You are only partially correct. The Duke cases shows that the DA, Nifong, could make hay for his reelection by making wealthy white students defendents for harming a poor black woman. On top of that many apparently at Duke and elsewhere among the far left community could not resist the story of the victim(black and female) and victimizers (white, male and perhaps well off) and presuming guilt with no facts.

However, anyone who knows anything about the legal system knows that money is the key far more than race. For most defendents they are just overwhelmed by the system. Prosecutors have their own investigators and access to the police. DA's may or may not be great lawyers but they are often far more prepared than the legal aid or public defender lawyers on the other side.

However, if the defendent has moeny the tables are turned. Very good private attorneys are generally far superior to local D.A.s, not necessarily U.S. Attorneys, and they can bring to bear investigations and investigators the state can't afford.

The Duke case shows that money is crucial but also that in North Carolina a white politian thought he could get reelected by pandering to the Black community. It also shows that White liberals have some fundamental need to see racism in everything.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

This was the perfect storm...every single stereotype conflict got exposed in this situation. Black/white, rich/poor, town/gown, athlete/non-athlete, male/female.

I'm not sure that whether Nifong was driving events or if events were driving him. In other words, was Nifong creating a blaze of publicity in order to look good to his voters, or was he pushing the prosecuting for fear of retaliation at the ballot box? Either way, he behaved abominably. But once he committed himself, he couldn't back down. I suspect that without the publicity that this case generated it would have been quietly dismissed within a couple of months at most.

In response to the specific problem that Mr. Newman brings up, a fairly obvious solution would be to require that DAs and PDs get paid the same, and that staffing levels are proportionally equal for criminal cases.
If we're serious about justice regardless of ability to pay, it shouldn't be any other way.

Noel

Here's a case where the people getting railroaded were white. Nobody was standing up for them. And yet, he's saying there's racism against blacks in the system because of that.

I myself am a dirty liberal, but damn, that just takes the cake.

These Duke players got off, not because they were white, not because they were rich, but because there was no evidence for a conviction.

This was a travesty of justice that never should have seen the light of day. There was a huge rush to judgment by the media who wanted to believe the black stripper over the white jocks. The media knew that no stripper "really" wants to do that kind of work and knew how white jocks "really acted". The plague of violence against women is undeniable. Athletes are programmed to feel themselves above the rules. That is where the true sexism and racism lies.

Even now, there is talk that these "privileged", "rich" white men will just "get on with their lives". This is despite the FACT that they've been ripped apart in the media for the last YEAR. They have actually lived through a HELL where NO ONE believed them. Of course, they NEVER received any damage whatsoever from these events, at least no damage which can't be cured from the piles of money they have lying around their rich, white mansions.

It is despicable that after being dragged through the mud for so long, that this author still wants to continue dragging these players through the mud.

This may come as a shock, but we should sympathize with ALL people who are wrongly accused, not just those who are poor and not just those who are black.

Nathan, you're right, which is why I am a member of the ACLU, why I read TalkLeft everyday, and why I take seriously the issue of false accusations of rape and domestic violence.

But let's not forget the TPM Cafe's enabling of this mess.

Over the past year, TPM Cafe has hosted a variety of feminist voices whose blogs egged this on, who themselves posted racist and sexist statements, and who even now are insisting that the Attorney General's statement does not in fact mean that the students were innocent. These bloggers constantly say that the problem of false accusations is way overhyped. Is less than 2%. They ignore and recommend to others that they ignore the problems. They disparage anyone who says that we need to pay attention to the problem of false accusations, even when there is good evidence the problem is not 2% but 8%, 20%, 40%, or 60%.

And sadly, in the comments to these blog postings here, people that dissented were told to shut up and called trolls and right wing nuts.

AFTER the rape charges were dropped, Amanda Marcotte said, "I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

AFTER ALL charges were dropped and the students declared innocent, Jill Filopovic of Feministe said, The overwhelming response, from liberals and conservatives alike (but mostly conservatives), has been to brand the accuser a liar. I’ve already had to delete a series of “gotcha!” comments from the moderation queue. Anti-feminists in particular are overjoyed with the players’ exoneration — not because they particularly care about justice, but because they think this is a good way to stick it to the feminists who support rape survivors, sometimes to the detriment of white men. These are the same people who regularly lectured us not to jump to conclusions, and to wait until the “boys” had their day in court.

Last I checked, the woman has not recanted her story. Last I checked, she isn’t being prosecuted for filing false charges. Last I checked, there is no evidence that she lied about a rape occurring.
At this point, what’s obvious is that there was not a strong enough case against Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty to take it to trial. That doesn’t mean that they’re upstanding citizens — after all, they hired a stripper for a team party, harassed her, etc etc — but that doesn’t make them rapists. On the other hand, they may very well be rapists, and there was simply not enough evidence to make a case. I hope we can all agree that, if they are in fact innocent, then it’s terrible that they had to go through this whole ordeal. I hope we can all agree that the DA screwed up this case royally.
Note how Jill brands anyone that is happy for the exoneration an anti-feminist. And note how even AFTER the AG's statement, she still paints the students as likely rapists, regardless of her acknowledgment that a jury did not find them guilty.

