We believe Duke players innocent until proven guilty.

[Neil Lisst]

This thread is for all those out there who are trying to respond ad hoc on other threads to those who equate reserving judgment with agreeing with rapists. There is a simple progressive value, the value of innocent until proven guilty. It's not blaming the victim, but it is requiring the person who claims she was raped to give meaningful and convincing evidence.

See if you agree ....

We believe:

1. That many people assume the accuser is fully truthful, and assume the players are guilty, while we assume neither of those.

We believe ...

2. That the defense is supposed to act as a mouthpiece for their clients, to give THEIR perspective, their point of view.

We believe ...

3. That the prosecution and police also act as mouthpiece for the accuser, to give their perspective, their point of view.

We believe ...

4. That the process of both sides telling their story, getting their facts out, and impeaching the other side is good, it's how we do things in the court of public opinion.

We believe ...

5. That impeaching a witness for changing his or her previous statements is a legitimate and necessary method to examine a witness' reliability as a witness.

We believe ...

6. That the conclusion of the nurse that a rape occurred is not dispositive of the issue of either (1) whether a rape occurred or (2) whether one of the accused committed it, if there was a rape.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Lovely sentiment.

But would you be happy about the players indicted for rape dating YOUR daughter?

[Neil Lisst]

2. I'm going to ignore

that kind of silly comment, which is all too standard for your POV.

[BlooInBloo]

3. If I had your POV, I'd ignore the comment too. It's your only choice.

[Neil Lisst]

9. it's my only SANE choice

the alternative being bantering with you about nothing

[Yavin4]

4. That's A Silly Question

Of course I'd be mad if it were my daughter or my niece, but that's not our system of justice. It's not based on raw human emotions, rather it's based on the presentation of evidence. Would you want to live in a society where the law is based on emotion and not facts?

[BlooInBloo]

10. But HE'S INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! So you people profess...

If you believe that SOOOOO strongly, then you should have NO qualms WHATSOEVER about your daughter dating him.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Tell me you're fine with YOUR daughter date him then - show me how strongly you believe that pithy catchphrase.

[Neil Lisst]

13. Yes, they're innocent until proven guilty

it's in the constitution

[SammyBlue]

15. It's feminists like you that make real feminists cringe

According to the neo-feminism move led by Sue Rosenberg Zalk, Andrea Dworkin and the likes of that breed, all men are potential rapists.

Personally, I don't give a shit what happened at Duke.

It is of monumental uninterest to me!!!

[BlooInBloo]

20. I never suggested in any way that "all men are potential rapists".

I'm fine with suggesting, on the other hand, that all men indicted for rape are potential rapists.

Why this makes "real" feminists cringe is beyond me.

I didn't even realize I was a feminist - LOL - thanks for the clarification!

Please do go right on ahead and put more words in my mouth for me, which I never said or suggested! Have a good time with your strawman!

[SammyBlue]

33. Whatever. . .people like you disgust me

I'm a potential murderer, drug addict and serial jaywalker too.

Your logic is beyond horrible.

And, I will repeat using the headline function:

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE DUKE STORY!!!!

[BlooInBloo]

34. LOL! Rock on! You make up as much shit as you want! lolol

[Neil Lisst]

11. why not ask how I'd feel if that was my son wrongly accused?

thanks for your comments

I never understand when people try to debate a point by saying "well if she were your daughter ...!"

If she were my daughter, I wouldn't be discussing it on a message board. If she were my daughter, of course I'd be supportive. It's one of those "well Duh" things, you know?

[Inland]

19. That's sorta the thing about doubt and uncertainty about guilt.

If I have doubt about guilt or innocence, it serves both conclusions: I'm not sure enough about the accused to put him in jail, and I'm not sure enough to be pleased to see him with my daughter.

So unless you are telling me that being in jail and dating my daughter are the same thing, it's the type of question that would, well, make me wish you wouldn't date my daughter.

[Neil Lisst]

22. for the record, I'd be disappointed if my daughter dated anyone from Duke

especially any athletes, and especially any Lacrosse athletes. I take it as a given that these young men are probably self-important jackasses. I would not want them dating my daughter, and I really don't think there's any chance of that happening, EVER.

She doesn't even date Republicans.

[Inland]

24. Well, the lacrosse team certainly has a bad reputation.

The sort of over testosteroned, underrestrained, athlete-subgroup rep.

But your daughter may bring home a republican someday. It happens. Booga booga!

