From the New York Times:
RALEIGH, N.C., April 11 — North Carolina’s attorney general declared three former Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper innocent of all charges on Wednesday, ending a prosecution that provoked bitter debate over race, class and the tactics of the Durham County district attorney. […]
“We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations,” Mr. Cooper said at a news conference.
“We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred,” he added.
Mr. Cooper said he had considered but ultimately rejected the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the accuser, who continues to insist she was attacked at a team party on March 13, 2006, and asked him to go forward with the case. Mr. Cooper said his investigators had told him that the woman “may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.” He said his decision not to charge her with making false accusations was also based on a review of sealed court files, which include records of the woman’s mental health history.
Mr. Cooper reserved his harshest criticism for the Durham County district attorney, Michael B. Nifong, at one point even depicting him as a “rogue prosecutor.” […]
The North Carolina chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. released a statement saying it respected and accepted the work of the attorney general’s office. Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University, who had been monitoring the case for the N.A.A.C.P., echoed that theme, saying, “Based on my personal knowledge of him and high respect of him, I accept his conclusions.”
Likewise, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, one of the largest such groups in the nation, released a statement saying it was satisfied with the attorney general’s decision to drop all charges.
A few points:
1) Race, Class and The Duke False Accusation1
(This is rewritten from a post I wrote in February.)
It’s tempting to compare the Duke case to the Long Beach Beating case and the famous Central Park Rape case of the 1980s. In all three cases, a horrible crime was reported; in all three cases, there was enormous pressure from the public for arrests and convictions; and in all three cases, police and prosecutors used biased and unfair procedures to concoct a case against a group of young people.
But let’s not overlook one enormously significant difference: The Duke players were ultimately exonerated. That doesn’t make the unjust suffering the Duke players went through all right, of course. But what we’ve seen here is that the kind of railroaded conviction of poor, black suspects that happened in the Central Park rape case, and which I strongly suspect went on in Long Beach, simply doesn’t fly when the defendants are rich and white.
I’ve seen some conservatives imply that looking at these cases shows that white institutional power — and racism — are myths. But what I see is that the system pretty much works the way it’s supposed to for white defendants, or at least for white defendants with some money; for us, the system doesn’t convict without sufficient evidence. That’s simply not true for black defendants. And that’s why comparing these cases convinces me that institutional racism is still treating non-whites like crap, and still matters, and still needs to be fought.
2) I’m still not naming names.
I’ve already had demands that I blog the name and photo of the Duke accuser, as some other bloggers have done. I’m not going to do that.2
I certainly agree that a tremendous injustice was done to these three men by broadcasting their names and images all over the country. But publishing the name of their accuser will not undo that harm. As I argued a year ago, neither the names or faces of the accuser or of the accused should be made public in criminal cases.3
Obviously, some suffering is an inevitable result of being arrested. But having your names and images broadcast on network news is not inevitable; it’s a result of an irresponsible decision made by the news media. If someone is found guilty of a crime, then the harm done by deferring broadcasting their names and faces until the trial is over is minimal; but when an accused person is innocent, the harm done to them by having their names and faces made public is both avoidable and significant.
3) Why Does The “Presumption Of Innocence” Not Apply To The Accuser?
As Marcella notes, many commenters who, a year ago, were saying that it’s wrong for anyone to believe a rape accusation without a “guilty” verdict in a court of law, are now saying that the accuser made false rape allegations.
This is obviously a double-standard. If it’s wrong to conclude that someone is a rapist before he’s had a trial, then it’s also wrong to conclude that someone has made a false rape accusation before she’s had a trial.
- Whether or not the Duke accuser was attacked, it’s clear that the three particular men put on trial were falsely accused. [↩]
- Nor have I ever blogged the names or images of the three accused players, that I can recall. [↩]
- I can imagine particular circumstances in which there’s a genuine public interest in knowing the name of the accused before the trial is over — for instance, if the accused criminal is a politician. But that’s not the case in the overwhelming majority of cases. [↩]
[Deleted by Amp, and banned.]
I also wanted to say to pheeno: I am so sorry. What a horrible thing to go through. I wish you all the best.
Just for the record, I didn’t see comment #202 until after I’d posted #203.
I missed it completely.
Was it to me or something?
And thanks Lu *S*
You’re welcome. (And let’s just say I’m glad you missed it.)
