honesty, and how he went the extra mile.
as for the "a year ago thang", this case was under the jurisdiction of durham DA's office, and it's understandable that he did not get access to the case until nifong was removed. could it have happened faster... yea. sure
Now, when does the NYT issue a public apology for its truly vicious and one-sided railroading of the Duke players? (The article in todays times is actually pretty good. Perhaps this is the NYT's way of saying sorry?)
How 'bout a mea culpa from the law school prof (of Con law, to boot!) pundits like this one:
Subsequently and thoroughly fisked here.
And here.
To which the "Feminist Law Profs" responded thusly.
Which engendered this response.
P.S. - It should greatly hearten Oren to know that the Feminist Law Profs blog's proprietor notes that she usually "only read[s] Orin Kerr’s VC posts, and miss[es] his eponymous solo blog." Now, aren't you jealous, Professor Benjamin?
But I doubt it, the law tends to protect lawyers- case in point- why is legal malpractice so much harder to litigate and win vs med mal???
But you are too, a hero. For bravely wearing a duke lacrosse shirt to the gym.
We are all heroes. Today, I bought something from the store. Just my little way of heroically supporting capitalism. I also donated $5 to Rudy Guiliani, thereby heroically showing support for democracy.
What we saw Cooper do today was to stake Nifong out in front of a fleet of steamrollers. "Rogue Prosecutor" is a fun term, as is innocent, and his discussion of what exactly is waiting for Nifong after the Bar trial was especially delightful. Saying that he didn't want to prejudice the Bar Trial but that "all options are on the table" is not the normal answer to a question about a possible prosecution. You go with no comment or "we don't talk about possible prosecutions".
"All options..." isn't what you want to hear as a possible defendant, especially when the AG who said that is also arguing for new laws to deal with your past conduct. The state of North Carolina is going to hang this entire thing on Nifong. Rae Evans now isn't Nifong's most dangerous opponent, Cooper is. The Duke Endowment is still justifiably petrified of Mrs. Evans, and today's press conference isn't going to help. "Lots of people owe lots of apologies..." is going to be a fun term in settlement discussions or in a civil court.
A great day, 13 months too late. Friday brings oral arguments on Nifong's motion to dismiss the bar case. Should be much hilarity and a great day. Will be interesting to see if the Bar representatives can keep a straight face listening to Nifong's arguments.
(From this article @ NYTimes.com)
Cooper's statements pretty much lay the foundation for the kids' case. Why not hold their feet to the fire?
Nifong should be disbarred and go to prison. Given the government's ability to gin up violations for just about anything, there has to be some statute he violated. He wilfully violated their civil rights. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a conspiracy within the office. One guy can't hide exculpatory evidence. Throw all those people in the slammer under the RICO statute if it can be done.
No, I don't think that's right. The police were only taking directions from him because he was the prosecutor, after all. It's not as though they were under the impression he was involved in the investigation as a private citizen. And it's not at all uncommon for prosecutors to be involved in the evidence-gathering process in a normal case.
I frankly don't know whether prosecutors have absolute immunity, but you sure aren't getting around it with arguments like this one.
Er, wouldn't prison be a dangerous place for a former prosecutor to be?
viscus, it is hard enough to be a conservative on campus. imagine being a woman and openly supporting the racist, hitler-like (yes, according to one of the players, he was compared to hitler by others) evil white privileged male rapists!
that they chose common sense and reason over rah-rah sisterhood says a lot. it was more heroic than the average college student ever has a chance to be
prison is dangerous place - for anybody- why should the prosecutor be above the law
The real story is not that of a rogue prosecutor and his negligent superiors, but the inverted world we live in today. A low life gets more credibility in the eyes of many in the media and academia than students from respectable middle class families. The Duke rape case accuser Crystal Gail Mangum has a criminal record. According to Wikipedia she stole a taxi in 2002, and after a high-speed chase tried to run down a deputy. Her sentence: 3 weekends in detention. Magnum also has a history of leveling false charges. She accused three men of rape in 1993. In 1996 she accused her husband of threatening to kill her. She has substance abuse problems. A DNA analysis found sperm from several men in various parts of her body and underwear. Yet law professors like Kathleen Bergin seem attracted to people like Magnum. Look at her web site. She’s a fan of Malcolm X, another low life. He was an illiterate pimp, drug dealer, and burglar who got rejected from the army as mentally unqualified. In our inverted society, school children spend more time studying Malcolm X than George Washington.