[Neil Lisst]

25. I doubt it she'd date a puke. She's more strict than that in her diet.

[marbuc]

39. Amen to that! n/t

[bryant69]

23. That shouldn't matter

And is as fair as asking a anti- death penalty person how they would feel if their family was killed.

Barlow: Mayor Quimby, you're well-known, sir, for your lenient stance on crime. But suppose for a second that _your_ house was ransacked by thugs, _your_ family tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much _blood_ on the knob --
Quimby: What is your question?
Barlow: My question is about the budget, sir.

Peoples feelings don't matter - what matters is justice.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Inland]

27. It's part of the rules: only the opinions of the most outraged count.

In my mind, if my wife were killed, I would a) want to gouge the eyes of the killer out with my thumbs and b) be temporarily insane and the last person you'd want making decisions about punishment unless you really wanted to see something medieval.

Not surprisingly, the ones who want to see something medieval ask the question.

For some people's purposes, there's a minimum amount of outrage and over the top necessary to have any comment. So they ask the question to have you both work up a hypothetical outrage and make that hypothetical outrage the standard for action.

[Neil Lisst]

32. it's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty and yet ...

... and yet, admit you might beat another person to death if they harmed your family. I think many of us are like that. We understand the urge to kill for revenge, but we don't want society to be vengeful to that extent, and hope we never are.

[Neil Lisst]

28. yeah, it's like the Mike Dukakis snafu in '88

The answer is ... if someone killed my family, I might kill them myself, but I still wouldn't believe in the death penalty.

[BlooInBloo]

38. You and I differ I guess. I think it's COMPLETELY fair to ask.

If they believe "innocent until proven guilty" as much as they PROFESS to, then the Dukesters are innocent. Why? They haven't been convicted. Hence, according to the motto, they are innocent - PRESUMED innocent. Not partly innocent, just plain innocent.

If they're innocent, then they should have no problem with their daughters dating them (at least not for rape-related reasons I suppose).

Hence my question - do they indeed have no such problem?


If these protest-overmuch innocent-until-proven-guilty folks DO have a problem with their daughters dating someone indicted for rape, that tells me that they don't REALLY believe the jingoistic motto QUITE as strongly as they PROFESS to.

At which point I wonder what PRECISELY is their purpose for falsely claiming to believe in the motto SO strongly?

Of course, if they don't have a problem with their daughter dating someone indicted for rape, then they've satisfied a minimum standard for honesty (the truth is always consistent), and my curiousity is satisfied.

IMO, it's PERFECTLY fair question.

[JVS]

36. Have you confused Neil with Michael Dukakis?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Sorry but if you believe in the judicial process then you can't

possibly believe in this case being tried in the press via rumors, innuendo and the like. The two do not go hand in hand. If you believe in a fair trial then you can't possibly believe in the jury pool being poisoned by the infotainment surrounding this case.

Furthermore, I really don't think most posters have a problem with "innocent until proven guilty." I think the posters have a problem with those whose posts seem to indicate that she couldn't have been raped because she is a stripper or if she was she somehow deserved it because she is a stripper.

Again, if you believe in the judicial process, then there is no other conclusion than that the media circus being led by all the parties is a complete atrocity which does not lend itself to a truth finding mission but a play in the court of public opinions where all facts are spun.

[Neil Lisst]

8. I DON'T believe in the judicial process. It's a mess. It's flawed.

It's a machine designed to grind up the innocent as well as the guilty.

But even if I did, I'd still want the press to do its job and cover the story. I trust having information out there in national media more than I do some country prosecutor running for reelection.

Without a free press to report on cases, the right to trial is almost meaningless.

[JVS]

37. Yeah I agree. The "Court of Public Opinion" is in no way helpful to...

finding the truth.

[Neil Lisst]

40. Sure it is. PUBLIC trials are how we protect the process.

We don't have Star Chamber proceedings any more.

It is essential that the population be informed about cases, and this one is no different than any other case the public finds important.

Without the press to cover trials and keep the public informed, the right to a trial wouldn't mean much.

[JVS]

42. I am not suggesting that trials be made private.

In fact, I think that press coverage should be plentiful during and after the trial, but to have a media blitz before the trial seems questionable at best. I was understanding the "Court of Public Opinion" to be the media coverage that sits and speculates on events that are not happening yet.