Bah, some idiot on the net who cant even come up with a fake name wouldn’t ever bother me. It’s too pathetic, and Im far too much of a bitch to give a shit, other than find it amusing I annoyed someone so much they had to post. Anons are entertainment for the days Im bored. Takes a while for them to clue in on that, but its fun to watch when they finally do.
heh
Pheeno.
I’m just logging on to this thread and after having read all the way through, I am sorry to hear of your ordeal and the cruelty shown to you by Chris. His attack on you was just as savage as what that “thing” did to you.
And as for “normal rape”.
If you are reading, Chris, there is no such thing as normal rape.
Rape is the most contemptible form of hatred a man can show a woman.
And Chris, as for women reporting less rape, pre-1960:
It depended on the race of the victim as well as the race of the accused.
That many black men were executed for “supposed rapes” in the South tells very well who the victims were (who were believed) as opposed to the victims were (who were not believed).
And it goes without saying, to those who know the history of the South:
If you were a white woman you would receive justice for rape if the accused was a black man.
But, on the other hand, if you were a black woman, you would have received NO JUSTICE for rape if the accused was a white man.
RonF writes:
I don’t know if what I have to say applies in the USA but here in the UK feminists are doing nothing of the sort. What we are demanding is that rapes be properly investigated and the law properly applied.
Conviction rates for rapes vary enormously around the country and detailed evaluations have shown that the *majority* of rape cases fail due to the poor reponses from the police and prosecutors. In London, 80% of reported rapes never even get as far as the prosecutors office.
Moreover ‘adopt a believing response’ is not and never has been a legal demand but a response to the tendency of huge swathes of the general public to begin from a position that all rape vicitms should be treated with suspicion.
I don’t know anyone (… which doesn’t mean they don’t exist …) who wants to convict more innocent people just because rape is so hard to prove.
I don’t think that anyone wants to convict more innocent people in order to also convict more rapists; I just think they see it as very unfortunate but acceptable collateral damage in order to achieve the objective of convicting more rapists.
nope. That “no person” is simply wrong. There’s a balance to be struck. If we really wanted “no person” to ever be convicted wrongly, we’d probably have to chuck the entire judicial system.
The system is already strongly biased towards release of the guilty over imprisonment of the innocent. And that’s how it should be. Rape shield laws, well drafted, don’t change the fact that the bias exists. They do change the balance somewhat, but 1) only a little, and 2) for a worthy cause (discussed below)
What does a general claim like “no small matter” really mean? It’s worthless unless you ALSO consider the benefits of the increased convictions.
It’s important to understand what rape shield laws do, and don’t protect against.
they don’t prevent the defendant from giving evidence relating to prior relations with the accuser. They don’t limit the defenses the defendant can raise–from misidentification to malice. they don’t preclude a claim of consent. They don’t prevent the defendant from exploring the intimate details of the case at hand.
What do they do? really, not much (depending on your viewpoint): they basically prevent the defendant from discussing the prior sexual history of the accuser without first proving that the evidence would be highly relevant to the case. They cut off the “sluts deserve it” defense.
Now, the rapes are still going to be just about as hard to prove. There are still the issues of consent, for example–that’s probably the biggest defense there is. And rape shield laws don’t affect the accused’s ability to claim consent. ALL THEY DO is to prevent the argument that the accuser consented because she did ____ in the past.
So they don’t do much there. But the benefit is large. What’s the benefit? By making the cost of bringing a rape charge less onerous, they vastly increase the chance that the court system will SEE THE RAPE CASE AT ALL.
The main effect of a rape shield law is not, as some think, in actually changing the outcome of a case once it is in court. No, the main effect of rape shield laws is improving the %age of worthy cases that make t to court at all And that benefit is so large that the small possibility of convicting the odd defendant incorrectly is well worth it.
For everyone who wants rape to be treated “like any other crime,” here’s another way of looking at it: suppose a man says he was walking through a bad neighborhood at night and he got mugged. We assume a priori that he did in fact get mugged, and we keep believing that absent strong evidence to the contrary. We don’t ask what he was doing in that neighborhood anyway, or if he might have done something to encourage the mugger, or what he was wearing that made the mugger think him an easy mark, or if he’s ever been mugged before. And if he admits that he handed over his wallet without struggle or protest because the mugger claimed to have a gun, we don’t decide that that somehow mitigates the crime; in fact we add the charge (if there’s someone to charge) of assault with a deadly weapon.