At Feministing, Jessica Valenti's blog, we have this post, You will not shame me where Samhita stands by her claim that It does look bad for people to support accused rapists Nathan, it does not sound to me as though Samhita is likely to support the Innocence Project. She also says
They were not found to be innocent, the charges were dropped from lack of evidence. Moreover, innocent until proven guilty only applies to certain people. Ideally, it would apply to everyone but *a lot* of people are guilty at arrest, just for being who they are and where they are. We are not operating in a vacuum, but within a long history of corruption and injustice in the supposed justice system. So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system. This is, she doesn't agree with the Attorney General's declaration of innocence, and even so, it is okay, because some good came out of it, they got a taste of how black men are treated every day.

I can't figure out if Samhita is sexist, bigoted, or both.

False accusation of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, family abandonment is a real problem. It does progressives and liberals and feminists no good to ignore it.

While we all want rape to be eliminated, we must worry that as we make it safer to report more rape, we have to make rule out false accusations.

These feminists bloggers that are so beloved in our liberal blogosphere don't like that. They will not acknowledge the severity of the problem. They will not acknowledge the harm that it can cause.

Here is Sheelzebub at Pandagon saying equating false accusations of rape with online harassment of women, and saying that online harassment of women is worse.

I realize we should all be weeping and gnashing our teeth over the Duke lacrosse players, who are of course! Suffering just like Emmet Till! but I just can't.

Let's compare, shall we, the plight of men who have money, who have truckloads of sympathy from people and the media, and who have defense attorneys who have turned them into saints. The plight of men who can have their day in court.

Compare that to women who are lied about, harassed, and stalked online.

Nathan, you blame conservatives for drawing the conclusion that there is reverse racism against whites.

Isn't there reasonable evidence to suggest there is court bias and sexism against men in the courts and the media?

Hasn't TPM Cafe played a role in that bias by hosting a one sided series of feminist viewpoints without hosting other feminists and other women with different viewpoints that disagree? Or hosting mens rights speakers that might help us broaden our perspectives?

Are the three blogs, Pandagon, Feministing, Feministe really members of the reality based community?

Are we patronizing them by coddling them and not calling them out on their nonsense and their sexism and bigotry?

Are we doing women and feminism a favor or an injury by remaining silent to their ignorant and misandric statements?

Why is it that so few in the liberal blogosphere will state that these blogs are wearing no clothes? Is feminism the third rail? Are bloggers forced to be politically correct?

Do we agree that their harsh moderation policies, their practice of deleting comments they do not like, and banning users that dissent are required to create a safe environment for women? Or do we think it leads to groupthink and hate speech and one reason that young women flee from the label "feminist?"

I wrote a blog post that discusses some of these issues in a bit more depth.
Misandry in our Midst, a Response to Jessica Valenti and E.J. Graff I encourage you to read it.

(Sorry for the lack of links to some of what is in here (limited lunch time)). It is all googleable, especially in firefox where you select and right click search)

(I for one would like to see TPM Cafe host more, and more diverse feminist voices and voices from the fathers' rights movement, and I would like to see a discussion table set up where we can all debate these issues.)

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

It's a good point, Nathan. These high profile cases really do distort people's view of justice. In a subtle way, the Duke rape case does make this point, though. Despite the resources of the accused and the public perception that they were innocent and being railroaded, the prosecutor was still able to put up a prolonged fight. If that can happen to well-healed defendants who have public support, just imagine what would happen to the average person, or to some one relying on a public defender.

As you say, the issue wasn't racism against white defendants but this does highlight just how much power a proescutor has, even with a flimsy case brought against people who had better than average resources for their defense.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

When you can only pay a lawyer for a few hours at a time, you end up doing all of the research on factual matters and the lawyer is essentially a presenter who knows the rules. This is of some value, but is not enough in cases where specialized investigation or expert testimony are required. As a practical matter, our legal defense system does not exist for many people. My impression, for example, is that the copyright and patent laws have no practical effect for individuals of modest means.

Yes, that has been my experience exactly.

Thanks destor23,

I honestly don't know if it is high or low. I think it needs to be discussed and studied and people that inquire about it should not be flamed away.

I suspect the microeconomics of the situation make it encourages false accusations of all types to be made. In that the false accusation leads to an immediate response with force from the system.

The problem for the accuser that false accusation will lead to in the long run are discounted by the time involved, as well as by the other possibilities: dropping the charge, settling out of court, etc.

Thanks again,

These Duke players got off, not because they were white, not because they were rich, but because there was no evidence for a conviction.

I hope you're not relying on Attorney General Roy Cooper's investigation to support that conclusion.

Here's what The Wilmington Journal said addressing Mr. Cooper three months ago at the time he took over the case:

And don’t worry. We’re paying absolutely no attention at all to all of those internet rumors about how your handling of the Duke case is really a shill for acting as if you’re really re-investigating, when in fact, you’re just going to stall for two months so that you won’t tee-off the African-American community.

How can those African-Americans be so cynical!

Depending on who is talking, it is estimated that the percentage of sociopaths in the population is one to four percent. If sociopaths are as likely to become prosecutors as anything else, the two percent of bad prosecutors seems like a reasonable estimate. There is probably a similar proportion of bad eggs in any profession, including the medical profession, for example.

Software development may attract an unusually high number of flim-flam artists, because it is inherent to the field that we are always promising something that does not exist and for which there is likely no precedent for comparison.

TV evangelists constitute another scandal-prone profession for which there is little or no accountabilty.

Yes. At least in the legal profession there are standards of proof, so the legal profession is probably about as clean as we could hope for it to be.

He's not hyperventilating. He's talking about the common experiences of ordinary people, not the exceptions that lead to presidential candidates. Our system does have biases that need to be addressed.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Well reasoned, LitYankee. But, and I know this makes me sound like a right wing nutjob (I'm not, I swear) I do think that the public needs to scrutinize the judiciary, because it's the least democratic branch of our government. Since most judges and prosecutors don't face election, the only influence the public can exert is through media coverage and commentary. What some call a circus, I see as a legitimate look at how our government operates. The scrutiny is unevenly applied, for sure, but it is important, I think. Otherwise, the judicial system gets a free pass and public opinion doesn't matter at all. Since this is the branch of government that can mete out punishment, it needs to be controlled somehow. Media attention and public debate is kind of the only way.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Agreed; but it's still the case he's hyperventilating.  Cabin fever, no doubt.

I'd suggest this as a solution: a fairness law. The state cannot outspend a public defender in any case. If you choose to use a public attorney, they should have every resource available to the prosecuting state so we have an even playing field.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

No, I don't agree with that whatsoever. The case was ultimately dismissed without going to trial because the evidence for the prosecution was so flimsy that they didn't have a case in the first place.

Had the case gone to trial with even just public defenders, the case for the prosecution would have still fallen apart. Public defenders are still lawyers smart enough to have gone through law school and pass the state bar exam. A public defender could have ripped this case apart.

It's also worth mentioning that about half of Duke students get financial aid.

Of the accused and ultimately proven innocent in this case, (and I do mean innocent of the crimes they were accused of, and empirically provably so) many were hardly "rich" but were middle class.

I've read that several of the families had to take second mortgages on homes, and are now several hundred thousand dollars in debt. I don't think the term for that is "rich." Now "ruined" and "poor" would seem more fitting for several hundred thousand dollars of debt.

So yes, I completely accept the point they were "lucky" enough to be able to mortgage homes to pay legal bills, if anyone wants to call it that. And, the truly poor don't even have that option and get railroaded completely as a result. Certainly being only financially ruined and having your name destroyed for life is better than already being financially ruined, and spending life in prison.

But I find the way Newman keeps calling these kids "rich" as is perpetuating stereotypes that these kids were so entitled they owed society some sort of recompense, thereby belittling the injustice that happened to them. Well I think it's unhelpful to say the least.

This is a time for people to realize better justice serves us all, not to start throwing around labels and re-dividing people along lines that lead to more politicization and injustice, not to mention racism and classism. The Rt wing does enough of that, and we need to fix it and educate the public to demand better. Not pile on.

The truth is these kids most certainly were the victim of a "reverse racism" or "reverse classicism" which didn't make the world more just and fair, only more twisted.

For another example, Al Sharpton did the same thing with the Tawana Brawley Case. Did that make the world any more just? Or just more unjust, more divided, and more racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley

Perhaps you have not heard of Milwaukee US Attorney Steven Biskupic? It doesn't seem you need evidence...

Yes, money is key to buying a good defense.

But, race and class are linked. While in sheer numbers there are more poor white people than poor Black people, the proportion of the Black pop that is poor is much greater. Likewise, if you look at the prison population, both the disproportionate number and proportion of Black people incarcerated tells you that the justice system isn't just ensnaring the poor.

But, why was this a high profile case?  Who made it one?  Who kept it one?  The news media may be mostly bottom feeders, but somebody is putting the scum out for them.  They had motives.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to take those stats seriously when they come from a member of this org http://www.ncfm.org/about-ncfm.php, which has the following to say about feminism:

"The female institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women, is feminism (although feminists would deny that that is what feminism is about).

and about chivalry:

"But men have their own institution: chivalry is the male institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women."

Good gravy:(

If we're talking hypotheticals, then we have to factor economics into it. Nifong would have railroaded poor and minorities and ironically scored political points with the left and right for rape prosecution, because nobody would ever know there were innocent.

a fairly obvious solution would be to require that DAs and PDs get paid the same, and that staffing levels are proportionally equal

Additionally you'd have to mandate the defense have equal access to services such as the police and labs to provide exculpatory evidence, which they don't really have now. Presently they're huge assets to the prosecution with incentive to suppress exculpatory evidence as we saw in this case.

