<p>irishforever: Just a little heads up-- if you ever do need a great lawyer from here, go with Wade Smith instead. Smith is far superior, in every way, and he’s not a publicity hound like Cheshire.</p>
<p>Poetsheart: “The point of my initial post a couple of pages back is that there are glaring discrepancies in the scope and sustenance of national outrage, when horrible injustices are leveled against rich white defendants, as opposed to poor black ones. The unprecedented level to which this case has weighed upon the national psyche, and the record smashing lengths of Duke Lacrosse threads, I and II, speak volumes to this.”</p>
<p>Iskinner: “I disagree with this.”</p>
<p>Of course you do;).</p>
<p>“And if a poor black person were accused of some crime, and for whatever reason it got the same level of national attention, don’t you think that there would be a similar level of attention if it turned out the charges were false?”</p>
<p>News flash, Iskinner. Poor black people are accused of crimes they didn’t commit and sentenced to lengthy prison sentences everyday, and they’ve NEVER received this level of national attention. IN fact, the news media rarely pay more than a cursory notice when it’s revealed that such were innocent all along, if they ever even bothered to cover the case in the first place. On top of that, such a case would never be so feverishly acknowledge by endless discussion on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seemed to be making an argument about the similarities and differences between the Rodney King case and the Duke Lacrosse case. </p>
<p>However, if you are abandoning that argument just as you (apparently) gave up on trying to argue that lawsuits don’t effect change, there’s no need to discuss it anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m actually a democrat. And it’s unfortunate that you don’t care about my question. Because it’s worthwhile to ask yourself exactly WHY you believe that King should have received so much money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are entitled to your opinion, but the point of sharing it on an internet message board is so that you can discuss those reasons. For example, it may be that deep down, you actually believe that they don’t deserve 30 million because they are rich and white. That would be an interesting thing to learn.</p>
<p>Of course, nobody can force you to share and discuss your reasons. But if you are unwilling to do so, then there’s no need to keep posting your opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm, does that mean “yes” or “no”?</p>
<p>lskinner: I think if you read back over my earlier posts, you will see that <em>I</em> did not bring up the Rodney King case. You did. </p>
<p>If you read back over my posts on this topic, you will also see some of the reasons why I think they don’t deserve the $30M. In part, it does have to do with other people who have suffered far more from the hands of dishonest prosecutors, police, etc., and suffered long-term damage (some even death, and it doesn’t get more long-term than that), who received far less. I also stated that one could argue that this event, in fact, has improved their future and will continue to do so, strangely enough, if they don’t screw it up. So arguing for any long-term damage seems pointless to me; that’s just not the case. Using the suit to try to “change” Durham, or “teach them a lesson,” is also fruitless, in my opinion. And, as I’ve stated before, I think this will harm them in terms of their own PR. (Read what kluge wrote about that.) I also think, regardless of how much money they manage to squeeze out of the city of Durham, it will not initiate positive changes on any broader scale and might, in fact, do some damage in Durham itself. </p>
<p>I also agree with much of what poetsheart has said on this topic as well. I couldn’t have said it better, so I didn’t. </p>
<p>If, after re-reading my own earlier posts, and some of these others (can’t remember the post numbers, you’ll have to look it up yourself), and you still don’t understand why I think they don’t deserve it, and it’s foolish to ask for that amount, then you have trouble with reading comprehension and retention, and I can’t help you there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. And it’s interesting to discuss how the cases are similar and how the cases are different. </p>
<p>I believe that they are similar because they both involve extreme and outrageous behavior on the part of the authorities and because the victims had to endure the trauma and humiliation of that behavior.</p>
<p>You (apparently) believe that they are different because one case involved physical injury and the other did not.</p>
<p>So the obvious next step, to see which factors are more important, is to imagine a situation that involves the the second factor (physical injury) but not the first (extreme and outrageous behavior and humiliation of the victim)</p>
<p>But you refuse to take that step. By your own claim, you are apparently not capable of imagining such a situation or don’t have the time to do so.</p>
<p>Fine, but I am capable of imagining such a situation and I will draw my own conclusions. </p>
<p>I claim that a citizen who suffers physical injury due to ordinary negligence should receive significantly less compensation than a citizen who receives similar injury due to intentional, extreme and outrageous behavior on the part of the authorities.</p>
<p>If anyone disagrees with me, I am happy to debate it.</p>