Circa 1976 Ben Stein wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The View from Sunset Terrace.” Stein wrote about the inverted world of Hollywood crime show scriptwriters. In plot after plot the guilty party turns out to be not the obvious low life, but a respectable member of the community, usually a businessman. Is it any wonder after 30 years of living in an inverted world we get things like the Duke rape case hoax?
Once he decided that the charges had to be dropped -- and the political pressure for that was overwhelming and made it inevitable -- then his best tactic, politically, was to make it appear that it wasn't even a close case: the charges just HAD to be dropped, no choice at all, because there was nothing behind them.
I'm not taking any position on the merits. I'm just saying that Cooper's rhetorical stance in dismissing is politically expedient.
No, I don't think that's right. The police were only taking directions from him because he was the prosecutor, after all. It's not as though they were under the impression he was involved in the investigation as a private citizen. And it's not at all uncommon for prosecutors to be involved in the evidence-gathering process in a normal case.
I frankly don't know whether prosecutors have absolute immunity, but you sure aren't getting around it with arguments like this one.
The original post was correct. Prosecutors get absolute immunity in civil suits for prosecutorial acts, but not for anything that is investigative or administrative (for which they get qualified immunity). This question will all be a matter of characterization.
I don't know that they'll sue at all. I think it would be the perfect dichotomy and revenge. After all, Nifong had nothing on them and yet brought charges. How perfect for them to have everything on him and take the high road? Don't let anyone ever think this is even or that he has "paid" for his misdeeds.
It's easy to dismiss this as overkill, but one can strongly argue that his crime is far more dangerous to society than an individual act of violence. How many juries are poisoned by this?
bornyesterday, that Nifong was up for election at the time and he wasn't clearly in the lead is an implausible explanation for the way he went about it?
SP, if you are right about a prosecutor's immunity, and I suspect you are, then are there no potential defendants to a civil suit brought by the lacrosse players? Unless they are going to be made whole by selling the rights to their stories, and that would have to bring them rather substantial $s to cover just the out-of-pocket expenses, then I would be surprised if no lawsuit was ever filed.
This is hardly the first case in North Carolina history were people have wrongly had charges filed against them, not is it anywhere close the most serious. Alan Gell wrongly spent years on death row thanks to Roy Cooper (yes, that Roy Cooper). Daryl Hunt spent 20 years in prison for a wrongful rape and murder conviction. Now exonerated, the state is offering him $500,000 for his troubles. Terence Garner was sent to prison for robbery he didn't commit, until a PBS documentary helped create the media pressure (nothing on par with the Duke rape coverage, of course) to set him free.
The people who were upset about the injustice in those cases (mostly 'leftwingers') should be equally outraged about this one. And the people who are upset about the injustice in the Duke Rape debacle (mostly, it seems, 'rightwingers') should be equally outraged other - potentially more serious - abuses whose victims get a lot less press.
I know that folks have been saying all along (as Finnerty said at the press conference yesterday) that "the whole world" was against these three kids. But it seems to me that they've had a pretty strong base of support for a very long time, on this blog and elsewhere. Would that same base be decrying the "injustice" of three black men accused (not convicted, just accused) of raping a white woman? What if the defendants in that hypothetical case were poor? Think it'd be in the national headlines every day? Would there be a similar outrage on the 'conservative' blogs, calling for the prosecutor's head?
As for me, I'm a North Carolinian (born and raised in Durham) and I couldn't be more ashamed of Nifong and what this tragedy has done to race relations in my home city, and to three innocent kids. But honestly, I have hoped - so far mostly in vain - that it would open a larger conversation about unjust prosecutions in North Carolina and elsewhere. People seem to have accepted that Nifong pursued these kids because they're rich and white, and so many voters in Durham are not. Can we also recognize - and be similarly outraged - that DAs elsewhere pursue flimsy charges against other defendants because they're poor and black?
To his great credit, Reade Seligman, one of the accused players, noted at the press conference yesterday the very issue I'm trying somewhat hamfistedly to get across:
Frankly I wish everyone else would see the issue as clearly as he does, and approach it with a little more principle.
You can see the video of the news conference in several places including: http://hotair.com
Highlights:
"a rogue prosecutor"
"no evidence that an assault occurred"
"they are innocent"
After 3 months of investigation by two Special Prosecutors, this is a rousing defense of the young men. If you read any commentary such as: "something happened" or "not enough evidence", the commentator shows total ignorance or extreme bias.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that in this case.
