The Duke Rape Case, New DNA Evidence, and How To Handle Out-of-Control Prosecutors
As of this moment, we’re still unsure of all the facts in the Duke lacrosse “rape” case, particularly those of us whose only knowledge of the situation comes from news reports and the blogosphere. However, it is beginning to look like the accused players might be getting railroaded to the point where the prosecutor should provide them with “Union Pacific” t-shirts.
Every time we look at somebody who may be wrongly accused we should shudder and think, “there but for the grace of God,” and investigate fully.
Defense attorneys for the three men from Duke’s lacrosse team charged with raping a stripper at a party have filed a motion with the court, as DNA testing found genetic material in the accuser’s body and underwear, but none of it was from any of the three defendants.
This means either the accuser was with other men (willingly or unwillingly we don’t know), or did a feet-first Slip-n-Slide through the mens room at a football stadium. Either way, it’s not looking good for the prosecutor’s case, but he’s showing no signs of letting up. Why?
This case will play itself out, and not being a fly on the wall during any of this I can’t comment on the particulars, but I’d like to focus more on the prosecutorial end of things. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the accused are being used for some purpose other than the pursuit of justice. If it turns out to be the prosecutor who is continuing pursue increasingly discredited allegations, severe action needs to be taken.
District Attorney Mike Nifong has been accused of pursuing the case for political gain in a re-election year, and Republican Rep. Walter Jones wants the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Nifong’s conduct in the case.
In the meantime, here’s my modest proposal, and this would apply in general for any would-be out-of-control prosecutor: Let it be known going in that should solid evidence be found that a prosecutor pursued a false or grossly misleading case against any citizen, that said prosecutor be subject to the same sentence they sought to impose on the defendant.
Who knows how many people are in jail due to zealous prosecutors and their lofty goals that had little to do with the alleged crimes by the accused. In addition, prosecutors who have to seek re-election is a questionable way to run a system. On one hand, said prosecutor is directly responsible to the citizens who have a hand on the lever of their entire career, but on the other hand, the odds that a prosecutor will play to the prides and prejudices of the makeup of any given community at the expense of justice for the accused go way up. It sounds as if the latter could be what’s happening in the Duke case.
This country has enough trouble putting actual criminals in prison without using so much time and resource to manufacture cases against the people because some prosecutor wants to be re-elected.
There are few more heinous crimes than willingly ruining the life of an innocent person to gain political power, and this should be addressed by sentencing rogue prosecutors (and judges, and politicians, etc.) who are found to have willingly engaged in this act to the same sentences they sought for those they accused.
If this turns out to be the fact of the matter in the Duke case, we can call it “Nifong’s Law.†Having a law named after you is a good way to impress your cellmate while simultaneously helping out any would-be future victims of legal and/or political zealotry.
 *******
Addendum: For more on the topic of a skunky justice system, David Usher, in the comments section for this post on MensNewsDaily, points us to a good article he wrote on the subject a while back which points out what can be done about it.
———-
Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com
| More from Doug Powers
Stumble It!
December 14th, 2006 at 6:40 am
The professional and political (in the USA) reputation of Public Prosecutors is far too dependant upon getting convictions and unrelated to finding the Truth. The drive to get convictions is almost bound to produce crooked prosecutors and police and cover up inconvenient facts when they spoil a beneficial (to them) assumption. As Holmes said to Watson, “It is a Capital error, my dear Watson, to make the facts fit the theory rather than make the theory fit the facts.
It is a system failure as well as an individual one. While anyone can make mistakes, through accident or negligence, the deliberate molding of evidence to frame an innocent person should, as you suggest, be severely punished. I would suggest at least double the sentence sought against the innocent man as the offence is against all of us. Simple culpable negligence should carry the single sentence. The superior of the prosecutor, the Mayor ?, should also be held accountable and a simple dismissal from office is hardly sufficient.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:46 am
State legislators have long been unwilling to punish false allegations of child abuse, domestic violence, or other attacks on marriage. Feminists keep convincing them that when a case is not found guilty, it is not possible to prove that it was “false”, despite all evidence to that end. They also claim this would have the effect of keeping women from filing real allegations of abuse. This is a tough case to sell.
