<p>I’m not a lawyer so this question is for those who either are or have a strong knowledge of the law. </p>
<p>My guess is that the defendants themselves in the lax case probably weren’t all that wealthy, but that their parents might be. </p>
<p>Question for those in the know: when setting bail does a judge take into consideration the wealth of those who are related to a defendant rather than just the defendant himself? If so, the judge is assuming that the relative who has the wealth is going to pay the bail for the defendant. </p>
<p>But what if the relative won’t put up the money. In that case a defendant is penalized for being related to one who has wealth even if he (the defendant) doesn’t. That doesn’t seem right.</p>
<p>The purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant will show up for trial. Obviously that is, to a certain extent, a personal question, which should address the severity of the charges, the pain it would cause a particular defendant to skip bail and forfeit the cost, etc. (and the mechanism of bail is an entirely separate subject.) Obviously a wealthy individual facing serious charges would merit a higher bail than a poor person facing minor charges, because that person’s options for fleeing - and motivation for doing so - would be greater. It’s hard to generalize beyond that. </p>
<p>Arguments for lowering bail or allowing release on just a promise to appear are everyday events. Bail was lowered for the LAX defendants at some point, IIRC.</p>
<p>KLUGE - wasn’t the bail for the Lax situation initially set high also because they were not from the state of NC - and were flight risks?? or so a certain person thought - ahummm</p>
<p>Cangel, not to be antagonistic, it really doesn’t matter, but, the Herald Sun article is from February 12, the arrest was not made until much more recently. From all of the coverage I have read, they have not identified who the “bag” belonged to, it may have been someone who lived at the house, but they have not suggested that it belonged the accused. </p>
<p>Sokkermom, I read that it is alleged to be a pellet gun that looks like a handgun. I think I read it in a more recent article in the Herald Sun than the one I posted above.</p>
<p>All 3 papers that are covering this have updated information and all the archived articles, so details can be looked up, I’m just at work (and actually busy today) so can’t do it. Sorry…</p>
In most jurisdictions, bail is set based on many factors which ususally comes down to the preference of the judge. In the DUKE lax case, I believe the bail was set so high because of the media attention and the judge wanted to show North Carolina is tough on rich white males. The reality is that there should have been no bail because the three students did not present any flight risk. With the media attention, there was no where they could hide.</p>
<p>At the time of their arrests - the charges were pretty serious - and bail would have been a norm consideirng the number of charges and the weight they held - and that they were from OOS - only connection to NC was school - so yes - they were flight risks - tho they were honorable and didn’t bolt - and when the most serious charge was dropped - the bail was dropped.</p>
<p>Do I think the initial bail was excessive - yes I do - very much so - but the judge must have had his reasons and I certainly don’t think they were race/wealth related at all.</p>
<p>So if it wasn’t about race or wealth, what could possibly be the reason for the huge disparity in the amounts that were set for bail between the lax boys and the non-Duke young man who was recently accused of raping a Duke student?</p>
<p>JeepMOM~with all due respect, the media attention was so great and Mike Nifong the center of attention–he relished asking for that outrageous bail amount. The judge was a buddy, and Nifong was playing this up for even more publicity. He wanted to make his statement that these rich, northern white boys were going to “get” what was coming to them. I think he enjoyed every minute of his facetime on tv and in the press (back then, that is!) It was the best free publicity for his campaign that he could ever have imagined!</p>
<p>"Nifong’s response to the ethics charges was due Friday, but the bar moved the deadline to Wednesday because one of Nifong’s attorneys was ill.</p>
<p>The bar has accused Nifong of withholding evidence from lawyers defending three lacrosse players charged with sexually assaulting a stripper. The accusations also include lying to the court and to bar investigators, and making misleading and inflammatory comments about the players.</p>
<p>Legal experts have said Nifong could be disbarred if he’s convicted."</p>
<p>I saw part of the Johns Hopkins v U. of Albany game on TV and a shot of the Duke v. Dartmouth game. Barely anyone in the stands to watch No. 1 Johns Hopkins (they were upset by unranked or very low ranked U. of A). Lacrosse doesn’t usually draw sellout crowds so that wasn’t surprising. But there appeared to be a large crowd, 6,485 by one report, at the Duke game.</p>
<p>From a SI write up a few days before the opener:
<p>Why do I keep associating this situation with what happened in Salem MA. in 1692? It feels so much the same only the new religion is political correctness, and the new witches are white male jocks.</p>
<p>There’s nothing “politically correct” about using appeals to racism - of any stripe - to get elected. And don’t forget that the “witches” in this case contributed to the hysteria by engaging in repeated acts of anti-social behavior. Petty as their previous misdeeds were, it contributed to the initial credibility of the accusations.</p>
<p>Injustice is an everyday event. The fact that this time it happened to a bunch of college students - and we’re the parents of college students - shouldn’t lead to overstatement of the case. There are lessons to be learned here - but they’re not new ones or ones that are specific to any particular political viewpoint. One lesson is that while injustice hurts, the affluent, photogenic and well connected have a better chance of ultimately ending up more or less OK than those less blessed.</p>
<p>“And don’t forget that the “witches” in this case contributed to the hysteria by engaging in repeated acts of anti-social behavior. Petty as their previous misdeeds were, it contributed to the initial credibility of the accusations.”</p>
<p>Jog my memory, please. I recall that one of the defendants was charged in another venue for assault, but the charges were dopped. So what repeated acts of anti-social behavior are on record for Evans, Finnerty and Seligman?</p>
So, undergrads drink. Underage undergrads drink. To excess. Who are the “witches”? Evans, Finnerty and Seligman? Any Duke lacrosse player? Or is any random white male Duke student now to be held responsible for the worst behavior of any of classmates?</p>