Here's an example of the problem.

Officer A and Lab Technician Z serve both the defense and the prosecution, in theory. However, in the majority of cases the charges are valid, the accused guilty.

So, if Officer A and Lab Technician Z want to pick the winning side, the side that will have more political clout and effect their budgets, they'll side with the prosecution all the time and protect that relationship with the winning team.

Resultingly, the innocent, be it 5% or 40%, are seriously disadvantaged and likely to be railroaded due to bias from A to Z. Inbetween are judges who have the same poltical motivation, media wiht the same bias, and the overloaded and unaided PD office.

We don't have a justice system so much as a lynch system, where the innocent are likely to be railroaded, due to institutional bias, especially if you're poor or a minority. But it effects all of us in the end.

That goes directly against the highest principles of justice and creates an environment where the most twisted political hacks thrive, and further distort the system over time, until courts become so politicised, trials may as well be held by reality TV polls.

    I agree with your concern.  Of course this Blind Justice would have to be kept in check.  That is why I said it is dependent on judicial review (note: lower j and not capital, and I don't know which I used in my origianal post).  To agree with this, I made the assumption that it would be effective judicial review and I did not express this, although I can talk forever about effectivenes.

    My contention still stands; if you place the Judicial System in a circus, they end up acting like clowns.  Oversight is necessary, but it certainly should not be a source of influence like you call for.  You said yourself that media scrutiny is applied unevenly, so which group of interests who are in control of the media should be the ones who impart influence?

    Maybe a quick outline of what I assume effective judicial review should be might swing you to my side.  First, I do not think professionals in the judicial process should ever be elected, period.  DA Nifong as a perfect example of its danger.  But this is not really about judicial review.

    First (again), Judges are instructed to follow statutory guidelines.  Second, the Legislature and Executive bodies establish the statutes, and lastly, the Public grants power to the later two.  In general, two bodies of government always have oversight of the third.  And I would say that in certain instances, the degree of discretionary power over the other is not always weighted appropriately.  This oversight is how the Judiciary is controlled, public opinion should only matter if it is codified in law.

    I would say that the Judiciary is not a direct democratic body, but which one is?  It certainly is a democratic institution because it is established and run by the rule of the people. It is also the body of government which has historically promoted and protected the ideals and values of democracy. 

    The only way for the Judiciary to be controlled is for the electorate to educate themselves on how it works and exactly how they are connected to it.  This estrangement of the public from the US Justice System, especially the Supreme Court, is a major concern for Justice O'Connor.  The general state of ignorance about our governmental bodies and processes is not a good environment for modern liberal systems.  An informed public would never let the judicial system at any level operate with such distractions.

Some conservatives are pointing to the unravelling of the Duke lacross rape case as supposedly showing some kind of reverse racism against whites.

Reverse racism? No way. This was naked racism pure and simple. There would have been no charges but for the race of the four individuals involved.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

No, NCFM didn't conduct the studies, but given the org's position, I would hardly take one if it's member's interpretations/reading of the studies seriously. And, you don't have to agree with those posts on Pandagon/Feministe/Feministing. But no one here was using the comments of those bloggers to prove that the Duke students were innocent or guilty, or to prove that TPMCafe is biased in who it lets post here.

    I think I look at it like this; top-down responsibility, bottom-up support. And motives, motives everywhere.  The professionals of the judiciary certainly manipulated the media for their individual gains, and one, in my speculation, with self-promotion as a goal. They should know better. As a professional, they should uphold the ideals of justice instead of going for the win by any means which in history has escalated.

    The media should also know better. Journalists supposedly are guided by the search for truth to share with the public. Knowing that such an event and its frenzied atmosphere will shine light on the truth AND knowing that they are being manipulated should not be an atmosphere which they work in. Advertising revenue, screen time and circulation certainly contribute to such an atmosphere.

    And now us - the poor suckers of the public who have no control over their most base desires and obligations. Destined to be sheep wearing a thong and carrying a gun. I guess I just throw up my hands when it comes to the actions of the public on the whole.

I still think this whole issue is a distraction compared to things like global warming, health care, war and peace, and other more pressing matters.

Especially because no good seems to ever come of this debate, and justice seems to be ever more distorted and perverted each year, by both the left and right. I have to wonder if we'll need to hit the justice equivalent of the iceberg that sank the titanic, say a near police state, before people wake up.

Yes and no.

Yes the case was so flimsy, so obviously thin, and with a lot of red flags this was false accusation from early in the case. It never should have gone to court.

However, much of the evidence exculpating the innocent, only came to light because they were able to go into debt (hundreds of thousands of dollars for some families) to acquire the exculpatory evidence.

For example, the ATM record and other evidence proving one of the accused was not at the alleged crime scene. If the innocent had been a poor black guy, he probably would have had a PD with 20 other cases, who would never have done the legwork to get such evidence, competent or not, the PD just wouldn't have enough hours in the day.