If he identifies the mugger, we may doubt that identification for various reasons, but we don’t (again, absent strong evidence to the contrary) dispute that the mugging took place.
So, Lu, what it seems to me that you’re saying is that you do in fact want rape to be treated as any other crime. Like a male charging assault, a female charging rape should be presumed to have a valid reason for doing so, and the decision on how vigorously to investigate and prosecute the charge should not be affected by moral judgements on the circumstance. That makes sense to me, and it’s also clear to me that this has often not been (and on occasion, still isn’t) the case.
Sailorman:
Yes, there’s always a balance to be struck. And “no small matter” is my opinion, and not quantifiable; I put it in to symbolize the basis of our legal system. Many, many legal systems around the world either de jure or de facto are not so based.
The main effect of a rape shield law is not, as some think, in actually changing the outcome of a case once it is in court. No, the main effect of rape shield laws is improving the %age of worthy cases that make t to court at all …
I haven’t asserted otherwise, and would not, as I am not all that familiar with rape shield laws other than the general points that have been discussed above. I’m thinking more of those who would advocate changing existing law than of those defending it. I’ve followed some links lately on various “radical feminist” blogs and have seen a number of posts that think present law is way too unfavorable towards complainants in rape cases and seem to desire to carve out an exception for the legal concept (I’m not talking moral/personal here) of “presumption of innocence” in rape cases.
RonF,
Our system really does do a poor job taking care of victims. And it really does do a pretty shitty job of convicting actual rapists. So a lot of people want to fix those problems.
There are two main categories of suggested improvements. The suggesting people don’t always categorize them right which is how arguments start:
1) Solutions which have benefits, but no legal costs; and
2) Solutions which have both benefits and costs in a legal sense.
the first category is important, though not so obvious. It’s ENTIRELY possible to improve problems with rape cases, without taking any of the defendants’ rights away. It costs money, but real solutions exist.
Three easy examples are 1 ) Better/more police investigative services for rapes (helps find ‘real’ rapists and separate them from the falsely accused) 2) better/more rape crisis counselors (helps victims without hurting defendants); 3) Better scientific testing and/or scientific process (there’s really no excuse for not having easy, functional, bulletproof, nice-as-possible rape kits, for example)
Oddly enough, this type of solution is rarely discussed. However when pressed I have rarely met anyone who doesn’t support these types of improvements. i wish the two sides who disagree with the stuff below would realize that there’s a whole category of things they could agree on.
The second type are not really “solutions” but are more accurately “trade offs.” they usually involve some sort of re-balancing of innocence, guilt, evidence, etc etc. As a lawyer, I don’t generally support these, for a variety of reasons. Rape shield laws are (for me) a rare exception, where the benefits so vastly exceed the costs IMO that it’s worth it.
The main arguments I’ve gotten in with folks is that when i say “that’s really a trade off, you know, with pretty serious legal implications–are you sure you want to do that?” they call me a rape apologist. So I just stopped arguing with them; it’s a waste of both our time. It took me a while to figure that out, though ;)
Two issues: One is that a rape accuser whose case is tried and the perpetrator convicted will have her name published. Is that right? Other than reducing the room for speculation that she was either mistaken or malicious, how does that reduce her embarrasment and humiliation?
The other is Sailor’s view that increased investigative resources will help find the real rapist in case of a mistaken identification. That presumes cops, having seen an accuser point to the guy, will go on investigating, looking for somebody else. Based on what? Where would you start? And then, if the cops bring in some other guy they think more likely than the one the accuser named and say, we think this guy is a better bet than Fred over there, now what? The accuser has a problem, doesn’t she?
The only thing that the increased investigation would do is to find against the accuser’s identification. Working against the accuser. Proving her wrong That ought to play well.
How long do you think a police department could keep that up?
The North Carolina bar is now prosecuting Nifong, the state prosecutor who brought charges against the lacrosse players.
From the Washington Post:
Read the whole thing yourself.
I’ve been waiting for this Nifong case. I want to see on public record exactly how far he went in inventing this case. Did he suborn perjury? Did he hide testimony? Did he hide evidence? Did he manufacture evidence? I suspect that the farther this trial goes, the more it will become evident that these guys were in fact totally innocent of the charges brought.
I also wonder if the end result of this case will be a massive civil suit brought by the three young men involved. It’s hard to win civil cases against the State, but not impossible in cases of egregious wrongdoing.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Duke Case: Nifong’s Trial Has Begun
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/w-ftc082708.php