Duke to forfeit games to Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's

[nyc94]

My understanding of the law is that to get a warrant for the white members of the team the police or district attorney needs compelling evidence that the attackers were in fact on the lacrosse team.  The statement of the victim is enough in this case but you have to wonder why the team captains would go out on a limb and say the DNA will exonerate the team.  

[quote nytimes]A statement attributed to the team's captains — Matt Zash, David Evans, Dan Flannery and Bret Thompson — said the team had cooperated with the police. "We have provided authorities with DNA samples," it said. "The understanding is that the results of the DNA testing will be available sometime next week. The DNA results will demonstrate that these allegations are absolutely false."[/quote]

[DeltaOne81]

[quote nyc94]... but you have to wonder why the team captains would go out on a limb and say the DNA will exonerate the team.  [/quote]

Yeah, I wondered this too. But considering a portion of the team may end up facing aiding-and-abetting charges for refusing to speak to authorities about it, I can't help but think that we're dealing with a bunch of guys stupid enough to think that if they just close their eyes and shut their mouths, it'll go away.

[billhoward]

[quote Robb][quote nyc94]The article doesn't mention if the DNA samples were voluntary or court ordered.  I also don't think it mentioned if the 46 players represents the entire roster orr if there were others besides lax players present.[/quote]
Nope - there are 47 on the roster.  The only one who wasn't tested is black, and the rapists were white.

Race is a legitimate identifying characteristic.  I can't understand the thinking (Bill) that we should be willfully blind to the most obvious distinguishing characteristic in the name of PC.  What's next - can't say that the perpetrator of a crime was old or fat or male or female?  Sheesh.[/quote]

It's profiling and police departments who use it have been hammered in court. Perhaps we're blinded here because it's 47 white guys hauled in for testing, rather than 47 black guys roped in and the 1 white guy at the party let off. What's happened in the past was this:

Based on race as the only identifier of a suspect, police would cast a wide dragnet and only pull over black people. Black guy in a jacket and tie carrying a briefcase, black kid in baggy jeans and expensive Reebooks, all pulled over. By coincidence, I just sat at dinner last night next to a prosector in the Dallas DA's office which installed video cameras in every police car so there's a record of the officer's conduct (as well as the stopped person's) but also in case there's a question as to whether an unusual number of minorities are being pulled over in racially diverse areas. If the camera goes down, the cops have to fill out a report on every stop indicating the apparent race of the people stopped. They recognize profiling is a big legal problem.

Suppose this incident happened on a college fraternity row and by some mechanism the soon-to-be victim showed up so drunk she didn't even know what frat house she was in. Would you take 47 times 10 or 15 DNA samples from every white fraternity brother? Make the entire Duke Caucasian community submit? Coach K too? Yes, that's absurd, but some people might think testing four dozen people is high, too.

It sounds as if the police took a shortcut here. They didn't apparently take intermediate steps to disqualify some suspects and then, say, compel their testimony. Is this going to taint the case if it goes to trial?

My sympathies are with the victim, if what the Ralegh papers reported is accurate. (My earlier post was critical of the paper's failure to say if there was anything descriptive beyond color such as height, facial hair, blemishes, clothing.) I think the Duke lacrosse team as a group acted irresponsibly, and so long as the team bands together and apparently stonewalls the investigation, the team needs to be (and is) sanctioned by the university. Even if there are individuals who can be singled out and charged, if there was a crime (the team captains issued a statement that DNA tests will show there was no crime), then it wouldn't be inappropriate to call off the season, not just suspend it, because it happened at was essentially an all-Duke-lacrosse party, not just something where three players were out on their own. (Remember the two Union hockey players who misbehaved badly, on their own, and were suspended, but not the whole hockey team.)

It's probably appropriate that the season is temporarily suspended for now, not cancelled, in case there turns out to be some huge misunderstanding, such as that there really was no crime.

This is not going to turn out as honorably as Cornell's Fifth Down football game, but Duke should try to salvage some sense of decency here. The most honorable thing might be for the team itself to vote an end to the season.

[nyc94]

Testing the white members of the team is fine if the police have a witness (e.g. the victim) that says the attackers were white members of the team.  Where I am afraid they will run into trouble is how the victim knew the attackers were definitely on the team.  If there were only 47 men present and they were wearing their Duke jerseys there would be little room to challenge the warrant.  If there were non-lax players at the party. . .

