<p>Jack, you have now edited your post #1478 after reading my response in post #1479. </p>
<p>You wrote (originally):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have now added:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I do not believe I purposely attributed any thoughts or comments to you that you do not have but if I have every misunderstood you, I would hope you would respond and clarify. </p>
<p>However, you seem to be saying that you do not wish anyone to attribute thoughts or comments to you that you never had but then go on to ATTRIBUTE THOUGHTS to me that I have NEVER had at all. You said I wanted you to leave. To the contrary, I posted several times that I welcome your views and welcome you to post on the thread. I did not want you to leave and thus you are attributing thoughts and comments to me that are untrue, something you are being critical of yourself. I don’t get it. As you say, I must not be good at reading comprehension which you implied as well. </p>
<p>Further, you have now personally attacked me by calling me “passive agressive”. That actually is not allowed on CC. But in any case, I am engaging in a conversation and discussing different viewpoints. I can disagree with your viewpoints, while welcoming them at the same time. I’m not posting in ways that a thousand other posters post…discussing and debating viewpoints. </p>
<p>If you wish to leave, do what you wish because you want to, not because I have ever wanted you to at all. I questioned your stated disinterest in the topic and your statements about not desiring to follow it and my being perplexed by your apparent interest by virtue of choosing to discuss this topic over the course of a long period of time here. That doesn’t imply that I don’t wish you to be here and in fact, I repeatedly said that I welcomed your viewpoints.</p>
<p>“(P.S. I find it amusing and distressing in about equal measure that in the civil context the Supreme Court is becoming increasingly aggressive in policing what they consider constitutionally excessive monetary awards while, in the criminal context, they seem all too willing to hold, for example, that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of less than a kilogram of cocaine is not constitutionally excessive. <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmelin_v._Michigan[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmelin_v._Michigan</a>
Here, as so often in the law, the key question may well be whose ox is being gored.)”</p>
<p>Sort of boggles the mind, doesn’t it? And it highlights the very point upon which I’ve been insisting: Whose ox is being gored makes all the difference in the American justice system, and the culture of acceptability in that regard goes all the way to the Supreme Court. I very much doubt a three strikes law would have been so enthusiastically endorsed had its intended target included the drinking and drugging teen communities in Darian, Connecticut, or Fairfax, Virginia.</p>
<p>Jack, I have to say that while we’ve agreed in many regards, I really fail to see what Rae Evans has to apologize for. What was so inappropriate about her behavior, or her, “you’ve messed with the wrong families.” statement? She was at ground zero during Nifong’s terror attacks, and she knew the full extent of the fallout, and level of injustice, which was clearly growing more outrageous by the day. She was merely serving the kind of notice almost any mother in her very unusual circumstances (those being, this kind of thing will never be tolerated by our kind of people) would have served: She would not just lie down and play dead. She would not allow her child to be destroyed for something he did not do. She would make sure that Mike Nifong payed for his actions for “the rest of his life”. And by God, he would have been smart to have taken her seriously. Bet he wishes he had now:p.</p>
<p>I do recall Dave Evans apologizing to his coach and the Duke community for the fallout they experiencing in the wake of that night. I admire him for that, think it was extremely mature of him, especially in light of all we know now. What I don’t understand is why you think the victims of this travesty should be apologizing to anyone. Why do you not call for all those who rushed to judgment to apologize for vilifying those boys before the facts were known (For instance, those who editorialized in The Times, those who protested in the streets, who signed outraged letters of collective faculty condemnation, and who appeared on TV (once again;)) in the service of self-aggrandizement, and most glaringly of all, Mike Nifong himself).</p>
<p>Poetsheart…I posed the same question as to why anyone should think these victims of this travesty should be apologizing and wondered if another poster seems to be saying so, why is there no call for those like the Duke 88 and others you have now also mentioned to apologize? The latter was never answered. Regarding the former part, I was told that I had misunderstood a statement about wanting to have seen these boys apologize ( or that I have poor reading comprehension, let alone have attributed thoughts to another poster that were not stated).</p>
<p><cough> The Denny’s jury didn’t award $600 million.