Throughout this entire disgusting debacle, I've been consistently surprised at how unconcerned 'leftwingers' (for lack of a better term) have been with the injustice these kids have suffered. But I've also been totally mystified by the enormous outpouring from the 'right' (again, apologies for the broadbrush strokes) regarding the grave injustice of trumped up charges and politically motivated prosecutions.
I don't think it's the right so much as the Libertarian strain of political weblogs, which correctly saw the case as paradigmatic of the dangerous confluence of unchecked government power and identity group politics.
a.) That's all well &good. Like everybody else, I applaud the fact that this mockery of justice has finally been de-railed. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything to indicate that these three 'fine upstanding young gentlemen' [sic] have learned a rather basic lesson: Getting drunk and paying slutty women to come to your house and take their clothes off is a REALLY DUMB idea.
b.) What a pity that the accuser is going to get off scot-free! If I ruled the world, women who make false accusations of rape would get exactly the same punishment that their male victims would have gotten.
(Poetic Justice demands that she &Nifong share a cell for the next 30 years.)
In this case, the trumped-up charges weren't just done to benefit a local prosecutor's career, they were supported by feminist and black groups who railroaded the defendants in the name of feminism and fighting racism. The other cases you mention were injustices, but they weren't tied to powerful political movements the way this one was.
I'm not surprised Nifong was so vigorous in this case. A woman said she was raped. There are at least 100 rape prosecutions going to trial in America this morning based on just as flimsy evidence (except that in many the defendant is black, which of course makes the case agaisnt him stronger in the minds of most American jurors). I'm surprised they dropped the charges. A woman says she was raped. Raped! RAPED! And now these defendants are avoiding justice so they can rape another day? This is what's going through the mind of all prosecutors, not just Nifong. Innocent? Why are they innocent? That the rapist didn't leave behind DNA isn't a per se exculpation in any state in this country.
Of course I believe the charges should never have been brought, but I think most women (particularly those under 21) who call the police and say they were raped are lying their assess off because their boyfriend didn't buy them a big enough box of chocolates for valentine's day, and having him thrown in prison for the rest of his life for rape is the only thing the girl can think of to get back at him. Next time get the biggest box of chocolates (no nuts!).
Try reading Bonfire of the Vanities. So long as it is PC to call all white people and particularly white males oppressors and privileged, such racially motivated prosecutions will be encouraged.
I applaud Cooper for vindicating the accused. I would like to see the media types hound the professors who signed the Gang of 88 statement with video cameras asking for their reaction.
And how often does a bar association charge a sitting District Attorney with ethics violations? That took guts.
You do realize that you posted this comment on a post about a prosecuter who just held a press conference saying he does not believe a woman who says she was raped?
Goldstein v Van de Kamp
In reading pp. 6-8, I note that Nifong's instructions to the police to conduct a flawed "lineup", his public prejudicial statements, and his instructions to the DNA lab to supress information probably do not fall under absolute immunity parameters, although his supression of exculpatory evidence unfortunately does.
But I’m not entirely convinced that the other injustices I mentioned “weren't tied to powerful political movements the way this one was.” I think that in many cases they (and other unjust prosecutions) were tied to powerful political and social forces, just not the same ones (feminist and black groups), that have gotten so much dander up around here. When prosecutors wrongfully pursue defendants who are poor and black because that’s what they think voters want, it’s just as appalling as when Nifong pursues three defendants who are white and affluent because that’s what he thinks his voters want. Either way, it’s racism and classism—powerful political forces, if not exactly “movements.” And all I’m saying is that we should these injustices for what they are, no matter which political movements are pushing for or against them, or what the identities of the unjustly accused.
A few posters have commented on the fact that the charge here was rape, and that part of the injustice—and, by implication, the reason for the outpouring of anger against Nifong—is that such rape charges can often be unsupported, ruining the lives of the falsely accused. Again, I have to point out that the problem is a lot wider than the discussion. Historically, and especially in the South, the victims of false accusation generally are not affluent white men, but black men, often poor, accused of raping white women. The South (of which I am a proud if sometimes exasperated son) has a long and sordid history of questionably-supported, racially-motivated rape prosecutions, which I rarely hear rightwing (again, apologies for being overbroad here) bloggers raising with nearly as much fury.