<p>Lskinner, I agreee. Our legal system chooses the criminal penalty with intent in mind, correct? Malice. Guilty act, guilty mind, and all that. Manslaughter vs. murder. The issue of negligence as opposed to intentional harm is a vital part of our justice system, so I think it’s only natural that it would be considered when awarding damages.</p>
<p>I think one can consider the Duke case a gross injustice in and of itself and worthy of some compensation without comparing to other cases (ie., “but wait, THIS case was worse”…“no, THAT case was”…etc.). Are there other gross injustices carried out in the courts? Surely. Do poor Black defendants have similar resources to fight it as the Duke young men have had? Surely not. These young men acknowledge that and have spoken out about it and hope to effect change. But it doesn’t diminish the great injustice that has effected them. Someone else may always be worse off than you but it doesn’t diminish your own pain and suffering. </p>
<p>Anyway, Poetsheart, you bring up the many people in jail who are innocent. That is a huge concern and I agree totally. One thing about the Duke case, however (and it is not unique this way of course) isn’t simply that innocent people were charged with crimes. Why, that happens every day and is indeed, why we have trials. And yes, innocent people still get convicted. But in this situation, the manner in which they were charged was in itself a huge injustice by people who are charged with the responsibility of representing justice. The entire HANDLING of the case was unjust. That is not the same as simply being innocent of a charge (which of course is also horrific). The intent of a DA and the police in the Duke case and the corrupt ways it was handled every step of the way (not just the DNA handling!) is something that needs attention in order to effect change.</p>
<p>On top of that point, these defendants were tried in the public court of opinion due to the immense coverage and accusations brought forth in a corrupt manner. So, I believe this case is not simply a case of an innocent person being charged with a crime which happens a lot and is why there are trials to determine innocence or guilt (which sometimes, unfortunately, convict innocent people). </p>
<p>I’m not saying this case is the worst injustice ever…not at all. But I think one can find it an outrageous case that needs attention to effect change without assuming that such a point of view diminishes our outrage about innocent people who are in jail or who are poor or Black and don’t have the resources to defend themselves. I think all these cases are unjust but I don’t need to compare them in order to feel that a case is worthy of attention or compensation. I can think the other cases are as well!</p>
<p>lskinner: Well, there you go again, posing your own questions just so you can answer them.</p>
<p>Once again, I did not bring up the Rodney King case. You did. </p>
<p>I did bring up other cases, however. My point is, regardless of physical or emotional harm caused by negligence or intent . . . I <em>still</em> believe one has to consider the long-term damage and suffering endured. </p>
<p>In the case of the Duke 3, one could argue that the long-term effects of this event have, in fact, ultimately improved their lives and will continue to do so. They never spent a day in jail; they weren’t beaten; and while they surely suffered emotional harm-- who wouldn’t-- I just don’t believe that it will have a long-term negative effect on their lives. Only a psychologist would know that for sure, I suppose. And we’d have to follow their lives through the decades to see how they play out. I’m bored with them now (got bored with this story a long time ago), however, so I know I won’t be doing that.</p>
<p>Again, I would suggest that their lives have improved significantly since they were publicly exonerated. I would even say that their lives have improved from what they were before this event ever occurred. Can you say the same for some of these other people, whether they were physically and/or emotionally harmed by negligence, or intentionally?</p>
<p>Again, I never brought up the King case; you did. I did bring up other cases, in particular, the Alan Gell case, which is really much closer to the Duke 3 case, in many ways. It even took place in NC.</p>
<p>Alan Gell’s prosecutors deliberately withheld key evidence that would have proven, without a doubt, that he could not have murdered the man in question. They had that information; they refused to turn it over. Gell spent 9 years on death row. Again, lucky for the Duke 3 that he did. (Look it up and see why.) Gell didn’t suffer any physical damages by brutal police; he suffered at the hands of dishonest prosecutors. These prosecutors are still practicing today; they received nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Interestingly enough, the current NC Governor was the Attorney General back when Gell was convicted. I believe he has always refused to be interviewed about Gell. He was also the person who named Nifong as prosecutor in Durham-- all of which I think is somewhat relevant and fairly intriguing. Gell’s suit is pending, and I don’t know how much he’s asking, but he deserves far, far more than the Duke 3. Again, that’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.</p>