For another example, Nifong collaborated with the lab to suppress exculpatory DNA evidence. Had the defendants been poor and had the PD, he wouldn't have the time or funding to ever know evidence was being supressed.

Also, the police and other evidence gathering participants essentially work for the DA to gather maximally damning evidence. The police are under political pressure to boost crime stats linked to convictions, and the poor and minorities are the easy targets. Crime labs are beholden to the DA to provide maximally damning evidence and supress exculpatory evidence, if they want to get business. The private crime lab suppressed exculpatory evidence at Nifongs's urging, and it's not the first time. I've never heard of labs providing maximally exculpatory evidence and suppressing evidence of guilt.

So that's a huge lopsided benefit to prosecutors, which again railroads the poor and minorities.

Lastly, one had to wonder just how many poor and minorities Nifong railroaded to make him think he could get away with it under such a clearly bogus accusation. Apparently, he was licking his chops early on, confident that if he railroaded these guys he would be set for life politically. Apparently the notion of adequate defense was a new concept to Nifong. Tragically, he's probably right.

That's the scariest thing of all.

Another good example of the travesties that happen in our twisted and politicised justice system.

These examples happen on both sides of ideological lines. They're all wrong and need to stop.

Right, and calling them "rich kids" and making out as though what happened to them was less a travesty is a divisive and counter productive tactic, which only weakens the political will to actually fix these problems for everyone, let alone the poor and minorites.

Imo it's such a counterproductive tactic one has to wonder.

Al Sharpton for example makes that his regular MO, and that guy is either incredibly stupid, which seems unlikely, or a sort of amoral nihilist who is just feeding off the suffering. A real bottom feeder.

Like the way Ralph Reed refers to his fundamentalist base as "whackos" to Jack Abramoff and continues manipulating them, another real bottom feeder.

It's a big problem on the right and left.

Well, that's what you hope. But in reality there are a lot of institutionalized bias against defense, such as police and labs wanting to play the side most likely to win most often, and lack of meaningful controls on this self reinforcing bias.

So actually, a sociopath would probably be pretty attracted to law enforcement and prosecution. I know a DA who I wouldn't call a sociopath, but is "morally challenged" and a real nepotist greatly attracted to the power. No sociopath would be a PD that's for sure! You almost have to be a martyr to be a PD.

Look at people like Kerik as examples of sociopaths rising to positions of power in law enforcement.

We need bureaucracies, they're unavoidable. But I don't have to be a libertarian to realize we need to watch them closely, policing the police.

Those who see this one case as proof of ANY overall trend or truth are smoking crack, including you and Nathan.

A single case can perhaps be illustrative, but in and of itself it proves absolutely nothing about how the thousands of other cases in hundreds of different jurisdictions are handled throughout the country.

You cannot extrapolate the general from the one.

Your statistics do a much better job of making the case for American racism than does this case.

On the other hand, the statement that America hates black people and always will is quite overwrought -- at least as overwrought as a conservative suggesting that you hate America.

Still, it's good to come across new comments from you Valdron. I haven't noticed you posting in a while, and I've missed your colorful brand of nihilistic cynisicm.

Well, I think that's a bit of cherry picking and ad hominem taken out of context.

There certainly are elements which hide under the umbrella of feminism that practice misandry, which would qualify for his description. In some cases they're rather prominent. For example, take feministing.com, whose logo is a woman giving the bird, who say some really hateful and misandrist things and who are prominently linked from Salon's Broadsheet.

.... where angels fear to tread.

The male-hating business is one of those "good" prejudices in the US these days.  Undoubtedly it will run its course and become a "bad" prejudice, but unlikely in our lifetimes.  Meanwhile, male-bashers can simultaneous play the victim.  No point taking offense. 

I'm glad you appreciate my approach. I was trying to fit in with the tenor of the posts here. But anyway...

No, not at all. America does hate black people. You can't argue with four hundred years of history.

You can't even argue with modern history: Willie Horton, Katrina, Gretna, infant mortality rates among blacks, felon voting laws, Bob Jones University, McCain's 'illegitimate black baby', a racial bias in the justice system, Maccacca, the Confederate flag and 'nappy headed hoes'.

I'm perfectly happy to concede that particular white people don't hate individual blacks or even blacks in general.

But then again, I said it wasn't personal.

On the other hand, American history readily shows a centuries long campaign of hatred and violence against its black population. You can pretend its all enlightened now, and that you're in a post-racist civilization, but lets not kid a kidder.

Realistically, I think that the whole "Oh, we aren't racists" anymore social shtick is actually just a ruse to avoid and therefore perpetuate the genuine institutional and personal racism that is such an endemic feature of American society.

"[T]he Duke case just proves the racism in our justice system."

It doesn't prove racism in our justice system any more than the building of a high-rise full of million-dollar co-ops proves racial discrimination in housing.

It is properly be an occasion for discussing racism in our justice system, but all it really proves is that in a case with no evidence whatsoever against the defendants, driven by an incompetent DA who may have had political motives at first and ethical blocks later, lawyers will still take large sums of money from people who have it, and are willing to spend it.