…times 15 family members present equals $600 thousand. $5,000 damages each for personal, public humiliation; 7 times that in punitive damages… a long way from $30M.</cough></p>
<p>Several other points: Yes, fear and humiliation from an intentional beating would raise the compensatory damages above what would be fair for similar injuries from an auto accident. But “pain and suffering” damages are not limitless, and should be comparable to other awards to other people for similar “injuries”. The US Supreme Court’s ruling on punitive damages - couched as a constitutional issue - is binding on all lower courts, state and federal. (And yes, it is disheartening that what is perceived as excessive financial judgments for intentional corporate wrongdoing are apparently considered to be more worrisome to our high court than excessive personal punishments for minor crimes.) Every state is free to set its own standards for punitive damages within the limits set by the Supreme Court; North Carolina’s 3X actual damages with a $250K cap would apply to a case brought under that law.</p>
<p>Another thought: These days, when I interview a potential client, I make sure to try to determine what they really want from a case. Generally it’s “as much money as I can get” - but not infrequently there are other factors which are even more important, and I try to achieve those goals as well. For these three young men, with a world of opportunity before them, my feeling is that “as much money as I can get right now” is the wrong answer to the question “What do you really want to accomplish with this lawsuit.” That’s why I’m critical of this move.</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that “as much money as I can get” is their main goal. I think they do want compensation but likely are asking for a lot (knowing they won’t get that amount) in order to effect change in the system, give consequences where it is due to those who corruptly carried out the injustice, and I also believe they care about helping other innocent defendants who did not have their resources and would not be surprised if they gave some funds to fights such as the Innocence Project. I also think they would like to clear their name beyond just the Attorney General’s statement of innocence. Damage was done to them and they wish to put in efforts to balance the negative publicity with getting it out there about what was done to them unrightfully. I think their goals go beyond money.</p>
<p>“. . . it is not illegal . . . it is not a crime to apologize for.” </p>
<p>Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Sitting around watching a woman strip is morally wrong and degrading to all involved. Definitely something the boys should apologize for (Note: perhaps some or all of them have apologized.) If merely for the reason that they live in a society in which many feel as I do, and one of “us” might interview them for a job someday. (That said, I am a liberal, count myself as a member of the religious left, and have voted Dem all my life)</p>
I am afraid I would be hard-pressed to demand an apology from someone on the basis that you or others would choose to hold their legal actions against them in a hiring situation. That’s a fairly threatening statement to make about what extracurricular activities you might choose to use to determine suitability for employment.</p>
<p>An apology of this sort is completely outside of any legal realm. </p>
<p>If I met up with one of the young men, realizing what he had been through, I would feel sympathy. Knowing that he had sincerely apologized for attending/organizing the party would make me even more sympathetic. </p>
<p>I would not want to hire someone who thinks it is okay to watch women strip. Normally I would have no access to that information, nor should I. But in the three young men’s cases, everyone has that access. The men are in a unique situation. And I am not the only one who feels they did something not legally wrong, but morally wrong.</p>
And, so, to loop this around a bit - how much do you think exposing these three to that kind of “access” should cost the city? Because if I am understanding you correctly, you would be disinclined from offering them employment based on what you had read or heard about them - versus any direct knowledge. How much damage has that done to them overall, then?</p>
<p>This is part of the reason why I think the boys deserve 5 million each. Nifong destroyed their precious privacy and millions of people now think they are immoral for doing something that probably 90% of american men have done.</p>
<p>SuNa, if your private life were revealed to the entire country, I think it’s very likely that there are many Americans who would consider things you have done to be immoral.</p>
<p>And I am not the only one who feels they did something not legally wrong, but morally wrong.</p>
<p>Those who cringe at the lacrosse captain’s choices over the faux “spring break bash,” the party they thought would be compensatory somehow for those on the team too young to enter an establishment where alcohol is served on that deserted Duke campus spring 2006, SuNa, would include, their parents and a good portion of their student peers. I believe the error of their moral choices has been pointed out quite thoroughly. </p>
<p>The lawsuit against the city of Durham is about criminal malfeasance from adults on the Durham city payroll who intentionally disregarded the rule of law and procedure and due process in order to prosecute innocent people. </p>
<p>Mr. Evans brought up the very words “moral choices” made by the student athletes in his 60 Minutes interview, which is available on line. Not only is exploitive use of women who may be very unstable/economically deprived/drug addicted/felons/embezzlers/diagnosed with a major mental illness for entertainment morally a poor choice, so is the simple fact also that the coach they all adored, Coach Pressler, specifically asked them to use good judgment when left to their own devices between games.<br>
The young men must living with the reality that their poor decision cost Pressler his job and uprooted a family who had done nothing wrong.</p>
<p>I think they have had quite enough consequences, and made quite enough apologies to the people they harmed by throwing this party.
