There are some very evident ethical issues arising in the case of three Duke students who were found innocent of all sexual assault, kidnapping and rape charges that were brought against them nearly a year ago.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment