Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

NY Times and the Duke lacrosse case, cont’d

Now it’s Kurt Andersen calling out the Gray Lady on its dreadful reporting (“Rape, Justice, and the ‘Times’”, New York, Oct. 16). See Aug. 30, etc.

Now it’s Kurt Andersen calling out the Gray Lady on its dreadful reporting (“Rape, Justice, and the ‘Times’”, New York, Oct. 16). See Aug. 30, etc.

Filed under: ,

6 Comments

  • It’s inherent in the system, that the prosecutors will never admit any possibility of being wrong and allow the preponderance of evidence to rationally guide them. They seize on a conclusion then race toward finding the necessary interpretation of the evidences they can find, neglecting to find anything to the contrary. They’re not so much planting or destroying evidence actively, as using their myopia to selectively pick and choose the data.

    Why is it that prosecutors fight tooth and nail DNA retesting, then fight on after exonorating results?

    • By nevins

  • Nice of them to notice. Of course, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together noticed 5-10 years ago, at least.

    • By Deoxy

  • It’s all because for too many prosecutors, it’s about winning and losing. If only more people were actually honorable, and were interested in truth and justice and all of that other nonsense… But conviction rate is what makes for good job performance reviews, promotions, electability statistics, etc.

    • By MF

  • “But conviction rate is what makes for good job performance reviews”

    In some ways, that’s good – being takn to court, even if you are innocent and shown to be so, is time- and money-consuming (for the state, as well). A truly excellent prosecutor would be good at weeding out guilt and innocence and only bring winnable cases against the guilty.

    Unfortunately, it tends to be reduced to “bringing all winnable cases that won’t get me into political truoble”, which is bad.

    • By Deoxy

  • “But conviction rate is what makes for good job performance reviews”

    In some ways, that’s good…

    I know what you’re saying, and I agree with the general thinking behind it. But the problem is that too many are interested in a high conviction rate regardless of the truth of the situation. They don’t prosecute the cases that are a little weak, but where it’s pretty obvious the accused really did it, because they don’t want to risk losing. Or they prosecute a case and know, deep down, that the accused is innocent but that the evidence seems to point the finger at him or her.

    And in this case, it’s a little different. He wants to win his case, but more than anything it was a vile effort at getting his name in the papers because he was seeking political office, in spite of the high likelihood that the boys really are innocent.

    I hope the boys come after this prosecutor with all they have (or at least do whatever is within the legal boundaries), because the prosecutor has known all along that these guys didn’t do it, but has kept pressing because he wants to make his name. Don’t be surprised that he drops the case a week before Election Day, indicating that new evidence has come to light that demonstrates their innocence, or something like that. Again, he gets his name in the papers and comes off looking like a good guy (by the uninformed).

    I can tell you this – he’s a rattlesnake, and he wouldn’t get my vote regardless of his party affiliation or stance on the issues.

    • By MF

  • MF

    The duke 3 made Mike Nifong famous with the heinous crime that was committed. He is only seeking justice that some are bent on ignoring. You people have been duped by the duke 3 and it was own choice to make. This case will go on to trial and Mike Nifong will get a conviction and a jury will sentenced them to prison. Count on it!