1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Duke Lacrosse case

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by cmhbob, Apr 23, 2006.

  1. Andy


    Nope, wasn't over nothing.. he accomplished his goal, handle the case the way his constituents would have wanted it handled, regardless of truth or facts and win the primary to keep his job.

    Irony will now sunder him for a bazillion.
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Duke has invited 2 of the players back to the team.


  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Accuser has changed her story AGAIN! Did I mention, Again?
  4. Andy


    News on the tube at the moment.. based on her lack of coherent story telling.. motions to dismiss are going forward right now.
  5. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    I think it's pretty much over at this point.

  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    What a fucker. Used this case for political means disbarment is the LEAST of what his punishment should be.
  7. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Yep, the bastard should be forced to pay restitution to the guys and Duke should not be let off the hook either.
  8. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Oh, now it's just starting to get interesting. One of the special prosecutors assigned to look into Nifong's work used to work with him!
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  10. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    The state bar has added ethics charges to a complaint filed against the prosecutor who brought sexual assault charges against three Duke lacrosse players, accusing him of withholding DNA evidence and making misleading statements to the court.

    The new charges by the North Carolina State Bar against Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong were announced Wednesday and could lead to his removal from the state bar, according to a copy of the updated complaint.

    Nifong’s office arranged for a private lab to conduct DNA testing as part of the investigation into allegations three men raped a 28-year-old woman hired to perform as a stripper at a party thrown by the lacrosse team last March.

    Those tests uncovered genetic material from several men on the woman’s underwear and body, but none from any lacrosse player. The bar complaint alleges those results weren’t released to defense lawyers in a timely fashion and that Nifong repeatedly said in court he had turned over all evidence that would potentially benefit the defense.

    Nifong’s actions constitute a “systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion ... prejudicial to the administration of justice,” the complaint read.

    Gosh, do ya think? Read all about it here.

  11. Andy


    Cases were completely and totally dropped today.

    The Attorney General pretty much blamed Nifong for being overzealous.

    Queue screams of racism anyways due to them being "let off the hook".. it might take a while though, since the reverends are currently tied up trying to lynch Imus.
  12. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I'm looking for the students to sue the absolute shxt out of Duke for immediately impuning their characters by barring them from the campus. "Innocent until proven guilty," indeed.

    But in some pretty good news, Nifong's career is now a smoking crater.

  13. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Please, how quickly we forget, "Freedom for me, none for thee".
  14. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Exactly so. It would be interesting to know which side of the political spectrum Nifong allies with...something tells me it's probably not along conservative lines.

    So if you were one of these guys, would you sue the university? I'd also go after Nifong as well.

  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I really liked this comment, so I am reposting with the link.

    This case points out the paradox that women still face in America today there is still that dichotomy between the woman on the pedestal and the available whore that frames all of our discussions of cases like this. Had Mangum's case had validity, her life as a stripper would have been justified by her economic circumstances, social background, etc she would have been made into a stripper-saint. As it is, she has been vilified as a crazy black hooker out to get some kind of perverse revenge on white society.

    This dichotomy probably shaped Nifong's handling of the case he had to see it in black and white terms; either she was fully justified in her accusation (which would require the sort of full-court press that Nifong made, even if it meant fudging some facts), or she should have been thrown back on the streets by the cops as soon as they recognized her as a duplicitous whore. Unfortunately, the facts of the case probably put it somewhere in the in-between...Mangum needed help, yes, but was no saint. Still, she deserved respect on her own terms, respect that she surely didn't get from the frat boys that hired her to strip for them that night.

    Unfortunately, Nifong's bungling of this case probably could not have done more to set back rape victim's rights than if he had just paraded Mangum around the Duke campus proclaiming she was a whore. By pressing a case that wasn't there, he made a group of Neanderthal, misogynistic frat boys into heroes for the falsely accused. How many women will think twice before reporting a rape after seeing Mangum's humiliation?

    This whole affair points out the difficulty that we've had in negotiating sexual relations in a post-feminist movement world. Women are given the same freedom to choose partners as men, but are also expected (as a matter of law) to be able to consent to sex in the same way that men are. As this case and many like it show, however, consent can be very difficult to determine in a society that still subtly reinforces male control of the sexual experience. This is a problem for both men and women, because women often find it difficult to signal when no real means no.

    The problem is doubly difficult, because not all non-consensual sex is clearly rape. For example, if a male and female are on a date, progress to his house, and the male aggressively shows that he wishes to have sex (kissing / touching / etc), and the woman would rather not but does anyway because she doesn't want to make him angry, is this rape? Now reverse the genders in the above example is that rape? Add on the modifier that the male is verbally (although never physically) abusive is that rape? Keep that modifier, but again reverse the genders, and what do we call it?

    I'm not sure where the solution to this problem lays, but at the extremes it could go in one of two directions. A first possibility would be to require absolute consent for an sexual contact a verbal affirmation before each step, for example. Although on the surface absurd, it would help simplify the legal issue of consent. Still, overall it may not do as much as it first appears part of the problem, after all, is that many people "consent" to sex without really wishing to engage in it.

