Jeralyn Merritt, on the Nifong disbarment:
Guilt sells in America, Innocence doesn’t. The Duke case is an exception in that for once the media and the public are focusing on innocence and wrongful prosecutions. We need to apply what we’ve learned from the Duke/Nifong case and make sure there is an Innocence Commission in every state.
Jeralyn is largely correct; but what we shouldn’t forget is that there were those who, willfully, vindictively, and out of a perverse ideological insistence, did everything they could to prevent “the media and the public” from “focusing on innocence and wrongful prosecutions” — at least in practice.
Which is to say, sure, they gave a lot of lip service to how the economically less fortunate are often unjustly punished by the system — even as they actively engaged in the same kind of behavior they claimed to abhor, working relentlessly to turn the Duke Rape Case into a dissertation topic about misogyny, racism, and White Male Privilege, and ignoring that it was precisely the kind of wrongful prosecution that they would have denounced had the accused been of the “right” victimized classes, or had the accuser been someone not protected by racialist, feminist, and classist identity politics.
These people have shown little remorse, and even less shame.
So I’m afraid to say I won’t be sold on an Innocence Commission until I’m convinced that those involved are truly interested in innocence — rather than in using the “right” kinds of wrongful prosecution as ideological launching pads for their own pet grievances and petty tyrannies.
(thanks to Dan; h/t Tom Maguire)
Wasn’t the MSM the "media"? They were like attack dogs against the Duke students. I am afraid that what has happened in the past six years is that every negative being on this planet has decided to slime out from under their rocks and say and do anything because they know we have been so politically corrected we won’t raise a stink. The Duke 88 should have some action taken against them, but they won’t. The accuser should face some type of charge and certainly the deranged supporters like Jackson and Sharpton should be called to account!
The word "Orwellian" gets thrown around way too much, of course. But I can’t think of a better description for something called the Innocence Commission.
Also: how would this be any different than the jury trial/appeal process that we already have?
It’s a new idea thought up by a member of the up-and-coming generation. That whole jury trial thing, and the appeals process? Thought up by old people.
Because a non-ideological Innocence Commission would have jumped all over this case right away. But what I really like is how whenever the government screws up or cannot get something right the Progressive answer is always …, wait for it …, more government!
What about the Gang of 88? Doubtlessly still sleeply soundly at nights secure in the safety of tenure and righteously clinging to the "narrative" of White Male Priviledge, Indentity Politics, and Victims.
I’ve said it before, here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating: the single most horrifying thing, to me, about this whole business is the degree to which it is now revealed that soi-disant “liberals” have become the enemy they are putatively fighting.
Stripping out the polysyllabic pseudo-profundity, the entire output of the Gang of 88 (not to mention Marcotte, et al) boils down to reversing the polarity of the arguments of a prosecutor in the Deep South circa 1960 or so: Shoot fahr, they’s niggahs, they’s bound t’be guilty of sump’m, this here’s jes’ sump’m we kin hang ’em for.” Neither the polarity reversal nor the erudition displayed in the language used can make that attitude “liberal” by any definition I can accept, other than as a team label with no referent in behavior. Nobody expects the Bengals to have fur or the Vikings to pillage small coastal towns, and, sadly enough, nobody today expects a Liberal to advocate individual responsibility or the rule of law.
Regards,
Ric
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202304.html?referrer=email
Just sayin’
The Duke kids were accused of being white, male, and of privilege. How in the hell would an "Innocence Commission" help them ?!
There is something inherently Orwellian sounding about this "Innocence Commission", and it appears to have little faith in the judicial system. From the civil law perspective, I can be sympathetic to that. From the criminal side, I have yet to see a system superior to ours.
I would think that Duke University would be doing something to distance themselves from the Gang of 88. As they were acting in both their roles as individuals, and as tenured faculty of the University, it would be no stretch for the attorneys to bring the University into the inevitable civil actions. As they are a private institution, their applicable immunities are significantly less than were it a public institution.
The gang of 88 should be given the opportunity to buy several large and expensive yachts for the attorneys representing the Duke students. Perhaps they can find a yacht maker who has a diverse and culturally sensitive work force to build these yachts.
Folks would do well to remember that the justice system is simply another government program. It is prone to the same good and bad things that other government programs are. Only in this case the government program can and has utterly destroyed innocent peoples lives.
Just what in the hell is so complicated about "innocent until proven guilty"?
If Law Professors from Duke can’t figure it out, just what the hell are they teaching them there?
The reason we need innocence commisions in addition to the jury trial and appeal process is simple and often ignored. Juries and judges often don’t have all of the information they need available to them.Information like That blood type evidence that makes the defendant look really guilty. It does not actually exist, a lab tech named Ron made up the results so he could leave work early that day.For example Houston has had a train wreck in their crime lab. Results have been botched, test results have been dry labbed = made up, and proper procedures were not followed. Police and prosecutors agreed last week to review as many as 600 cases
that Bromwich for the first time identified as possibly hinging on
faulty serology, the science of typing blood fluids that was a
precursor to DNA testing.
Nancy Grace, Innocence Czar
In order to have an Innocence Czar, wouldn’t we need to have a War on Innocence, like the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty ?
How does the Duke case point to a need for an Innocence Commission? Why would you divert resources away from the courts, public defenders and prosecutors rather than reform/strengthen those institutions?
Jeff, I wanted to email you a story tip earlier today, but there is no contact information on the current website, could you put one up, please? Thanks!
Isn’t “88” white-supremacist code for “Heil Hitler”?
Actually, I suspect we are having one.
Isn’t "innocence commission" more or less a way of describing a jury trial?
Isn’t “88″ white-supremacist code for “Heil Hitler�
Don’t know. It would strain the heaviest duty irony meter on Earth if true.
ahem – Agreed
The jury trial does not fit well with identity politics because it is geared towards individuals as such, not as members of a group. An Innoccence Commission would be able to properly weigh the accuser and the accused based on their membership in the proper groups, like a college admissions program does, providing the proper justice as determined by the annointed. And if the proper balance between accuser groups and accused groups is not being reached, then each fiscal year adjustments can be made to make sure that the prison population bears an accurate reflection of society, as determined by the census. What could be more progressive than that?
Great concept. Except for:
"Kendra Montgomery-Blinn, a former Durham ADA who is the first director of the just-established North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. Incredibly, given her current position, Montgomery-Blinn not only testified for Nifong, but provided a stronger endorsement of him than offered even by Nifong’s lawyers."
(h/t Durham-In Wonderland)
Oops.
Rob
you are right on 88 (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet… those clever, clever white people)
Ric… I actually think liberals are all about individual responsibility. As in: Individuals who are white, religious, middle income are responsible… I read a letter in the newpaper today where a liberal decided that separation of church and state meant that religious people should not be able to bring their religious beliefs with them into the polling place. In other words, religious people have the individual responsibility to squelch themselves or to not vote.
Amazing, Steve (and Ed). Links?
GEEZ, Y’all have missed the most important dichotomy in Jeralyn’s post! North Carolina HAS just established an Innocence Inquiry Commission, but it’s director, Montgomery-Blinn, testified FOR Nifong in his trial!
Since you’re being picky (snicker):
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/nifong/story/608852.html
Cor Angie, what a fox!