Is there some form of legal sanction available as redress to the (now apparent) falsely accused?

Ordinarily, I know a defendant whose case is dropped is (and should be) happy to escape with his liberty. But, this instance is different: the prosecutor never had any evidence to begin with. He sought and got a "ham sandwich" indictment from his pet Grand Jury, and all for the sake of his reelection campaign.

The voters in Durham will no doubt see through this cynical prosecution and reject Nifong at the next available opportunity, I'm sure, since they probably realize he is capable of doing this "indict the innocent in purpose" act again any time it suits his purpose. But what recourse do the team members have? Any recourse at all?

Like him or not, Rush Limbaugh was subjected to what was nothing more than a political persecution from a prosecutor who was unable to make a case in court.

I was a rape victim and I find this whole thing distastful, on both sides. I was attacked by jocks in college years ago. I did not go to the police because they promised to make me look like a whore. It seems not much has changed in 30 years. I have no idea if these young men are guilty or not, but they are not choir boys, they have been in trouble before and it was overlooked and they have high priced attorneys to plead their case. No doubt they will come out of this heroes and the girl will just be another black stripper/whore.

Terrye:

What if they're innocent? Should they go to prison anyway, just because one woman pointed and said "they raped me?"

Every time a man or men is persecuted on what appears to be a false rape charge, it makes it a thousand times harder to get people to take legitimate rape charges seriously. Do you think the Tawana Brawley case made it easier or harder to prosecute real rapists?

I have no idea if these young men are guilty or not, but they are not choir boys, they have been in trouble before and it was overlooked and they have high priced attorneys to plead their case.

Look back on what you just wrote and ask yourself whether you really intend to say that you don't care whether they're guilty... they're privileged, white boys, so they should be punished regardless.

No matter what happens now, millions of people across the country will always believe these men are rapists; and they have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for those "high priced attorneys." Honestly, Terrye, it sounds like you're saying they deserve everything they get because they grew up monied and you didn't.

I do not happen to be wealthy; but I do not envy the rich. And I don't believe growing up well-to-do is a crime meriting punishment... especially by false accusation. Envy is a very ugly sin.

Miscarriage of justice is never good for society or any part of society -- including women. You're not safe; women can be falsely accused as easily as men: never forget Virginia McMartin, Peggy McMartin Buckey, Peggy Ann Buckey, Mary Ann Jackson, Bette Raidor and Babette Spitler in the McMartin Preschool case.

Dafydd

What do you think about this Judge and the merits of the case?

¿Se habla English?

Except to say, it IS California, right?

Coming to your state soon.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Notice that females convicted of rape do no time! Yet males accused of rape by strippers are out thousands of dollars and humiliated by the press and activist groups.

Did anyone note how OJ went free with incredible evidence against him and all the liberals and black protestors and jurists judge him innocent!

These same groups appear when whites are accused of rape by a stripper, no evidence, but plenty evidence that no rape was committed and judge them guilty!

Now what might the definition of racism be?

Papa Ray:

I reject the core, underlying concept that a test is discriminatory solely because different groups perform differently.

If that were true, then math and science would be inherently discriminatory, because girls don't do as well on them; and art, literature, mustic, and sociology would be inherently discriminatory because boys do worse than girls.

And all academic courses whatsoever would be discriminatory because black boys do worse than white boys. (Though oddly, black girls do as well as white girls, both groups doing better overall than white boys. Go figure.)

A good test does one and only one thing: it measures each child's aptitude in a particular field. If the school has any academic standards at all, then it necessarily refuses diplomas to those students who fail to achieve those standards.

There is no difference between test standards in a classroom that lead to the awarding of a letter grade -- and standards on a national test at the end of one's high-school career. If you can flunk a student out because of the first, then legally, there is no reason you cannot flunk a student out because of the second.

Logically, then, Judge Freeman must also argue that students should also receive their diplomas if they have GPAs averaging D, D-, or even F. If he does not, add hypocrisy to the list of his offenses.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

I never said I wanted them to go to jail if they are innocent, I only said I dislike making this whole thing political before there is even a trial.

I remember what it was like to be told to my face that no one would believe what a whore had to say. I just do not feel right about even discussing this. That is what trials are for. People who know little or nothing other than what is leaked about this have already made up their minds. The truth is people involved were drinking and they might not even remember the same incident the same way.

But it is as if all good conservatives are supposed to make a cause out of the unfair persecution of some rich white LaCrosse players.