[Ken\'70]

The team was already punished for the party and underage drinking by the forfeiture of two games (although the NCAA is said to be handling them as "no contests" rather than forfeits).

Aren't you jumping the gun by assuming that what is alleged actually happened?  You're certainly in the majority on this as there is no question, in the media for example, that when there's a dispute between a black female and 46 white males the presumption of truth always goes to the former.

The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.

If team members are guilty, they'll get and deserve punishment.  If they're not guilty, they'll still get punished.  The DA is on a crusade.

[billhoward]

[quote nyc94]Testing the white members of the team is fine if the police have a witness (e.g. the victim) that says the attackers were white members of the team.  Where I am afraid they will run into trouble is how the victim knew the attackers were definitely on the team.  If there were only 47 men present and they were wearing their Duke jerseys there would be little room to challenge the warrant.  If there were non-lax players at the party. . .[/quote]

DNA testing - a snip of the hair? - is non-invasive, unlike a blood sample, so is there a lesser requirement for compelling it? Does it require a court order? It appears here the players agreed voluntarily regardless. You have to wonder if they had (good?) counsel early on. Not so they can beat the rap, but in case the case turns more serious than they perhaps first anticipated. Or in case they should opt for a plea, there's less evidence hanging over their heads.

[ugarte]

I'm going to respond to both of your posts at once, if you don't mind.

[quote billhoward]It's profiling and police departments who use it have been hammered in court. Perhaps we're blinded here because it's 47 white guys hauled in for testing, rather than 47 black guys roped in and the 1 white guy at the party let off.[/quote]
You are being a little dramatic. The accusation wasn't "I was raped by three white guys." The accusation was much more specific: "I was raped by three white men on the Duke lacrosse team." When approached as part of the investigation, all members of the team declined to talk to the police. The result is a limited group of suspects: 46 players. That is a small enough size to manage an investigation and to conduct preliminary DNA analysis. It ain't profiling. Whether it is enough to get 46 warrants for DNA samples depends a lot on the attitude of the judge toward the 6th Amendment.

[q]DNA testing - a snip of the hair? - is non-invasive, unlike a blood sample, so is there a lesser requirement for compelling it? Does it require a court order? It appears here the players agreed voluntarily regardless.[/q]
DNA testing in this case was reportedly done by swabbing the inside of their cheeks. That is still enough to require a warrant and a court order if the suspect doesn't voluntarily comply. The standard for getting a blood sample is usually higher than that required for less invasive tests - in practice if not strictly in law. Balancing rights analysis and all that.

[billhoward]

[quote Ken'70]The team was already punished for the party and underage drinking by the forfeiture of two games (although the NCAA is said to be handling them as "no contests" rather than forfeits).

Aren't you jumping the gun by assuming that what is alleged actually happened?  You're certainly in the majority on this as there is no question, in the media for example, that when there's a dispute between a black female and 46 white males the presumption of truth always goes to the former.

The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.

If team members are guilty, they'll get and deserve punishment.  If they're not guilty, they'll still get punished.  The DA is on a crusade.[/quote]

Jumping the gun? My post had so many if-the-story-is-as-claimed qualifiers, I was about to ask Age to add a [footnote] [/footnote] formatting option.

If this goes to trial, the witness is going to have some issues with her background. Still: Even an exotic dancer ought to have the legal hope that she can take her clothes off and dance without getting raped (if that is what happened).

Rape cases make for tricky jury selections. I remember covering courts in Massachusetts and seeing the then-DA excuse on challenge (and if not for cause, with a peremptory challenge) every black male in the jury pool because, as the defense attorney said privately, "The DA believes there's no such thing as rape to black man." You get some less affluent female minorities on the jury, they may identify with the victim. Blue collar whites might feel little sympathy for privileged white kids, less for the victim.

A public trial is probably something Duke would just as soon avoid, although it can't force the students/players to cop pleas.

Hard to believe the laws allow you to hold underage drinking over peoples' heads. Stupid law with good intentions (fewer DUI accidents).

There's a made-for-TV movie in the offing.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Ken'70]
The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.[/quote]

Hooker? You mean stripper right.

What she does is no more relevant to the (alleged) crime than their "privilege, etc." However, taking stripper and turning it into hooker, worries me that you're counting the (alleged) media bias with your own.

[CUinDurham]

As an alum of both CU and duke, I think there is a misunderstanding in this forum of the workings of Duke.  The Nytimes article describing the natural confrontation between their townies and Duke and between races there is quite true.  It is not just a matter of townies taking seats at Lynah, and kids coming down from the Hill to annoy townies at Wegman's.  

