Would you be referring to the same Tawana who was championed by the still-unapologetic, but again relentlessly vengeful, Al Sharpton?
 

Yup. And this is the reason why I can never consider Sharpton a legitimate civil rights leader—for his ongoing participation in that vicious and horrific fraud.
 

Agreed, Al Sharpton is ridiculous.

Not only have their names been dragged through the mud, but the three young men from Duke have had to drop out of school and basically do nothing, while awaiting their trials; of course this will hopefully be moot today, but in this horrible "meantime" their lives have been on hold, they can't work and no academically similar college wants them.

Maybe you're right, Richard, why the hell not print this young woman's name?
 

Rich,

You've been right on this case from the beginning, yet you too have been afraid to mention the accuser's name. I'm not sure why. What has been your rationale? I even wrote her name in your comments section months ago and you still didn't post her name in the main body of your blog. My guess is that you will eventually post it, but why the continued reluctance, especially when Crystal Mangum's name is all over the Internet?
 

Haven't I posted it at all? I should have. But today, it was just business...the whole book thing.
 

Maybe the media is waiting until the courts have fully adjudicated and thrown out the indictments as without merit. That would be thoughtful and appropriate; it's not up to reporters to decide when a case is fully decided, it's up to a court.

The cases could also end without such a clear finding -- i.e., 'not guilty,' which is never a finding of innocence per se -- in which case it would NOT be appropriate to start using the accuser's name.


The thoughtfulness and appropriateness of this rationale makes it seem less likely that journalists are operating by it; but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

We'll see if they mention her name in the stories about the end of the case. (Not that it really benefits anyone to do so, but for the sake of journalistic thoroughness....)

Standing Eagle
 

A couple of points, Standing Eagle: though the justice system may eventually work in this case, it almost didn't. You put more faith in it than I do.

And second, it's not just a question of thoroughness, it's a question of fairness. You print the names of people who were falsely accused, you should also print the name of the woman who falsely accused them.
 

And finally, your argument about a finding of "not guilty" seems to abnegate one of the tenets of the American justice system: That we are innocent until proven guilty. At least, in the courts which you seem to value, albeit not in the court of public opinion, which seems to be what you really mean.
 

SE,

Reporters are under no legal obligation to refrain from mentioning her name and, in a case like this, where it has been blatantly clear to anyone (except Duff Wilson of the NY Times) who has paid the slightest attention that the accuser has been lying from the get-go, I can't think of any acceptable reason to keep her name anonymous. The fact that anyone with access to Google can find her name in a few seconds makes the PC media policy of keeping her name out of the story even more laughable.
 

"though the justice system may eventually work in this case, it almost didn't."

That seems like a crock to me. How close were these guys to being found guilty? Not close at all. Were they inconvenienced and defamed? Yes. But they weren't deprived of life, liberty, or property -- the currency of the criminal-justice system.
It's only in its interface with the media that the criminal justice system works badly in the way that you mean.

If you're interested in a miscarriage of justice, how about the Pring-Wilson case? Looks like the judge thinks a jury may do something different with that case in light of more information about what kind of persona the victim put forward....


"And second, it's not just a question of thoroughness, it's a question of fairness. You print the names of people who were falsely accused, you should also print the name of the woman who falsely accused them."

Fine, agreed. But you don't adjudicate all by yourself what's false, usually.

SE
 

Richard,

I'm pretty sure "innocent until proven guilty" is a canard.

What we are under law is "not guilty until proven guilty." Big difference.


I didn't mean to invoke the court [sic] of public opinion -- just to point out that it's reasonable for media to wait for courts to decide that a pending charge is false before acting on the determination that it's false.

Anon, agreed that this isn't a matter of law but just of journalistic policy. But it's also worth keeping in mind that cases develop in ways you can't always anticipate, and a reporter might really look like an asshole if s/he trumpeted the name of the 'false accuser' only to find out that there was a different lacrosse player who perpetrated something horrible on her, or that evidence the grand jury had (but the public didn't) turned out to implicate one of the defendants much more strictly. It's hard to PROVE a negative (which is, again, why juries don't find defendants 'innocent,' only 'not guilty'). Notably, too, much of the public information probably came from the defendants' lawyers, who are bound to put exculpatory spin on things and are not even (as far as I know) bound to be forthcoming with the media. Lots of ways to get trapped, if you're a reporter.

All good reasons to trust the court system just a bit; it's the best we have, and certainly better than the ludicrously kangaroo-y and inefficient "court of public opinion." If a court of law were wrong about a fortieth of the things that the media is wrong about, it'd be the scandal of the century (the last century, that is; in this century the competition for that title is way too stiff).

Fast typist,

Standing Eagle
 

If district attornies stayed clear of playing politics and therefore media (as Nifong clearly didn't), you might have a better point about trusting the court system, SE.
 

I think I still have a good point, since the Constitution guarantees defendants a trial by JURY. Not by Nifong.

(Although if the president feels like it of course he can declare anyone he wants unworthy of a trial, and send em to Gitmo.)
 

re: RB's concern about how the courts "almost didn't" work here

Am I crazy to think the US courts will always work to provide a reasonable facsimile of justice for affluent white men?

Surely part of what makes this case a media sensation is that a black woman's charges were taken seriously. Obviously, it will be the last time that mistake gets made.