1) Immunity for prosecutors exists for a reason (similar reason as Congressmen having fairly for-reaching immunity)

2) What part of “representative democracy” did you miss? I’m not suggesting the replacement of representative democracy, I’m merely pointing out that, if it is indeed “representative”, then we who are represented are on the hook for the actions of the one representing us. That is part of “representative democracy”.

Charles,

The harm caused by the school: violating their own policies regarding treatment of their paying customers (that would be the students), which is essentially violation of contract. Also, SLANDER (of fairly large scale), and possibly physical intimidation (several of the protests and other actions condoned by the school could quite reasonably by interpreted as threatening).

But really, the slander in and of itself is of sufficient scope to take pretty good care of things, financially speaking.

“It’s not fair to everyone; in fact, it’s unfair to many, possibly even MOST people, but I challenge anyone to come up with a better system.”

Why not allow the perpetrator, in this case Nifong and crew, to bare the burden? I don’t think we need to eliminate representative democracy to solve the problem.

Perhaps a large payout is proper in this case because these kids are rich and white, and the town predominantly middle-class and black? I hope not.

As for Deoxy, the students may be paying customers, but they are also subject to the disciplinary rules of in loco parentis–the University. The team’s seaason was suspended, not all the players. Yes, the coach was asked to resign. And, the accused senior was allowed to graduate. If it costs Duke money, that is the greater injustice, since at the time the situation was not as clear as it is now. So where is the harm caused by the school?

Of course, someone has to pay, right?

Unfortunately, them’s the breaks. The analogy holds quite well, despite the fact that it is much mor expensive and difficult to “divest” yourself of a local government.

It even holds for the federal government. “The people” elect, and “the people” pay the consequences. It’s not fair to everyone; in fact, it’s unfair to many, possibly even MOST people, but I challenge anyone to come up with a better system.

Millenia of human experience has failed to do so. As a famous person (Mark Twain, I think) once said, “Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the other ones.”

The cost of avoiding a liability brought on by a criminal DA would entail selling a home, taking my kids out of school, possibly changing jobs for both me and my wife and leaving friends and family. It could take quite a while before I found a place that was fit for my ‘investment’ since there are other elected officials to consider and with my luck, I’d have to move again after the next election.

You clearly have not remotely followed the facts of the case. The actions of Duke were completely outrageous, repeatedly violating their own stated policies, not to mention slandering the accused students, among other things. They did far FAR more than just not ignore the allegations. Suspending the entire team and firing the coach, for instance, were not rational responses, but at least those responses were at their discretion; their treatmnt of their PAYING CUSTOMERS (that is, the students) was both reprehensible and wrong… and will cost them lots of money, either voluntarily or in court judgement (as their actions have no legal defense).

And Mike is correct in his analogy of the corporation; though one can usually divest one’s self of stock more easily than one can change locations, it is still the same principle.

Of course, I often feel the same frustration about corporate crime as well: the company pays, but the actual person who committed the deed escapes punishment – the CEO in the analogy, Nifong in this case.

That would be said of anything in a representative democracy. A city, like a corporation, is ultimately responsible for the acts of its “shareholders.” Here, the shareholders installed an evil man. If the shareholders of IBM installed an incompetent CEO, no one would cry any tears when those shareholders lost money. The same principle applies.

And those who disapproved of Nifong were free, as they say, to vote with their feet. They remained, and thus they too must suffer the consequences of that choice.

As far as I am concerned, Duke owes the students nothing. Nifong owes everyone.

However, I find the “taxpayers owe the students ” approach to be somewhat hypocritical. Perhaps, the State should shield itself behind sovereign immunity and let Nifong pay. He is the one who truly owes.

The problem is that not all taxpayers voted for the guy. While it may turn out to be the only way to compensate those wronged, you have to recognize that it harms those who voted against him also.

Those chose not to vote deserve what they got.