The problem is one of ethics in the legal system. The situation exists because state and federal bar associations are “trade groups”, before anything else, and are hence incapable of disciplining themselves. These kinds of charades make lots of work for many attorneys, so they would be hurting business prosepects by clamping down. This situation is, of course, endemic in all western cultures today.
The solution to this problem is in my article “How to Reform the Corrupt Legal System” ( http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david12.htm ). This article has been widely commented on. Attorneys and legal scholars have said my approach would be quite effective, and pass constitutional muster as regards the separation of powers doctrine. I urge all serious reformers to introduce this in their home states.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Great article, David. I’ve added it as a link at the end of my blog post so more people can see it.
You’re right, Amfortas… anybody who’s indifferent when things like this are going on have never heard the term “there but for the grace of God…”
December 14th, 2006 at 11:35 am
“There are few more heinous crimes than willingly ruining the life of an innocent person to gain political power, and this should be addressed by sentencing rogue prosecutors (and judges, and politicians, etc.) who are found to have willingly engaged in this act to the same sentences they sought for those they accused.”
Is it possible that corrupt training of legal system officials has led to this? Yes, IMO, absolutely. Trainings performed by gender feminist ideologues are funded by STOP grants from the Violence Against Women Act and create the very same bias against men we see apparently exhibited in this case. Gender feminist, domestic violence and rape court watchers are abundant today in our corrupt legal system, intimidating and/or punishing anyone associated with the legal system who does not go along with gender feminist, anti-male, anti-constitution, Violence Against Women Act requirements.
IMO, if we are going to hold all the legal system officials accountable, who in the name of the gender feminist ideology (VAWA and rape laws) have for trampled men’s rights and done injustice to innocent men, then we will need to close the courts and build new prisons.
If one goes to The Innocence Project and does a search on all those who have cleared by DNA evidence after their false sentencing, we see the vast majority had “rape” listed in the charges against them. Just think how many men sit rotting in jails today (victims of this corrupt legal system), who actually had sexual relations with the women falsely accusing them, thereby having no DNA evidence to ever free them from their victimization by the liars.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Here in Washington State the Supreme Court of Washington has decided, against its own precedent, Seattle v. Bittner, and US Supreme Court precedent, the Schware bar license case, that child support is a reasonable exception to the doctrine that all license suspensions and revocations must be based on something that is related to the activities licensed.
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/76590-1opindisp.htm
One of the three justices who dissented in this Amunrud case,
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/76590-1dissent.htm
(General details at
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/586476.htm),
James Johnson apparently woke up with a horse’s head in his bed and wrote the OBSCENE Gourley decision stripping all who are respondents in protection order cases of even the due process required by the US Supreme Court’s Goldberg v. Kelly decision. Details at
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/gourley.htm
The problem with the US Supreme Court is that they won’t enforce their own decisions, by constantly denying writs of certiorari without any comment.
I suggest screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law because waking up a federal grand jury is about the last non-violent remedy for this problem.
Beyond that it looks a lot like breaking out the guillotines and inventing a new system of weights and measures.
I do not wish to resort to the Second Amendment in the failure of all other Amendments, but the corruption of the system looks like Jefferson’s Tree of Liberty in need of a new transfusion of the blood of tyrants and patriots.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Many of us saw from the beginning that these boys were potentially being railroaded. It didn’t take long before, in my estimation, reasonable doubt was cast on the accuser and her accusations (exactly as in the Kobe Bryant case). Thoughtful people accept that the character of the accuser impinges upon her accusation. Starting out with the knowledge that she was a stripper should immediately alert one to a need for an informative Bayesian prior. Factual evidence should have then sealed that tentative judgment.
I thoroughly agree that in the case of false allegations, the accuser should receive severe punishment. In this case, Nifong should also lose his job. A dismantling of special protections for women (e.g., rape shield laws) should also be undertaken. It is fundamental that an accused be presented with his accuser.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Another feminist story/situation/policy & procedure of man bad, woman good – even if the woman is a whore.
There may be other stereo types: rich vs. poor, white vs. black, and or jock vs. non-jock.
In the end I expect the men will suffer. The whore for lying may not be shamed as her community will support her.
When a woman accuses a man, we are told that “it’s better to be safe than sorry.â€
December 16th, 2006 at 7:23 am
THe real ironic part of this whole thing is that the liberal media and all of the femikook sites are deafeningly silent! Gee, wonder why?
TMOTS