Also, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I note that some scholars have recently questioned the received wisdom about racially motivated rape prosecutions in the South.
Finally, I think that rarango is on point that leftwingers (perhaps including the NC NAACP) should have tied their anger to something more important and concrete. My only point is that everyone else should do the same.
Maybe Nifong should have thought of that before he suborned perjury and conspired to obstruct justice. More than pretty much anyone else in our society, prosecuters should know the consequences of breaking the law.
And rape shield laws should be re-examined. It makes no sense that these innocent young men will go to their graves known as the 'accused Duke lacrosse team rapists' while the woman who made up the story entirely and has never recanted or even said she was sorry is virtually anonymous.
Did you in fact listen to the AG's press conference, detailing of the investigation that his SPs undertook over the last 3 months?
The Duke administration acted in perfectly good faith and in complete accordance with their highest values: they thought they could "get out in front" and thereby attract more donations. Student rights, justice, and "innocent until proven guilty" were, of course, secondary.
It should be remembered that those "students from respectable middle class families" hired that "low life" to strip for them... she didn't just walk in and volunteer, you know. The guys aren't saints here, merely innocent of the charges made against them.
But it is in vogue here to attack liberals. So, if one person, or group, does/says something outrageous (or just plain dumb), and that person/group espouses positions that can be deemed leftist, then that casts aspersions on the entire universe of liberals. And commenters then could feel free to paint liberals with a broad brush.
For what it's worth, this liberal of course believes that Nifong overreached and am disgusted by it, as I am by ALL incidents of governmental abuse of power. But what's the point of being a ditto head and adding to the clear consensus? And as you point out, the shoe was historically on the other foot the vast majority of the time. But that won't stop others from believing that white men are an oppressed minority. And to those who hold such beliefs, I recommend the Lucky Ducky cartoons by Ruben Bolling.
No, we aren't there but please enjoy while black and brown young men in this country get persecuted and sent to prison every day for minor offenses and shaky witness testimony.
I think the AG's reference to the "sealed record" on the accuser implies... how shall we say this... diminished capacity.
Nifong did not personally interview her for 8 months. He didn't want to know...
Jeff Schultz: agree 100%. (Also, the previous encounters with the law, "Thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt," etc.)
It's tempting to think that maybe Mike Nifong played on the town-gown tensions to get re-elected ... but I certainly can't be absolutely sure of that.
The comparison between this case and the Imus case are striking to me. Don Imus is a horrible racist, but the people who viciously attacked these players are not? Why is it okay to hate white people, but no one else?
We have created a double standard in this country that prevents any real meaningful discussion of race.
Nifong should be disbarred.
no, it's not. it's good clean american fun!
get real.
im sorry, it's COLLEGE. getting drunk and looking at slutty women is required.
Hmm. Somehow I graduated without taking that class.
Its not really required, but it is a very popular elective.
Unreal. I apologize for the long comment. This is an example, though, of the attitude among a lot of A&S academics, and this sort of analysis is why a statement from the AG absolutely needed explicitly to declare them innocent.
JJ has good points about consistency. I think most right-wingers would be just as outraged about other cases; the problem is that cases that don't fit the perspective of the mass media don't get the initial attention this case got. This story got attention because it initially fit the prejudices of the left.
:l
obviously, any crime investigation can be hampered by incompetence or evilness.
and btw, i am against the war on drugs, i just don't think the occasional bad warrant etc. is some sort of "proof" of how bad it is, etc.
In short, those, who like myself, were extremely skeptical of the Duke case from the beginning and were shocked and dismayed by Nifong's conduct, should, if the evidence so demonstrates, be equally ready to condemn Gonzales and any other participants with similar venom.
In the end, of course, there will always be "pot-bangers" on both sides of any issue who will never admit error. The problem with the Duke case was not the nature of the politics that intruded into the prosecution, but the fact that politics was allowed to pervert the administration of justice.
So, those who decry the Group of 88 for prejudging the case, should look to themselves and ask whether their view that a vast injustice is being perpetrated by the AG investigation is equally premature. And, should it turn out that political ends did create prosecutorial abuses, one should ask the same candor from a new AG that Cooper demonstrated. And those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence will be, in my book, just as hypocritical and discredited as those who refuse to acknowledge the abuse and injustice that took place in the Duke case.
What people on both sides of the aisle need to learn, is that a good plurality of the public has a BS detector that both sides regularly fail.
