Duke "Prosecutor" Disbarred

I put the word "prosecutor" in quotation marks because Michael Nifong is a disgrace to that profession. Now a state ethics panel has disbarred Nifong, who viciously pursued prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players months after he knew they couldn't have raped a stripper at a party.

Mr. Nifong, who had surprised his lawyers Friday by announcing plans to resign, offered to have his license revoked and waive the right to appeal after the panel ruled Saturday that he had been dishonest or deceitful toward a judge and defense lawyers over DNA results.

David B. Freedman, one of Mr. Nifong’s lawyers, said in an interview, “He wants this over. He wanted the process to play out and to receive a fair hearing, and he believes he has received a fair hearing and accepts the findings of the commission.”

Mr. Freedman said Mr. Nifong had been “devastated” by the testimony.

Not as devastated as the young men who became tabloid fodder for a year all because of Nifong's zeal. Those men were reviled by lefties even after they were cleared, accused of being white while attending college. Hell, it was her flippant and biting remarks about this case that helped get Amanda fired--er, resigned from her cushy job at the John Edwards campaign.

In fact, the lefties are still trying to spin this case.

Guilt sells in America, Innocence doesn't. The Duke case is an exeption. We need to apply what we've learned from the Duke/Nifong case and make sure there is an Innocence Commission in every state.

Um, no, what we need is for prosecutors to perform their jobs correctly and effectively, not targeting people because of their race. Isn't that what liberals are usually screaming about?

Don't Feel Too Sorry for the Dukies

That's the headline for incredibly wrong-headed, blindly political piece of trash by Terry Moran.

The three young men who she accused are truly innocent of the charges brought against them according to the North Carolina Attorney General and the investigation led by his office.

But perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced. They got special treatment in the justice system--both negative and positive. The conduct of the lacrosse team of which they were members was not admirable on the night of the incident, to say the least. And there are so many other victims of prosecutorial misconduct in this country who never get the high-priced legal representation and the high-profile, high-minded vindication that it strikes me as just a bit unseemly to heap praise and sympathy on these particular men.

So, let me see if I get this right. If a defendant gets "special treatment in the justice system--both negative and positive" (whatever that means), being falsely accused, ridiculed, reviled, plastered on the covers of magazines and newspapers for over a year, subjected to intense and viscious cruelty is ok? That's justice?

Moran's argument doesn't get much better:

So as we rightly cover the vindication of these young men and focus on the genuine ordeal they have endured, let us also remember a few other things:

They were part of a team that collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers.

Like it or not, hiring strippers is still legal in this country, at least in some places. You may not like them, but going to strip clubs is also legal. Not approving of the activity is fine, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper.

How does this prove a crime? Is it now illegal to prefer white women?

During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers.

And because some people used racial epithets, it means these three students did it? Does Moran have proof they did this? And even if they did, using racial epithets is not proof that the accused students would have raped a woman.

Colin Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005.

Even a first year law student knows evidence of past crimes cannot be used to show present guilt. Being was charged with assault (not convicted, mind you) is not proof that a person will commit rape.

But Moran saves the best excuse (and his real problem with the innocence of these students) for last:

The young men were able to retain a battery of top-flight attorneys, investigators and media strategists.

That is the real problem Moran (and many liberals) have with the fact that these students were innocent of any crime in this case. The students were Partying While White, a felony charge in the liberal legal system.

The argument goes this way: lots of black people are falsely accused of crimes and go to jail because they cannot afford the best legal counsel in the U.S. Since some number of black people are falsely convicted, it is ok for a certain number of white people to be falsely convicted. That's only fair.

How messed up is that reasoning?!

It is absolutely bizarre to me that anyone would say something like this, but there it was in black and white in the comments:

I don't feel sorry for the Duke LaCrosse players. When you look at the number of African-American men who have been charged and found guilty in a rush for judgement, they just received a "little taste" of what African-Americans have experienced for decades.
There are men who have served decades in prison only to be found innocent after spending 10-20 years of their life behind bars.

And this one:

One must feel some sympathy for these guys, but we must also remember that these are not upstanding individuals. They are priveleged rich men who finally had a year of adversity in their lives as a side effect of their reckless partying...boo hoo. The public will soon forget these men, and the tarnish will wear off their names soon after. Hmmm...I wonder what the after-party from their press conference was like.

And this one:

Let's be serious everyone. These guys are going to be alright. They had a rough year. But they come from rich and connected families. In a week, this will all pass and they will move on to be wealthy and powerful like they would have in the first place. They may have been exonerated of all charges. But I think it is naive to think that no improper behavior occurred that evening.

Essentially, the argument presented in these comments as well as the original post is not that falsely charging anyone with a crime is abominable, but that since it happens to some people, it is perfectly justified for it to happen to others.

It's interesting to see this sort of vigilante justice approved of by the left, given the history of lynchings in this country. I mean, in those cases, it was considered justified to murder a black man because certain people were sure that he had committed some crime (even if they couldn't prove it). It seems to me that the nutroots are showing that they haven't fallen far from that racist tree.

UPDATE: Protein Wisdom dissects this idiotic argument very nicely.

