Some Thoughts on Duke Lacrosse Case

Like many of you, I have been following the Duke lacrosse rape case closely.  It's an interesting case to follow, as there are so many fascinating dynamics.  Every male can imagine himself being falsely accused of a crime, and yet every male also despises rapists. Conservatives tend to side with the men in acquaintance rape cases, where as liberals are ready to hang defendants based on the flimsiest evidence.  What's most interesting to me about the Duke case, though, is how it's being tried in the media.  And how that makes me feel about myself.

The prosecutor held some 70-or-so press conferences, essentially attempting to try to the case to the media.  When it seemed that he had no physical evidence, and an unreliable complaining witness, he clammed up.  Once the first round of DNA tests were conducted, the prosecutor claimed that he had more cards - but that he would be keeping those close to the vest.

For the past several weeks, then, the only team we've heard from is the defense lawyers.  According to their recent report, a second round of DNA testing has cleared all members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Yet I'll be the first to tell you that anything a defense lawyer says about his case should be viewed skeptically.  Defense lawyers are paid to advocate for their clients - a noble calling, to be sure, but a calling that leads to all sorts of fibs and bullshitting.

I would thus love nothing more than to hear from the prosecution.  Is the defense team telling the truth?  If so, what of the statement the prosecutor made claiming that DNA evidence would inculpate, or exculpate, the defendants? 

There are good reasons for a prosecutor to remain mum about a pending case.  Not the least of which is that the defendant's have the right to an impartial jury, and putting a media spotlight on the case media might deny them that right. 

Yet Durham, N.C. voters have the right to know whether an elected prosecutor ignores evidence of guilt and innocence, instead charging people as a vote-buying scheme.

I suppose we'll have to wait until the trial starts before learning more.  Something tells me, though, that the sound of silence we're hearing from the prosecutor comes from weakness, rather than a noble motivation to ensure that the defendants have a fair trial.

While thinking about the legal aspects of the Duke case, I feel guilty for wanting to learn more.  I look down of people who view other peoples' problems as yet another reality-TV show.  The drama of the courtroom involves real people suffering. 

Whether the complaining witness is lying or not, she is a disturbed person suffering from serious mental problems.  She likely views the world through glasses that show only shadows of demons.  Imagine how terrified of the world she must feel.  The defendants, if innocent, are likely as close to Hell as only someone whose family member has cancer, has been. 

We should not gawk over courtroom cases like it's yet another tearful episode of Oprah Winfrey.  Yet here I sit on a Friday night, looking for case details.  Maybe it's a good thing I can't find them.

Comments

[Mahan Atma]

"liberals are ready to hang defendants based on the flimsiest evidence"

Do you have any support for this assertion?

I'm a liberal, and I certainly don't do this.

It's also the case that the large majority of criminal defense attorneys I know are liberals, not conservatives - not a statistically reliable sample, obviously, but I'd bet it's true in general.

[Mahan Atma]

"Yet here I sit on a Friday night, looking for case details. Maybe it's a good thing I can't find them."

Check out the TalkLeft site, there's a pretty good collection of stuff on the case:

http://www.talkleft.com/

BTW, she's a liberal -- as well as a woman -- and she's taken a very strong stance on the side of the defendants.

[Mike]

Liberals who aren't criminal defense lawyers, Mahan. (Just as conservatives who are criminal lawyers tend to be sympathethic to defendant's rights, even though most other conservatives are not.) IOW, the context was garden-variety liberals and conservatives.

Do you seriouly want to argue that liberals who are generally pro-defendant's rights change their tune in date-rape cases? For starters, take a look at the comments to TL's posts. It reads like a lynch mob.

I'm also sure you remember when several chapters of the the NLG (liberal, if any organization is liberal) issued very strong criticisms of defense lawyers who respresented rape defendants. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz, Letters to a Young Lawyer at 53 ("Several years ago, I got into a scrap with the Boston chapter of the Lawyers Guild, a left-wing group that deemed it politically incorrect to represent accused rapists.")

I stand by my assertion that political liberals tend to have a different view of presumptive innocence and due process when the defendant is charged with a rape case.

[Ex-DA]

As a former DA, I disagree with your premise that liberals will convict an alleged rapist before a conervative. Maybe that is true in the court of public opinion, but not in a court of law. Those liberal lunatics out protesting at Duke would turn into quivering blobs of uncertainty and doubt if they ever sat on a jury.

[Mike]

Ex-DA: Please, tell me more...

[Ex-DA]

Nothing more to tell. Everyone is opposed to rapists. Even rapists would convict another rapist -- that's why they must be in protective custody in prison. But liberals have a hard time with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard as they are deathly afraid of being the instrumentality of a wrongful conviction. Conservatives tend to be more black and white -- if the evidence is there, they convict. Liberals hem and haw and worry about how the police coulda/woulda/shoulda done a better job and why isn't there more evidence, etc. They hold beliefs like "I think he did it but I wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." It's a worldview.

[Aaron]

Oh my goodness - "liberals" don't simply take everything the state and police say at face value, and actually want you to present evidence? How horrible! ;-)

[Christopher King]

If the Duke boys did nothing more than issue racial epithets as reported by the neighbor, it would indeed be horrible to have them accused of more.

As you are aware, such false accusations are nothing new to black men.

In this example, a black man was accused of raping a white co-ed, then she slept with a white male later that night who was actually called to testify against the black man -- but the school (Kenyon) never told the black man or his family about the second dalliance.

Then they called in the doctor, sua sponte, to testify about petchia.

Then the Judge dismissed the Title IX claim.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/05/word-about-duke-rape-and-what-they-do.html

I know this black man. I got $57,500 for his father after the police had a party on his neck for driving a nice Northstar Cadillac on April Fool's Day, 1996.

[mythago]

Mike, for somebody who claims to be unbiased and concerned only about the evidence, your slip is showing. A lot.

Males worry about false rape accusations. Females worry about being raped, and about the gauntlet they would have to run to prove they weren't, in your words, mentally disturbed at best and lying at worst if they dared report it.

[Mike]

the gauntlet they would have to run to prove they weren't, in your words, mentally disturbed at best and lying at worst if they dared report it.

Come on, Mythago, you've been playing unfair lately. Did I say that about every complaining witness? I said that the Duke accuser was disturbed - either because she had major issues already, or because she was raped. ("Whether the complaining witness is lying or not, she is a disturbed person suffering from serious mental problems. ")

Actually, I do feel bad for her - just as I feel bad for everyone with mental health problems. Whether I should feel bad for her because she was raped is still an open question, as the evidence she was raped doesn't seem too strong.

[Christopher King]

How are they getting these indictments I wonder. I did hear someting about a DNA link the other day from a fingernail..... and of course I acknowledge a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It happened to me.

I'm just curious as to what he presented.