Comments on: “The Mess at Widener Law School”

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:26:13 +0000

I’m not speaking to the substance of this post. But the notion that someone is “proven innocent” in a criminal trial is just silly. Also, we need to get a handle on the definition of double jeopardy which does not apply here.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:03:15 +0000

In our society’s wish to integrate institutions at the highest level, it set aside minimal standards. The Duke faculty is particularly illustrative as stars of black/woman/gay studies behaved abominably in the Lacrosse Case. Clearly the dean at Widener doesn’t have a clue about how law is to operate in a civilized society.

I remember when my state trooper son-in-law told me that all the black officers he worked with thought OJ innocent. They graduated from trooper school where they studied evidence. They were not drop-outs from dysfunctional schools.

By: Roy B

Roy B — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:18:41 +0000

Certainly a mess. One item that has been commented on is the Marxist bent and the show trials in the USSR and China. However, a major difference here is that in those trials (and in Nazi Germany) the state wrote the script to convict. In Delaware, the prof was cleared, subjected to double jeopardy, cleared a second time, and then punished by the Dean. What is disturbing to me is the Dean’s view of the Law that even should one be found innocent, the Judge at their discretion may convict.