    A second solution would be to attempt to de-sacrilize sexual relations. In some sense, our fascination with rape comes out of the very gendered ideas that make it a problem in the first place. At its base, rape is essentially battery but by prosecuting it as a separate crime we institutionalize the notion that women's sexuality is a special thing that needs extra (patrimonial) protection. When men are coerced into sex by their female partners we see this as unfortunate, but not a crime but when the reverse happens, it is often characterized as rape.

    I don't think that this problem will be solved until our society works out a more fundamental change in how it views sexual relations...perhaps, if we normalize, de-fetishize and de-sacrilize the act of sex, some of the confusing issues of consent will begin to become more clear... of course, on the other hand, there is a strong argument to be made that the fetishization and sacrilization of sex are what make it fun in the first place. If that is the case, then perhaps cases such as this are inevitable consequences of the way we choose to organize our society.
  16. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Uh...what? (Bold by me, of course.)

    I'm experiencing a substantial amount of difficulty in determining how, where, and when the law can be so frangible to allow for "fudging of the facts"--or in this case, making stuff up. I can expect plaintiffs and defendants to "revise the facts" to fit their particular views. So do most members of the law enforcement community--they see it on a daily basis. But for a representative of the law to do so constitutes criminal fraud, at the very least.

    There wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the case, apparently from the get-go. I'm alarmed that it went on so far, for so long.

  17. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    And from the North Carolina Attorney General's statement:

    The individual quoted by ethics is apparently someone who does not agree with the North Carolina AG's decision, even though the AG is bound by the constraints of the law. I should note that the poster's characterization of the lacrosse players:

    ...a group of Neanderthal, misogynistic frat boys into heroes for the falsely accused.

    Is totally specious at best, and completely malicious. Some people think the law is good only for certain people. In this case, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that affluent whites shouldn't suffer the benefits of the legal system, only the liabilities.

  18. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    I listen live to the AGs entire statement at the press conference and some of the follow up questions and answer session with the press. In his statement the AG said some things that prosecutors just literally almost never say. They usually say there boilerplate statements such as there are insufficient evidence to prosecute this case or insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.

    The key conceptual things he said for me are:

    Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent * (emphasis added) of these charges.

    No attack [rape] occurred.

    He strongly criticized the District Attorneys handling of the case.

    Then one of the first follow up question was did he think the authorities owed any apologies or an apology to the Duke players charged. My mouth dropped open when he said words to the effect that in his opinion apologies were warranted.

    *Man, you can search high and low before you will find a prosecutor use the LEGAL term innocent. Innocent is way beyond not guilty or insufficient evidence. And that [innocent] is just what it is in the context of how he used it although it has I believe no legal standing absent a judge making a ruling of factually innocent. And offer an apology! It just so rarely happens or is said.

    But the AGs remark sure opens up the door along with the apology remark for civil action against all many except the DA. (Sierra Mike, the DA virtually has complete immunity against civil action in cases like this. He will however suffer IMO some type of punishment from the State Bar that I believe at the very least will include the suspension of his license. Perhaps even more severe-disbarment.)

    Addendum: The DA today did issue an apology. No way he is going to face the professional misconduct charges against him without his apology on record.

    As for this affecting others who are filing rape is should not. Why should it? There was no rape here! The only message should be is if you file rape you better be telling the truth and have SOME proof other than just your word.
  19. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    It shouldn't, but it will. Every false allegation of rape will affect every other rape victim down the line. People will think in the back of their minds, "Is this one telling the truth?"
  20. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Bob, jurors already think that. That is why they have trials where they present evidence.

    The accuser has indirectly a lawyer in the DA and the defendant if they are lucky enough to have money will have a good attorney to give them the best possible legal defense, (like the Duke boys could afford to get the thing dealt with before trial.) If they don't have a good defense lawyer they are not going to get a good defense. And if they are innocent without a good attorney they are going to go to jail as rape accuser are affored rights, (that IMO are grossly unfair and prejudicial against all defendants innocent or guilty) that are not afforded ANY OTHER ADULT VICTIMS OF ANY OTHER CRIMES.

    To suggest that clearing of several innocent young men after 13 months of character assasination trial by the media and vilification by just about anyone, including those 87 doofuses professors at Duke who signed on to the ad that at the beginning of all this indirectly but clearly endorsed the notion the players were guilty and still now defend the ad...they will not be held accountable in anyway.

    I'm sorry Bob but I just can't sign off on the logic says innocent men unfairly persecuted for a rape that never happen and that has now been proven will deter others who were really raped from filing charges.

    And I know there are many others here who believe as I do when I say strictly in my IMO based upon a lot of exposure to the legal community that in terms of the PERCENTAGE of crimes alleged by accusers, rape has one of if not the highest false, like this one at Duke, accusations of all crimes charged.

Share This Page