There's probably no PD in America who could not have gotten these guys off. Same outcome, minus all the hoop-de-do, no matter what the race of the accuser and the defendants.

I will concede that being wealthy means they could afford whatever bail was set, which in the case of the first two to be arrested, was $400,000. So let's crucify them for getting out on bail.

I hope I don't hear one more person suggest that the NC AG did not describe them as "innocent of these charges."

BTW, the correct label for both OJ and the Duke guys, whom you somewhat smarmily mentioned in the same breath even tho in one case there was a crime and in the other, not, is "defendants," not "victims."

Actually it's past the expiration date. Angstism as I like to call it peaked in the 70's as a popular movement, during which time some institutional gains were made which continued to bear fruit for decades, especially in the legal system and popular culture. The irony is the ideologically bubbled and politics frozen in the 60's and 70's are already blundering.

Few women now associate positively with that misbegotten branch of faux-feminism and are instead turning to positive egalitarianism where people are free to make their own choices without PC police telling them how to be and think.

Take the Duke case. It shows the hate of these people and that they can't help but make fools of themselves and alienate large numbers in fell swoops.

Already there have been reforms to correct some of the more egregious errors, including incremental rolling back of legal mistakes.

There are many parallels between them and the Bush admin (or other radical groups) that come to power riding the crest of a wave, then the tide shifts just when though they'd established enduring glory.

They get desperate and try to scare people with Orange Alerts, or the Kathy Sierra thing, but it's over.

Just point out their foolishness and then let them flail around with the crazy accusations and misandry until they fall on their own swords.

another important example I should add:

The kind of issues we're talking about like the Duke case are a great example. Take a look into that system, and fix it to be better, and the hate mongers like the feministing crowd won't be a part of the solution, any more than Naderites are a part of solutions.

Instead, they'll keep supporting the politicization of justice, keep trying to push a misandrist agenda. It'll be clear who wants to see impartial justice done, and who are just pushing a lopsided agenda. it'll be clear who wants check on both sides, and who wants an agenda machine.

For example, extend rape shield to the accused to preserve their presumption of innocence and reputations, especially in lieu of all the false allegations we've seen.

Make the courts more fair so that both parties have equal legal support. Fund more PD and pass legislation and guidelines to do better at preventing the abuse of justice for any politically motivated prosecution.

Raise the standards for evidence in civil proceeding and stop the abuse of the courtsto extort innocent people.

There's no reasonable opposition to that, unless one is just a misandrist who wants to see the accused life's ruined, and a presumption of guilt, evidence be damned.

Don't let them hide behind claims of injustice. Get about fixing what's broken in the justice system and then let them say out in the open what they really want, ugly as it is. I think they'll even surprise themselves, as most probably reassure themselves they're not misandrist or associated, really, just cutting a few corners here and there for a good casue and all. Good soldiers and all.

Ha! Good one! I can always count on you for a laugh.

The reason there would have been no charges in those cases are twofold.

1. There was no evidence of a crime. No DNA match. No corroborating witnesses. Self contradictory accuser statements. Etc.
2. The D.A. would have had no motive to charge.

Nifong needed a case to win election that showed him standing up for the local poor black victim against "hooligan" (his word) rich white boys. That is as racist as it gets. Nothing reverse about it.

If all four were the same race, Nifong would have had no race card to play.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

Progressives look to the future, not the past.  Conservatives look to the Eden in the past.

I think you are being kind even characterizing their comments as "tangential" viviane, lol.  And even if "on topic" I don't know how come it took (and I didn't make an exact count) close to if not over 20 posts combined to make their point.  But it all gets back to the point of "what actual impact did Valenti's and Marcotte's comments, made ON THEIR BLOGS, have on the case being discussed here?"?

"the crime of driving while black"

I am glad you brought that up. I was hoping that someone would add some depth to the race versus money issue. That is why I requested that someone actually do the math on the sociology of convictions -- since I don't know the numbers myself.

The criminalizaton of petty drug violations can ruin a person's life, and I suspect that there is a racial bias in the enforcement of the drug laws, but I do not know the numbers. I knew a black kid who was confused, but basically a good kid. Being thrown in the slammer for petty drug violations made him a sour person. I don't know what became of him, but I can't believe that our criminal justice system did him any good.

Sometimes I suspect that we have drug laws for the purpose of keeping black people in jail.

Nevertheless, I think that sometimes you do go over the top, Valdron. It weakens the distinctions between racist groups, such as the KKK, which at one time was a genuine terrorist organization, versus, say, the League of the South, which expresses vile attitudes but may not count for as much as they would like to think.

The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps track of hate groups. If they claimed that all white Americans hate black people, they would have to keep track of every white person. Maybe they would like to, I don't know, but that would be too many people for them to follow. And if they did it, it would dilute their message to the point that it would become ineffective.