The whole thing just gives me the creeps.

And btw, millions of people will always think the woman was a black stripper whore looking for money and the prosecutor was trying to make a name for himself. Too bad the bloggers and newsies did not let the legal process work this out before they jumped on it and tried to use it to promote some political agenda of their own.

After all, exactly who is responsible for the fact that millions of people are talking about it in the first damned place?

Hmm... the Democrats keep consistently losing in elections.

The judiciary is the one branch of the government that is not subject to constant supervision by the voters.

Is it any surprise that they keep resorting to the courts?

J.

Terrye:

After all, exactly who is responsible for the fact that millions of people are talking about it in the first damned place?

The district attorney, Mike Nifong, who used this case as the main element of his reelection campaign, even before he obtained indictments from his grand jury.

Followed by the print and television news services, who initially reported the case as if the Duke students were clearly guilty (following the lede tossed them by Mr. Nifong).

Followed by the antique media commentators and pundits.

Followed by Duke University itself, which -- without investigation -- canceled the lacrosse season, fired the coach, and suspended the charged players.

And only then, after publication in and broadcast by all these sources, which circulate before "millions of people" (literally), did any bloggers get involved... once there was primary news out there to blog about. This post is the very first time the story has appeared on Big Lizards at all.

Until then, the blogosphere said nothing about this case. Obviously, since we had nothing on which to base a story.

This case was heavily publicized -- and politicized -- by Mike Nifong, the mainstream media, and Duke long before BL or any other blogger got his hands on it. Did you complain about politicization then, when the kids were universally portrayed as guilty?

Dafydd

This case kind of hits home with me because I once lived about 2 blocks from the scene of the alleged crime(s), so I knew the neighborhood well.

Frat boys are no angels and were perfectly capable of doing something like this. And there is physical evidence that the woman WAS raped. There is even 'indicative' DNA evidence not rising to proof that some of the players might have been involved. But apparently nothing on the two who were indicted. And one of the accused has pretty compelling evidence that he was elsewhere for most of the period the rape was alleged to have occurred during - a taxi driver who took him to an ATM for a withdrawal (they have ATM records also).

If I were on the jury I could not be sure and would most likely vote to acquit based upon what I know now. Unless the DA has something up his sleeve I think it's a no-go.

Dafydd:

Two wrongs do not a right make. As I said, I have been involved in this kind of thing, it is awful to go through and I just do not feel right about making it an issue.

" If we lose faith in our judicial system, the entire country will come apart at the seams."

And this is exactly where I and lots of other people have immense problems with the current immigration situation and any proposal that involves ANY form of benefit for lawbreakers. If the country is going to have a law, then that law MUST be enforced.

Otherwise, why bother? Why not have no law, and also no expensive bureaucracy to pretend to enforce it?

Terrye,

The only issue I see is whether or not the prosecutor had enough evidence to indict, or was the whole thing just his way of building some campaign momentum.

Everyone is against violent crime and in favor of investigating the dancer's allegations sympathetically. But, in his role as prosecutor Nifong was supposed to use discretion and good judgment. Instead, it looks like he's used this torturous event for the very selfish purpose of keeping his job.

Here's the issue: does a prosecutor have the right to destroy her life (remember-- she's enduring this very public process too), the lives of the accused young men and the already frayed relationship between Duke and Durham with no evidence? Just so he can win an election?

SDN:

Every proposal I have seen -- specifically including the one currently languishing in the Senate but about to be taken up anew -- requires those here illegally to admit guilt and pay the fine for their misdemeanor, make restitution, pay back taxes, and not get "cuts."

This is far less an "amnesty" than those tax amnesties we periodically offer (about which nobody ever complains)... since in those cases, you get to pay your back taxes without having to pay any fine.

The illegal immigrants have committed a misdemeanor. Even if we enact the House bill, which would make it a felony in the future (which is a non-starter that will never be enacted), these immigrants have only committed a misdemeanor, and you can't make what they did a felony ex post facto.

For a misdemeanor, and not even the worst misdemeanor, a multi-thousand-dollar fine seems like a fitting punishment.

So please don't talk about people being given some "benefit for lawbreakers." They get fined, just as they would for most other misdemeanors.

This is not amnesty in any manner. That is just a deliberate redefinition of the word for the purpose of stirring up angry emotions that take the place of rational thought.

The discussion is serious and deserves better.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)