<p>I do have to believe that some of the posts here reflect on what kluge wrote about earlier. I think people are so much more involved in this case and so concerned about these 3, because they are more like you and your neighbors-- people you know-- than are the poor indigents, whether of color or not. Did we see the case of Alan Gell, for instance, splashed for over a year on the front cover of every news outlet in the country? Nobody cared, because he was poor, uneducated, and already in trouble with the law, a nobody. What do you expect, right? Of course, we don’t expect this to happen to educated, well-off white folks, and when it does, we get real upset. Yet, Gell’s arrest and conviction came at the hands of dishonest NC prosecutors, just like the Duke 3. So, what’s worse-- spending 9 years on death row for a crime you didn’t commit, or . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s totally true. So what?</p>
<p>“So what?” I have no interest in the King case, nor in your questions about it. That’s what. I did answer about another case, though (see above) which I think is a more relevant comparison and one which I initially raised.</p>
<p>So . . . which would you rather endure, given that there are dishonest prosecutors out there-- what the Duke 3 went through, or spending 9 years on death row, like Alan Gell? Which do you think was more harmful and did more damage? Who do you think deserves more money, if money is the ultimate panacea for these types of injustices?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s funny, because you did mention it a couple times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the Duke 3 went through.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More harmful to whom and more damage to whom?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, money is not the “ultimate panacea.” There is no way to give Gell those years back, nor is there any way to undo what his been done to the Duke 3.</p>
<p>Yeah Jack, I’m having a little bit of difficulty with this. You keep bringing up the fact that a number of people who may have been more wronged by the system are getting less compensation than the Duke 3. So what?</p>
<p>Clearly those others need to get more, but the fact that they got less is in no way connected to or even relevant to the Duke 3.</p>
<p>lskinner: Good grief. I only mentioned King in answer to your questions about him, and because you kept hounding me. Are you being deliberately block-headed, or does it just come naturally to you?</p>
<p>Anyway, yeah, I agree-- Gell deserves more. Regardless of what he gets, though, and regardless of what the Duke 3 get, I don’t think it’s going to have a big impact on dishonest prosecutors. I think the bigger impact-- the best way to prevent other prosescutors from doing the same-- is to witness their own losing their good names and their careers-- hauled off to jail like a common criminal… That’s a real deterrent, don’t you think? This didn’t happen in the Gell case, which occurred before Nifong’s dishonesty. See a possible connection?</p>
<p>In this country, we don’t generally care if people (“not like us”) fall from grace. Again, using Alan Gell as an example, he’s not somebody you’d ever run into in your whole life, I expect. An indigent, already in trouble with the law, poor and uneducated. Just not on our radar screen. But, boy, we sure do care a lot-- just get all up in arms-- when we witness injustice done to those people we perceive to be much more like us. I find that stomach-churning, to be honest.</p>
<p>If you don’t see the relevancy or the connection, that’s fine. I do, and I suspect others do as well. There’s a reason people are writing newspaper columns about this, and it’s not because the comparisons are irrelevant. Regardless, they won’t get $30M, so it’s a moot point. I simply think they’re harming themselves by demanding it, and I don’t think it will have a huge positive impact on Durham, or on any broader scale (And please don’t ask me to explain that comment; it’s been explained in recent past posts here. Look it up.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spare me your personal attacks, ok?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speak for yourself, ok? I just said in my last post that Gell deserves more than the Duke 3. And guess what? I have no idea what race Gell is.</p>
<p>Anyway, the Duke 3 prosecution specifically targeted the defendants because they were white. So it’s not unreasonable for white people to be particularly outraged.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gell is white. Hmm . . . I wonder why white folks weren’t “particularly outraged” by his situation. Gee, I can’t imagine . . . oh, wait. See post #1435.</p>
<p>Your comment above also just reinforced what I wrote in that post, and much of what a couple of us have argued here in earlier posts. </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>
There is no credible evidence to support that conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cite for the fact that Gell was targeted because he was white?</p>
<p>Cite for the fact that the initial accusation against Gell received national attention?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ridiculous. Why do you suppose that the one black lacrosse player was omitted from the phoney “pick 3 guys” lineup?</p>
<p>Why do you suppose that Kim Roberts was never charged with anything even though Precious accused her of stealing her money and helping with the rape?</p>
<p>Obviously Mike Nifong wanted 3 white defendants so that he could sell a good story to Durham voters and get re-elected.</p>