The traditional white supremacist fear was that supposedly black men wanted white women. This was the basis of the smear campaign against Harold Ford. The smear campaign probably cost him the election, so there is evidence that white supremacist attitudes still exist. On the other hand, I would like to see a survey indicating how many votes the smear campaign actually cost Ford. My impression is that Ford was more successful than the more pessimistic among us might have expected.

Another example of racism in modern America is that media attention is very high when pretty white girls turn up missing, but not when the girls are black.

In spite of all that, I don't think you can argue that the Duke case is an example of traditional white supremacist paranoia. Certainly race was an issue, and that is one of the most important factors that turned the case into a media circus. But the race issue didn't work in the traditional way.

So I don't think you have successfully rebutted Daniel Greenbaum's characterization of the case.

Pervasive nature of racism means that we do not conceptualize our bias. I can illustrate the problem with an unrelated anegdote. There is a novel about a person who pretends to be blind to gain attention of a beatiful actress, then marries her and then lives with her for years, all the time pretending to be blind.

The situation absolves him of such social expectation as having to have a job (as a male), so he stays at home, at being raised as a neat person, he is doing the dishes, cleaning the floor etc. when his wife is not at home, and not even once did she realize that something happen at home that should not. It is so easy to everlook the very fact that home chores exists, and even easier to overlook the fact that somehow they get done.

In a similar vein, I observed that after bicyling for many hours in the rain it is rather hard to figure out if it is raining at a particular moment (the rain had short breaks).

An example among thousands: a 14-year old girl was send to prison for shoving a teacher, and the duration of the incarceration was left in the discression of the official of the correctional institution. The latter extended the duration a couple of times, once for an unauthorized possession of socks not issued by the institution. She could potentially stay there for seven years, but some official actually noticed that this is arrant nonsense. It was compared that another girl in the same school had an even more severe infraction, yet nobody referred her to the criminal system. Quiz: what was the race of the two girls?

I doubt if one of the responsible officials in the school system, the prosecutor office, the court and in the correctional institution had a verbalized thought: yet another occasion to keep Black people down.

No, this would be a wrong example if the accused prevailed after spending only a trivial amount of money.

What you are saying is that the "system" does not care if you are rich or not, only if you can spend a lot on your defense or not. Why, even a billionaire could be railroaded if he or she neglected to hire a defense team.

I agree with your analysis, in general, and in fact I think it is a very interesting analysis of the subtlety of bias. Unconscious bias can be very damaging, but it demeans the damage that is done by real hatred to put the KKK in the same category with unconscious bias. That is what is implied if we use the word "hate" as an umbrella to cover all negative attitudes.

At this time in history, outright hate groups seem to have less influence than they have had in the past. I have no idea whether or not that will continue to be the case, but I think the outright hate groups should be set apart as social pariahs, and that cannot be done if everything negative is called "hate." The Southern Poverty Law Center would not be effective if they called everything negative "hate". In fact, they make a distinction.

I apologize for all the negative logic in the following, but the case seems to call for it.

In this specific case, the Duke students were accused of white supremacist behavior, but they were exonerated.

Basically, a claim of bias in one direction has been met by a countercharge of bias in the opposite direction. I think it is possible for both claims to be true at the same time, and that the proof of the countercharge does not disprove the original claim.

The claim is being made that the Duke students would not have been able to defeat the charges if they had not been rich and white. Would poor whites have been able to defeat the charges? Jury nullification on behalf of white defendants has occurred, and poor whites probably do benefit from it. It is not at all clear, however, that this is what happened with the Duke students, because, to the best of our present knowledge, they actually were innocent.

It is easier to prove bias when the innocent are convicted and the guilty go free. Now we are dealing with a more convoluted argument, that there is bias in a situation where the innocent went free. That may actually be true, but it is changing the subject. Even if the innocent went free due to bias, that does not mean the orginal charge against them was not biased. The two issues are separate.

This does not mean that pervasive, unconscious white supremacist attitudes do not exist. I believe that they do. In this particular case, however, the charge of white supremacist behavior was defeated. It has been claimed that the charge of white supremacist behavior was itself the result of bias, a reversal of the usual white supremacist bias. I do not think that claim has been refuted.

If there was white supremacist paranoia, it could perhaps be seen on the Drudge report, where the headlines seemed to be jumping to the conclusion that the Duke students were innocent at a time when the known information, though false, contradicted that opinion. I am not saying that white supremacist paranoia was not a factor in the intensity of the media circus.

What we seem to be seeing here is a case of dueling preconceptions. That is why I think there ought to be some sort of damper on the information that is released about pending cases. Most of the public commentary, on both sides, was based on preconceived notions.

The evidence against OJ was far stronger than the evidence against von Bulow.

Also, the OJ trial was on cable TV every day. The von Bulow trial was not televised.

You're really not controlling for all the variables here.

It strikes me that unconscious, systemic bias can be as damaging as outright deliberate hatred.

