Sins that cry out to heaven for justice

Instapundit on the Duke Lacross rape case:

SAW AN EXCELLENT PANEL THIS EVENING ON THE DUKE LACROSSE RAPE HOAX, featuring K.C. Johnson (author of Until Proven Innocent, with Stuart Taylor), James Coleman, Mike Gerhardt, Lyrissa Lidsky, and Angela Davis (no, not that Angela Davis), author of Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor, which I bought on Kenneth Anderson's recommendation and which is excellent, especially as a companion to K.C.'s book. The discussion was excellent and very fair. Lots of talk about what Nifong got wrong, plus the important point that the kind of misconduct for which Nifong was disbarred and punished is committed regularly by prosecutors who almost always get off scot-free even when it's exposed. We really need a better mechanism for policing prosecutorial misconduct, and it's not clear what that should be -- independent audits of cases by a sort of inspector general? I'm not sure.

For a lot of conservatives, this case was about political correctness.  The horrifying thing is that the lacross players didn't get treated specially because they were white; it's only that because they're white and rich, we noticed.  When a poor black kid gets railroaded on a shaky eyewitness identification, who writes that story?  Without a good lawyer to defend them, how do they even find out how shaky the prosecution case is?  Prosecutors abuse their discretion every day, and we look the other way because most middle class people don't expect to end up in the justice system, so we write off the prosecutor's nearly god-like powers as the price of fighting crime. 

Comments

larry August 5, 2008 11:39 AM

The case was about both an unethical, politically motivated prosecutor and political correctness. The prosecutor's horrendous violations of ethics and law have been well documented.

The political correctness angle first arose when the Group of 88 wrote its diatribe against the defendants, and continued with the mainstream media coverage that assumed the defendants' guilt because it was interested in the narrative about "rich" white fraternity boys raping a poor black woman.

dave August 5, 2008 2:14 PM

It was about a lot of things. The PC rush to judge was the tip of the iceberg, assorted media conduct more disconcerting. The NYTimes pulled its reporter because he would not stick to the narrative. That is appalling, and far more noteworthy than one corrupt prosecutor. The university's conduct was equally despicable.

John August 5, 2008 3:58 PM

When a poor black kid gets railroaded on a shaky eyewitness identification, who writes that story?

When a poor white kid gets railroaded, who writes that story? It isn't color that turned the Duke case, it is wealth. The wealthy in *every* society get a better shot at justice, because they can afford to match resources with the prosecution. If you aren't wealthy, it is very difficult to attract resources to your case. If you haven't the same legal firepower, the prosecution will walk all over you, guilty or not, if the DA thinks you are guilty.
That's just life in the big city.

Remember, they aren't Courts of Justice, they are Courts of Law.