In my son’s circles, most Duke students were either volunteering on site in New Orleans or other places or enjoying drinking and partying many parents would find morally unattractive in Daytona and other beach locations.</p>
<p>This is precisely the reason why these defendants deserve some amount of compensation beyond legal fees they incurred. Their names are smeared with the accusations of things they didn’t do AND there are those out there who feel as you do who might not hire them because of a rowdy drinking party where they watched strippers, something many do (right or wrong) but where the whole world doesn’t know about it. The fact that this stuff was plastered around and these three were randomly picked of all who attended the college spring break party, means that they might suffer down the line by those who look at them differently, may not hire them, and so on. There are lasting effects. </p>
<p>I am not promotely underage drinking, loud parties, or watching strippers. But the fact that many many college kids do those things and do not suffer national media attention where they are called rapists and hooligans, etc. seems unfair that these guys are suffering far more enormous consequences for such behaviors that many do not approve of (even if legal). I think a consequence more fitting might be getting in trouble with your coach, school, or something like that, not what they went through. THOSE behaviors certainly did not warrant the consequences they have been through and apparently these consequences have long term effects because there are those in the public, like yourself, who say they now look at them differently, wouldn’t hire them, etc. I am sure you are not alone. </p>
<p>I don’t know a price to put on that and doubt any amount of money can erase it but I do think they deserve some compensation for these lasting effects. I don’t know other college kids who have had to pay a price this high for doing something thousands do, right or wrong. I think they did learn a lesson that they were engaging in some risky behaviors and used poor judgement. The price they paid, however, was too high. And unfortunately, it is really these three guys who are paying it and way more boys participated in the party. These three “lucked out” that Precious chose them randomly. I think these boys have apologized for choices they made that night and have realized a consequence for poor judgement. But it is far too big of a consequence in my view and is due to unscrupulous behavior by those who are charged with seeking justice, ironically.</p>
My take: Anyone who will make any impact on these young men’s lives in the future will only think of these events in terms of their unfair accusal and later exoneration. As to people disapproving of them because they hired strippers and had big parties? Well, not many people will, and even fewer of the people who will make an impact on their lives in the future. As to the exceptions to that? Well, they did have big parties and hire strippers. Their “precious privacy?” You can’t sue someone for exposing the truth about things you’ve done quite openly. And I don’t think you should be able to do so.</p>
<p>I have no idea how many will think poorly of these young men even now. Already, a poster here says she might and it would affect her hiring them. There are 88 faculty members at their school who seem to still think poorly of them and haven’t apologized for mischaracterizing them. I think that the 3 LAX players’ names may be linked to exoneration for some, but may also be linked to a negative image for some others, and I understand why after a year of that image being portrayed by the DA and in the media. It cannot be totally erased for some. I think there is a segment who likely still believe “something happened there.” Their names are connected with this event and not all will think well of them. Not all have followed the details of the case either. And as SuNa says, now the world knows of their drinking party with strippers that we might not have otherwise have known about (I’m not claiming it was private like another poster claimed but it wasn’t meant for worldwide consumption either) and some think poorly of them for even that. You or I may not “disapprove” of them because they hired strippers or had a drinking party, but there are many who would and do.</p>
<p>Whose to say that those who think negatively of these boys after the media attention they were given that was so negative will or will not impact their lives in the future? They might. They might not. I’m not putting a price tag on that. But I do think this wasn’t a little blip in their lives and I do think there are lasting effects for them emotionally, and for their “name” in the eyes of some (and it garnered international attention and so we are talking a LOT of people).</p>
<p>If it was done in connection with independently actionable conduct, why not?</p>
<p>For example, the Duke lacrosse players are perfectly free to print up a flyer with a picture of Precious passed out on the steps of a lacrosse house, and the caption “This is a stupid prostitute who got exactly what she deserved!!”</p>
<p>That’s completely non-actionable, even if the flyer is distributed all over Durham.</p>
<p>Now, same scenario except suppose that she really had been raped and then sued the lacrosse players. Would such a flyer be admissible? Would her attorney argue that she is entitled to more money because on top of raping her, the players destroyed her privacy? Would such an argument fly?</p>
<p>Well, Lskinner, I assume that your entirely inexcusable post will be deleted by the moderators, so I won’t reference its specifics, but remember - the rowdy activities of the Lacrosse team were publicized by the media at the outset of the case - before anyone had been charged with any crimes, and while investigations were just underway. So what you characterize as an actionable infringement on their “precious privacy” actually occurred in connection with entirely unobjectionable conduct (on the part of Durham officials, anyway.)</p>
<p>And frankly, given the nature of your last post, I don’t think it is a good idea to continue to engage in conversation with you in this forum.</p>
<p>Plenty of Nifong and the DPD’s wrongful conduct took place before anyone was charged, including many of Nifong’s public statements. And there’s no question that Nifong fanned the flames of negative publicity.</p>
<p>As for my post, I don’t see what’s inexcusable about it. It’s clearly a hypothetical description of outrageous conduct.</p>
<p>I certainly hope that you don’t mischaracterize it to the board moderators as a debate tactic.</p>
<p>I think it’s likely that there are just as many people (actually, I believe there are far more) who would go out of their way to befriend, support, or hire these boys, as there are who would continue to condemn them, or with-hold employment. Only a world-wide Vulcan Mind Meld would cause absolutely everyone to feel empathy and unreserved respect for them. Not even God commands that kind of absolute esteem:p. But, as Kluge has pointed out, an unprecedented amount has already been done to restore their good name. It’s unrealistic to expect that, unless NO ONE thinks ill of them as a result of the events in this case, they are entitled to tremendous monetary damages. Like I said earlier, I DO understand the desire to make the city of Durham pay big time, as I’d probably still be angry as hell. But Kluge makes some good points about the long term advisability of the move. </p>
<p>A lucrative book deal would offer both monetary recompense AND the opportunity to tell your side of things, uninterrupted, and in exactly the words your choosing.</p>