The KKK was all right for its time in that it operated in a rural agrarian society which was not all that bureaucratic and people lived independently of many administrative regulations. In a situation like that, family ties and local resources provided for many needs and offered many opportunities, the available resources and tools for social control were much more limited. Slavery was no longer a legal institution. The frameworks of Jim Crow and the legal and commercial entanglement of the sharecropper economy was slow to develop initially and evolved progressively. In such a case, the massive application of social violence filled in the gaps nicely.

In the current milieu, overt violence, cross burning, negro lynching, etc., is both passe and vulgar. But then again, the economic and social environment that allowed such conduct, that encouraged it, that needed it, passed away.

Instead, we're organized as a highly administrated, highly integrated, bureaucratic urban society. There are different restrictions and different parameters on personal movement, different requirements for avancement, access to resources and family ties are much different.

Accordingly, violence is no longer effective as a social control. It provokes organized resistance. The victims have more opportunity to link up, to protest to resist.

Racism therefore moves deeper into the structure. The racism itself doesn't necessarily become less virulent, and the damage of racism is not necessarily reduced. Rather, the form by which it is expressed and by which social control is manifested is simply adjusted.

In short, you're barking up the wrong tree by claiming that the Klan is dead. Well, so it is. But if you look at the history of the Klan, that's not a surprise. The Klan was not a perpetual organization, and the violence it organized was not always of uniform intensity. It had a great boom period after reconstruction and prior to Jim Crow, and then it had another great boom period when black's began to migrate from the south in the early 20th century. But it would be insane to suggest that racism had vanished during the decades when the Klan seemed to go to sleep.

So I don't really accept your argument that structural racism is not as bad or as damaging as the violent racism of the past. Rather, its the same damned thing dressed up in different clothes.

Even if I were to accept your thesis, what does it really amount to?

Structural racism as the Diet Cola of evil? Just one calorie? Hatred Lite, tastes great, less filling? 30% less evil?
Structural racism is only putting the tip in? It's like being a little bit pregnant?

Maybe if something is wrong and damaging its wrong and damaging. Maybe the easy tolerance of it, the willingness to pretend it doesn't even exist, is part of the danger.

These top feminist blogs are saying that the Duke students are guilty and got what they deserved, and you think that's out of context in this post about how Duke shows the system is racist in favor of whites?

Really?

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

And wasn’t our jury system derived from the Salem trials? Sometimes the ritual seems more publicly/politically motivated. It just seems that there are often periods of witch hunts.

I’m too young to remember the McCarthy era, but I remember the radicals in the ‘60s (those were some fun trials) or the Devil-worshiping child-molesters in the ‘70s & ‘80s or the sexually abused, testifying about their “recovered” memories, putting Daddy in jail in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

Does anyone remember Bill Bennett’s SuperPredator? That was the black gangsta psychopaths taking over the streets. That meme was responsible for a lot of the zero tolerance laws that put many in jail. We invent these devils and it’s easier to target groups and gain political power in the process.More often than not, the sensationalist-craving media leads the parade.

Just kidding about the Salem thing. But laws and prosecutions are driven by public sentiment, which is often driven off course by a sensation seeking media and I do see a periodic witch-hunt paranoia infiltrating the legal system.

On April 17, 2007 - 12:30pm Good 4 A Merica said:

Progressives look to the future, not the past. Conservatives look to the Eden in the past.

Today's conservative's Eden seems to be the antebellum south.

NYT:

The former football player, Genarlow Wilson, is serving 10 years without parole for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year’s Eve party, an offense that constituted aggravated child molesting even though he was 17 at the time.

The mandatory sentence shocked even the jury that convicted him. State law has since been changed to make most consensual sex between teenagers a misdemeanor.

But the courts have ruled that the new law does not apply to Mr. Wilson, and the district attorney in his case, David McDade of Douglas County, has opposed efforts this session to pass a law that would allow judges to review earlier cases and to revise sentences.

Quiz question 1: what is the race of Mr. Wilson?

Quiz question 2: what is a chance that Abdul Abulbul Amir will admit that he was wrong?

mere lack of evidence

There is hard evidence proving innocence, but it doesn't sound like you've looked into the subject before forming an opinion.

For example, at the time of the alleged crime, there was a video record at an ATM, a cab driver as witness, and a dorm entry record positively proving the innocence of one alleged rapist.

There was positive physical evidence against rape in the lack of any physical trauma of rape. I say that's positive evidence and not merely a lack of evidence because it's virtually impossible for gang rape to occur without any trauma. Lack of trauma and gang rape are almost certainly mutually exclusive, especially when talking about a bunch of drunk frat boys, who are hardly criminal masterminds.

There was no DNA evidence of any of the alleged rapists. Again, this would be extremely difficult for drunken gang rapists to leave zero DNA evidence. The chain of evidence was well maintained, in a container sealed by the hospital nurse.

The accuser later changed her testimony to say she didn't know if there was penetration, after previously alleging gang rape and multiple penetrations. Kind of a big difference.

You're in OJ Simpson territory with the "lack of evidence" stuff. May as well say she was abducted by aliens.