In Durham there really is a general sense among many locals that the university and its members belittle and manipulate the locals.  Coupled with the reality that much of Duke (including the lax team) is northern and perhaps insensitive to southern ways, many locals (black and white) don't trust Duke kids.  Furthermore, duke has a reputation of providing privilege to its students, regardless of whether they are Coach K's players or simply chemistry geeks.  There is no doubt that the school will stand by the players as long as it can as can be seen from Brodhead's emphasis on the presumption of innocence (whehter that is right or wrong).  And I would assume that the real truth won't likely arise.

Remember, this is a school that last year had a very quiet steroids scandal within its second-rate baseball team.  Even then, Duke circled the wagons as long as possible.  I doubt there will be any moral stand like the memorable 5th down incident unless it is forced upon them.

[Ken\'70]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote Ken'70]
The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.[/quote]

Hooker? You mean stripper right.

What she does is no more relevant to the (alleged) crime than their "privilege, etc." However, taking stripper and turning it into hooker, worries me that you're counting the (alleged) media bias with your own.[/quote]

From the March 25 edition of the Raleigh News&Observer:

""The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week.

"It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule."

And exactly what else would "one-on-one" dates be a euphemism for?

[DeltaOne81]

Well that's not exactly an article any - or most - of us had read.

Either way, as I said, her profession (if even illegal) is no more relevant to the facts of the case then their privilege.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But this isn't a court of law, and the sympathy does tend to go towards the alleged rape victim. But we'll see. If they did it, they deserve to be punished severly - and those who protected them punished as well. If they didn't, then lacking any proof of a cover up for anyone who may have done so, they deserve to go on with their lives.

[ugarte]

[quote DeltaOne81]Well that's not exactly an article any - or most - of us had read.[/quote]OK, I disagree with a lot of what Ken has written on this thread (too much white-men-have-it-so-hard-in-this-cruel,-cruel-world for my tastes), but this should have been an apology. You accused him of anti-stripper moralist bias when, in fact, the victim was a prostitute.

Either way, as I said, her profession (if even illegal) is no more relevant to the facts of the case then their privilege.

That depends on how the case shakes out. While it is certainly illegal (and possible) to rape a prostitute, refusing to pay after consensual, if contracted for, sex doesn't convert the act to rape. The St. John's basketball players didn't get prosecuted for just this reason. (Some of them still got kicked out of school, though, because solicitation of a prostitute for a gangbang isn't exactly part of the Catholic mission of the university...)

[DeltaOne81]

[quote ugarte][quote DeltaOne81]Well that's not exactly an article any - or most - of us had read.[/quote]OK, I disagree with a lot of what Ken has written on this thread (too much white-men-have-it-so-hard-in-this-cruel,-cruel-world for my tastes), but this should have been an apology. You accused him of anti-stripper moralist bias when, in fact, the victim was a prostitute.[/q]

I can't really blame myself, because I read 5 things in the press saying she's a stripper and then read one thing on a message board calling her a hooker without backing it up.

Nonetheless, I was wrong about his bias, and I apologize for accusing him of such.

Either way, as I said, her profession (if even illegal) is no more relevant to the facts of the case then their privilege.

That depends on how the case shakes out. While it is certainly illegal (and possible) to rape a prostitute, refusing to pay after consensual, if contracted for, sex doesn't convert the act to rape. The St. John's basketball players didn't get prosecuted for just this reason. (Some of them still got kicked out of school, though, because solicitation of a prostitute for a gangbang isn't exactly part of the Catholic mission of the university...)[/q]

Well, alright, now you're just being picky.

Yes, her professional is irrelevant to the facts, unless its relevant to the facts

But if that was the case, the team wouldn't put out a statement saying that the DNA will exonerate them. Because some of them would know full well that it wouldn't. At least, I'd think. But who knows.

They did stupid things to put themselves in a bad situation and are paying for it. If there was criminal activity on top of stupid activity, then they should pay for that too. If not, then they've served their time. We'll see.


Edits: stupid quote formatting

[ugarte]

[quote DeltaOne81]But if that was the case, the team wouldn't put out a statement saying that the DNA will exonerate them. Because some of them would know full well that it wouldn't. At least, I'd think. But who knows.[/quote]
People do stupid things all the time.

Apologies in advance for the inevitable thread drift to follow...