What’s Up with Duke
Posted on December 28th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
Because nefarious district attorney Mike Nifong dropped the news two days before Christmas, I haven’t written about the latest developments in the Duke travesty, also known as the Duke rape case.
Because the alleged victim no longer remembers whether she was (sorry) penetratedâafter having previously claimed that she was raped in three orificesâNifong has dropped charges of rape. He continues, however, to press charges of kidnapping (!) and sexual assault.
Why did this happen now? Because a representative from Nifong’s office only just interviewed the accuser, a mere eight months after arrests were made.
Nifong is a fool, and everything he does only reinforces that conviction.
But Nifong isn’t the only person who’s erred in this matter; some of the Duke faculty and students were quick to judge the accused, who, because they were white, male, affluent, and athletic were quadruply damned.
On InsideHigherEd.com, KC Johnson holds their feet to the fire….
Incidentally, I’ve had a lengthy discussion with a friend who’s a media lawyer about the ethics of disclosing the accuser’s name. I’ve long been in favor of it; he argues that, awkward though it may be, preserving rape victims’ anonymity still means that victims bring charges when otherwise they might not.
But in an age when false charges of rape are increasingly common, doesn’t this actually provide an incentive to make a false accusation? The knowledge that you will be protected by the press….
At what point now will the press report the name of the Duke accuser? Will it ever? And how is that fair to the three Duke men whose names and faces have been in the papers and on television countless times, for months?
5 Responses
12/28/2006 3:46 pm
To be sure, Richard, you are right, Nifong IS a fool. But it is more egregious than that; his actions are unethical and, it appears, illegal. There should be a hearing by the Discipllinary Committee that oversees the Durham, NC District to determine if disbarment is appropriate. At the very least, he should be sanctioned.
Unlike a defense attorney, whose obligation it is to defend the client he has agreed to represent to the best of his ability -whether or not he believes in the client’s innocence - Nifong’s job as the DA is not to REPRESENT the person who is claiming that a crime was committed. First, his job is to INVESTIGATE the matter in order to make a reasonable preliminary determination re: whether or not a crime was committed. The District Attorney is required to take these steps BEFORE using the taxpayers’ money and indicting anyone w/wrongdoing. Then, if accused is endicted, the DA is still not representing the accuser so much as he or she is representing the DISTRICT where the accuser lives.
Nifong followed none of these steps. Rather, he: 1)did not interview the “victim,” and 2) withheld evidence(or caused the witholding of evidence) that would have exonorated the LAX players back in April. This man should be prosecuted himself.
12/28/2006 10:00 pm
NC bar just filed ethics charges against Nifong, and that’s just for his public statements in March and April.
12/28/2006 10:13 pm
There is no reason to protect the identity of someone who has clearly made such false accusations. Crystal Gail Mangum is her “precious” name.
12/29/2006 5:20 am
I still believe that preserving the anonymity of rape accusers is important. Bringing a rape accusation forward is no fun, and the importance of supporting rape victims outweights the problems of the falsely accused, for the time being. The Duke case is outrageous because it is so exceptional, not because it is typical.
12/29/2006 9:51 am
This is an interesting statement: “The importance of supporting rape victims outweights the problems of the falsely accused, for the time being.”
I’d love for you to elaborate on that. You might convince me, but there’s a lot embedded in those words that needs to be unpacked.