[Neil Lisst]

43. the free flow of information keeps prosecutors honest

their unfettered power would be a threat to society otherwise

[JVS]

44. You have a point there, but it seems that our news media uses this...

as fodder for entertainment rather than delivering the information

[Neil Lisst]

45. it's always been that way, at least in America, but now ...

... now it is instantaneous all over the nation. We've always relished trials that have elements of class and gender struggles.

[Poppyseedman]

6. innocent until proven guilty?

isn't that a rather archaic concept?

I mean the MSM has all the pertinent facts for the general population to make correct judgments about judicial cases that have not even been tried yet.

What more do we need ? Evidence? A trial? A jury?

:sarcasm:

Come on. Fry them boys. The MSM already has.

[Neil Lisst]

14. Nancy Grace is building a gallows on her set

just in case they let her be executioner

[Poppyseedman]

16. It's beginning to be hard to tell the regular MSM from the

Daily show or that Saturday Night Live skit they used to do.

[Neil Lisst]

17. It's true! They all look like comedy parodies now.

I watch some of just about everyone on TV news. I've watched Nancy for years about once a week, and she's worse than any hanging judge. Talk about your presumption of guilt!!

[Kazak]

7. I believe...

I'm going to ignore this disgusting media circus frenzy all together and focus on more important matters instead, and let all of the players in this private matter resolve whatever issues there are in obscurity (hopefully).

:shrug:

[Neil Lisst]

18. I submit that public dissemination of information keeps them honest

It keeps the public informed regarding cases the collective awareness rates highest.

I don't think trials mean much unless the press can cover almost every aspect of them.

[marbuc]

12. I believe

in the presumption of innocence, and will withhold judgment of either side at least until the case has been resolved.

Although I sympathize with the victim if a crime has indeed occurred, I believe, as Randi Rhodes does, that this is not news, so I try to think about it as little as possible.

I believe that although both sides have found value in prosecuting the case in the media, I abhor the practice, and wish they would save it for the judge and jury.

[Neil Lisst]

35. I would argue it's important because it's a battleground in society

it pits empathy with victims against the importance of a presumption of innocence

[Inland]

21. I only hesitate to the extent that "presumed innocent" is for courtrooms.

I don't have a presumption of innocence. Rather, I think that fairness and decency prevents one from leaping to any conclusions, and innocence is one of those conclusions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. I don't entirely agree with 3 or 4.

Wrt 3, my understanding is that the prosecution do that, but that the police don't, usually, at least hear in the UK, although I may be wrong.

With regards to 4, I think that if it's legal to do so then both the prosecution and the defence have a moral duty to do so, but I think that there is a strong case to be made that reporting of rape and other similar offences should be heavily restricted by law unless there is a strong public-interest justification (e.g. a public figure is involved).

The defence and the prosecution have a moral duty to fight their corners as strongly as permitted, but I think there's a lot to be said for not permitting them to fight in the court of public opinion as opposed to an actual courtroom.

I agree with 1,2,5 and 6, though.

[Neil Lisst]

30. thanks for commenting

Britain and Canada have stronger laws to protect against excessive pretrial coverage than the US.

[Aristus]

29. Go right ahead.

The only people who have a responsibility to believe innocence until proof of guilt are the members of the jury. I can think them guilty all I want and it won't reduce the possibility of their trial being a fair one by one iota.

[Neil Lisst]

31. you're right. You are free to conclude guilt any time you feel like it.

I'd like to see some proof.

[marbuc]

41. Why do you consider them guilty?

Are they presumed guilty in your mind, or have you seen evidence that leads you to this conclusion? As negative as my preconcieved notions of the Lax players are, the limited exposure that I've gotten to the case tells me the case, as tried in the media, is based on hearsay.

I have no way of knowing what evidence the prosecution has to implicate these kids, or the defense to absolve them. Therefore I cannot make an informed decision on guilt or innocence. I hope justice is done, but am not "rooting" for one side or the other.

[Aristus]

46. It isn't necessarily that I believe them to be guilty.

It's just that I have the right to THINK that they are. Even when someone is patently guilty, like O.J., I hear people say: "Well, you have to consider him innocent until he's proven guilty." My response is: No I don't; the jury has to do that. I'll think whatever I want.

If I believe that the Duke jocks are oversexed, overstimulated, self-important, arrogant rapists, that's my business. (I don't like jocks; a prejudice dating back to junior high). It won't affect their trial for good or ill in any way. I hope they do get a fair trial. It gives me confidence that if for any reason I might be accused of a crime, then I'd get one, too.