(Joke. Not my favorite commentator.)
they were engaging in "ingrained anti-social behavior" by drinking alcohol and watching strippers?
cmon.
you can't make this stuf up
Let it be noted for future prosecutions that male defendants bachelor parties can and will be held against them in a court of law.
in the beginning, we were told it was COMPLETELY WRONG to "judge" the accuser by noting that she was a stripper, with a history of (unprosecuted) gang rape claims, who was intoxicated, whose own friend thought she was full of it, etc.
but clearly, frat boys (note that stripper is not a perjorative, but "frat boys" is ) who hire a STRIPPER are clearly bad people
the same people who say not to judge somebody (or even take note) of the fact that the accuser IS a stripper, want it held against the INNOCENT victims of her false allegations, that they HIRED a stripper.
ah, the irony
I tried to find an interview I saw that was done with the 3 families in Dec after the DNA coverup was displayed in open court. I think it was Kathy Seligmann who summed up the family's answer to your question. It went something like:
"I don't blame the accuser, I blame the prosecutor. An before this is over he's going to regret what he has done to us"
I expect that they will sue:
Durham
False accuser
Nifong personally
SGT Gotlieb
DET Himan
INV Linwood (sp?)
Crime Stoppers
DPD PAO Corporal
DUKE
Brodhead
It will be interesting to see those depositions of the PD folks and how fast they roll over on Nifong.
Dopes anyone know what the joint liability law is in NC?
I was a perpetrator of ingrained anti-social behavior when in college. I didn't attend strip clubs or parties with strippers. But I drank a fair amount of bourbon, and this before I turned 21.
I will turn myself over to the Chicago Police Department next time I'm in town, though I suspect the statue of limitations has run on this crime. Plus they all enjoy a beverage on occasion. Which just proves that this is a cultural sickness.
But, like Prof. Potter, I'm left to wonder: There were so many crimes committed in Chicago in the late '80s. How do we know that I wasn't involved in /all/ of them? 'Think about it indeed,' perfessor.
I wish I'd gone to Wesleyan.
To my knowldege nobody involved in the fraud, nobody, has gone to jail.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/topstory/3206160.html
Crime lab faked results in 4 cases, probe finds
The allegations — the first aimed at HPD's drug unit — could be the harshest yet
Houston Police Department crime lab analysts fabricated findings in at least four drug cases, an independent investigator reported Tuesday, including one in which a scientist performed no tests before issuing conclusions that supported a police officer's suspicions.
The allegations of so-called "drylabbing" — concocting results without conducting analyses — may be among the most serious leveled thus far in the more than two years since the crime lab came under scrutiny.
(snip)
“It should be remembered that those "students from respectable middle class families" hired that "low life" to strip for them.”
I did not refer to Crystal Gail Mangum as low life because she is a stripper. I didn’t even use the word “stripper.” I called her low life because of her past criminal acts, substance abuse, and promiscuity. Being a stripper doesn’t make anyone low life. Nor does it comprise anyone who hires one. I don’t see how the fact that someone in the fraternity hired a stripper in any way compromises the accused students affects their credibility or impugns their character.
if you want to be pro-social, you must hire a performance artist, smoke weed, and discuss chomsky.
For example, absolute immunity does not apply to a prosecutor's giving legal advice to police. It does not apply to preindictment fabrication of evidence. It does not apply to making false and prejudicial statements to news media, whether before or after indictment.
The doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity from suit for damages is one of the more pernicious examples of "judicial activism" in the history of American jurisprudence. In the seminal case on prosecutorial immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), the Supreme Court candidly acknowledged that the statute "creates a species of tort liability that on its face admits of no immunities". Id., at 417. The text of the statute then read:
The Imbler court decided in essence that prosecutorial immunity from suit for damages is derivative of judicial immunity, which had been recognized in such cases as Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 (1871). No hint of any self-interest as to the jurists who decided this line of cases, is there?
The doctrine of prosecutorial immunity is quite simply cut from whole cloth. Perhaps the Durham case should serve as a catalyst for Congress to amend § 1983 to abolish this judge-made doctrine, at least in egregious cases where a state prosecutor acts maliciously or corruptly.
Still, I wondered whether the AG's sweeping statements, including his criticism of state officials, might harm his client: the state of North Carolina. If a claim is brought against the District Attorney, it occurs to me that any judgment may end up being paid from the coffers of the North Carolina treasury. Any good 1983 lawyers posting who have a sense whether, on balance, Cooper's statements help or hurt his client?