Duke Lacrosse Case Charges To Be Dropped

As has been predicted and expected, the North Carolina Attorney General will be dropping all charges against the three Duke lacrosse players who have been villified and harassed for the past year.

Legal analysts and forensic experts have criticized what they call a critically flawed photo identification lineup — a lineup that led to the identification and indictment of Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann. No DNA evidence was found matching any lacrosse players with samples from the rape kit, while DNA from unidentified men was found on the accuser's body and clothing.

After it was revealed that Mike Nifong had misrepresented DNA evidence and violated other rules of professional conduct, many predicted the end of the case was near.

Of course, that didn't stop some feminists from continuing to claim that the players were still guilty, but were still guilty of being white men.

So far, I've seen no feminist reactions to this story. Stay tuned.

The Duke-ification of Speech

Leonard Kaplan is the latest victim of what I'm calling "Dukeification" after the Duke lacrosse fake rape scandal.

Kaplan is the University of Wisconsin law professor who has evidently caused enormous pearl-clutching throughout the liberal university by actually expecting students to think.

Yet offend he did, during a discussion about conflicts between culture and the legal system in which he used Hmong immigrants as an example.

A few days later, third-year law student KaShia Moua sent an e-mail citing four “incredibly offensive and racist” remarks she said Kaplan had made during a “10-minute rant about the Hmong.” Among them: “Hmong men have no skills other than killing” and “All second-generation Hmong end up in gangs and other criminal activity.”

Proclaiming that Kaplan “has violated our rights as students,” Moua called a meeting “to hold Kaplan and our administration accountable.” Moua did not reveal she was not in the class and received her information secondhand.

Just like the Duke University's overreaction to the charges of rape, the UW administration pre-emptively issued apologies to offended students. There was even an investigation of Kaplan and students attempted to have him fired.

The problem, as with the Duke case, is that events didn't happen quite the way the professional offended class says they did.

Kaplan denies ever saying that Hmong men have no skills except killing. Other quoted comments, he says, were taken out of context. For instance, he did say many young Hmong men are involved in criminal activity, but explained that this is typical of new immigrant groups...

Kaplan’s fellow faculty members, some of whom initially sided with the offended students, are increasingly coming to his support.

“The quotes are obviously cruelly torn from the teaching context,” wrote professor Ann Althouse, a nationally read blogger and guest columnist in The New York Times. “It is irrational to think that a law professor would assert things like this as a matter of belief.”

Also rising to Kaplan’s defense are many of the students in his class.

“Professor Kaplan is the farthest thing from a racist,” says Jason Gonzalez, the lone undergraduate in the class. “He was talking about how some recent immigrant cultures don’t assimilate to our laws immediately, and was asking if it’s ethical and right to expect that, or whether the law and society should provide more assistance.”

Students who go to law school should expect that their preconceived notions, beliefs, and attitudes are going to be questioned and dissected. Playing devil's advocate is part of a law professor's job, forcing students to "think like lawyers" in trying to justify their beliefs and theories about the law. Students have to be able to handle having their closely-treasured sensitivities challenged repeatedly.

More than a few times in law school did I have professors say outrageous things to me and attempt to embarrass me. But most professors are truly interested in presenting material in interesting and thought-provoking ways. That some students get the vapors when confronted with unpleasant truths (many new immigrants fall into crime) speaks more to their fitness for law school than to the sensitivity of the professor.

Sometimes You Run Across the Strangest Things

I was reading this column by Cathy Young, when someone in the comments pointed a link to this forum from Duke University.

The forum is bizarre. Apparently, Farces insulted several of the women in the forum by saying that the evidence seemed to indicate the Duke lacrosse players weren't guilty, and, as such, shouldn't be convicted. At least two of the other commenters made statements that because white males have privilege, it is ok if some of them are falsely convicted of sexual crimes.

This shocking display of ignorance about the way our justice system is designed to work was only half the show in this thread, however. The other show was about the moderator's attempt to limit male voices in the discussion and pacify rabid feminists.

Farces, IMO, tried to be respectful whenever he spoke, but one or two of the female commenters were determined to not simply disagree with him, but castigate him for the sin of being male. Here was my favorite part:

there is an underlying dishonesty to the general tenor of farces postings---he makes certain that they are hard to pinpoint but writer had the idea.
this is why my furr goes up and perhaps why others get annoyed.
we know that the university offered this woman alot of money. one would assume that they had a good reason to believe that their guys weren't behaving well.

we know that globally, men are raping women in huge numbers all the time and going unpunished and usually even unreported.

most women on this site have friends who've been raped or they themselves have been assaulted.

we know that women who are poor, in the sex trade, in a minority group, etc, etc, are in a position of even less power than most women.

it has ever been a male ploy to scream for justice if they think they can weasel out of a conviction---it's done all the time---it has always been difficult to convict a man when it's his word against hers[at least we don't have all male judges and juries anymore] and they well know this.

the history of assault on women by men, the bias in the entire system against women and the almost knee jerk reaction of many men to assume false accusation[in spite of it's rarity] makes the discussion of 'innocent[the guys not the woman, note]until proven guilty seem false and contrived and dishonourable on this thread.

In other words, by virtue of being male and white, the Duke lacrosse players are guilty, regardless of whether they did anything or not. It is amazing how ideology can overrule any normal sense of justice for people.