Got Handcuffs?
Deputizing Webmasters

Why Care About the Duke LaCrosse Case?

William Anderson, an economist, was asked why he cared so much about the Duke lacrosse case.  His answer: How could anyone of good conscience remain silent when

The Duke case is nearly nine months old, Nifong’s "evidence" has been shredded by attorneys and the blogs, yet the case continues toward trial because government courts are not about truth or justice, but rather are a plaything for prosecutors. It is obvious that truth does not matter either to the prosecutors or the judges, but I also know that truth serves as sunlight. I think of what I am doing as shining a light on cockroaches, something that makes them scatter.

Perhaps writing about the lacrosse case will give those with Mike Nifong's ethics something to ponder before indicting innocent citizens.  People like Nifong need to be deterred.  Since it's been conclusively shown that the North Carolina State Bar is unwilling to punish unethical prosecutors, it's up to ordinary citizens to expose prosecutorial misconduct.

Indeed, due to the attention critics brought to the case, Mike Nifong was unable to obtain a majority of the popular vote in his re-election bid.  (He was ultimately elected due to the friendly efforts of local attorney Steve Monks.  Monks ran in the election to draw votes away from Nifong's main opponent - presumably to gain favor with Nifong.  Monks' strategy worked, and Nifong was able to win re-election with less than 50% of Durham County residents believing in him.)