Essentially, our culture has devolved into the serial practice of partisanship without regard for the individual or the pursuit of the truth. We're not looking to find the truth, we’re looking to create truth and that is a pivotal distinction. As such, each issue becomes the flagship for opposing interest groups and the epicenter for partisan politics. Those actually involved in this and other incidents (and they are often victims) become nothing more than pawns in an elaborate game of chess...and they are frequently further victimized.
These situations shouldn't be about whether liberals or conservatives, this race or that race, hip hop or honky-tonk, one group or another, are more offensive and therefore more responsible for all that is wrong with America.
I'm not a religious person...but I often find kinship with the imagery surrounding the portrayal of one called Jesus and his teachings of understanding and forgiveness. For all the banter I hear about the Bible and Christian values, it certainly seems to me that we are fast abandoning what many view as the sacred "tablets" in favor of the sacrosanct tabloids. If I'm right, all I can say is heaven help us.
Read more about the dynamics that lead a situation to become larger than the sum of its parts...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Thanks for the link. Spoken right from my heart far more eloquently than I ever could!
How can an intoxicated man be guilty of rape (or anyone who is intoxicated be guilty of DUI), while an intoxicated woman can't give consent to sexual activity?
I do find the cases you talk about to be just as abhorrent. However, I depend on other sources to bring me the information. I don't have the resources to examine every charge of rape, but the media does. They are the ones who need to expose these other cases to us, so we can create the uproar in those cases that was created in this one.
The long quote posted by Joe Bingham from the even longer rant by some post-modernist Wesleyan professor actually has a point, it is just submerged in the various mendacious rhetoric implying inter alia that males empowered by the sexual revolution are essentially committing rape by definition.
The exoneration of the Duke 3 of a crime is not an exoneration of the lemming like lowest common denominator culture of these de facto fraternities. I'm not jumping prudish about stripping and underage drinking, nor even about various questionable behavior committed under the influence.
What I have seen is that the lack of inhibition once associated with Alcohol is extending into the entirety of student life. They kick in each others doors, beat the crap out of walls, rails, occasionally each other without the necessity of elevated blood alcohol.
Ironically, those who think there is something amiss with aspects of campus culture probably have a point, but their marriage of this discussion to their world view provides us with incoherent commentary that insures no useful discussion on the subject is likely to take place.
Brian
the "lemming like lowest common denominator"?
typical of elitist attitudes towards frats
and jocks, for that matter
The DA, when told of this, takes her pre-teen daughter into care as an "endangered child", and the defendant is told she'll never see her stepdaughter again. But if she cops a plea, her partner will be given custody, instead of some unlicensed agency.
She pleaded Guilty of course, and is now in a male prison as the result. She has Harry Benjamins Syndrome - looks female now due to hormones, but hasn't had surgery yet.
We're not sure she's both alive and sane now. Some hardened sex workers have survived such experiences, but this gal runs a web hosting service. She's due for release in November, but no-one expects her to survive that long.
Feral Prosecutors can and do wreck lives, and condemn people to fates quite literally far worse than a mere Death penalty, because "winning" by fair means or foul is everything. It happens in America, in 2007. There's plenty more like Nifong.
I am not a lawyer so could one of the attorneys here explain to me why Mike Nifong should not be prosecuted for the same crime?
you can accuse me of emperical bias, I suppose I could lob a dose in the opposite direction, but that would simply be tit for tat.
Are you suggesting that what I've seen with my own eyes is inconsistent with student life generally, or simply inconsistent with LAX and/or the greek system.
I would stress that the majority of the circumstances I have observed were de facto social order -- occasionally members of a particular sports team renting together, but these are not recognized faternaties. I am open to the argument that the discipline of purpose associated with the pursuits you engaged in might actually have some sobering effect although I can't say I've observed any significant difference between sports associated and non-sports associated households.
But year in year out I can tell you that behavior is worse, period -- not behavior while drunk, behavior while sober. I am the first to admit that you and I represent a very small sample, but if you have evidence to the contrary, besides your own experience, then don't call rubbish, point it out.
Brian
a8bafa893675181591cd58bdff35986a
e62b149d89d1a4c5d233f0bc458921c0
d3008632377072f85f0b67193cb6ad47
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.