Home Alone
You know, come to think of it, maybe staying in mom and dad's basement is not such a bad idea for young men. After all, at any time, the press makes it appear that you can be hauled away in the middle of the night on rape charges. It might be best to avoid college, never marry, live at home until you are in your 30's and then go out in the world as a middle aged guy who no one bothers with much anymore. Not a bad plan these days.
posted by Helen at 8:51 AM
33 Comments:
me,
This case does not warrant the kind of press it is getting. It is only being thrown all over the news because it is a bunch of "privileged" white guys so it works up the PC backlash. This serves as an example to other men of what can happen if they engage in any type of party-like behavior. We do not know if these guys are guilty or not--but they are presumed guilty with their names in the paper etc.--even if the allegations are false, their reputation is ruined.
The DA farked it up
by taking them in in the middle of the night vs letting them turn themselves in like they agreed it damages his case
Echoing Dr. Helen's comment about the unwarranted press coverage, did anyone catch these two paragraphs in the News Observer story (linked at Instapundit)?
Throughout Monday, there were many more reporters on the sixth floor of the courthouse than the 18 members of the grand jury panel. Reporters tracked the district attorney's movements in minute detail. Just after noon, Nifong emerged from his office and walked across the hallway to the bathroom.
Reporters surrounded the bathroom door in a crowd that included five television cameras, three still photographers, sound men with boom microphones and at least a dozen print reporters. At the sound of flushing, the group tensed, raised cameras and prepared. Nifong did not emerge with news.
I'm having a hard time keeping up with you, Helen, on this one. Every day in my town the newspaper has a story of someone being arrested for some crime. Most of these people are just poor folks, many with criminal records. But their arrests for murder, robbery, rape, etc., make the newspapers. If you think that only unproven allegations against rich white men are publicized you are indeed way off the mark.
Your comments on here reflect your own bias. What I sense is that you just do not believe a young, black, single mom stripper can be a credible witness against 2 dozen wealthy white boys.
Frankly, given the nature of the allegations and the atmosphere of the city in which this arises, I think it IS news. Yes, its been overdone by the pressbut doesnt the press over-do everything?
Do you know anyone involved with the Duke lacrosse team?
Me:
In a criminal case where the DA wants to arrest a suspect and the DA knows the suspect is represented by an attorney, the police call the attorney and arrange for the suspect to turn himself in. There are no handcuffs or police cruisers involved. Obviously, the DA wanted the Durham public (where it is probably no coincidence that he is running for reelection) to see the "perp walk" of privileged white male Duke students entering the police station in handcuffs. The fact that it occurred at 5 AM isn't relevant because this case has received so much media attention - with reporters camped out for days - that the event was clearly going to be recorded for endless replay on prime-time TV. I realize this is a small point but it's emblematic of how this case is being handled. The point is to disadvantage and humiliate the Duke students.
I don't know if the charges are true. Obviously I want to wait on the evidence to decide, but seeing the DA handle this case they way he has so far makes me more sympathetic to the defendants than I normally would be.
Anonymous @ 11:10:
Of course there are arrests made locally each day in every community but the Duke case isn't a random case getting it's 15 minutes of local fame. I recall few cases (other than the Natalee Holloway case) that have received the national attention this one has. That alone makes it an anomoly. To suggest bias because someone points that out is strange and it surprises me that you can't see the larger issues here.
"What I sense is that you just do not believe a young, black, single mom stripper can be a credible witness against 2 dozen wealthy white boys. "
The point that Anomymous is missing or avoiding is that the case has not yet reached the point where the credibility of the accuser versus the accused comes into play. Dr. Helen is saying that what is happening in Durham comes out of a lynch mob mentality driven by the DA's political ambitions, and that the lynch mob mentality is licensed by bigotry against the accused, and that is is precisely the perceived "privelege" of the accused that is being used to deny them their rights. Anomymous may simply have not understood this, or else is simply being disingenuous. His/her use of racist language - "white boys" versus his/her hagiographic "young, black, single mom" - when they are clearly young men, indicates a clear bias that makes the second interpretation more likely.
"Frankly, given the nature of the allegations and the atmosphere of the city in which this arises, I think it IS news."
What is newsowrthy in this - the allegation that some men raped a stripper? Really? I doubt thta thta is what Anomymous finds so newswrthy, and the reference to the "atmosphere of the city" confirms this suspicion. This is so notable for its value as rub-your-white-nose-in-this. Hint to Anonymous coward, people twigged to this kind of biogotry and racism a long,long time ago. Save it for the undergraduate captive audience that is forced to listen to this tripe and pass the class so they can graduate.
Darren,
I did not mean to imply that the guy was 30 when he left home. I meant that he lived at home in his 30's and then moved sometime later--could be 50 or more! Also, I was being sarcastic in this post, guys often tell me that once they are middle-aged they become sort of a stereotype to people--whatever that means.
I have read some of Kurzweil's work and very much admire it, Glenn and I want to do a podcast on aging with him at some point. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought 30 was old, of course I do not. I tend to be sarcastic in my posts that is not always obvious.
Anonymous 11:10:
Compare this case with the publicity that the recent case where a white NYU student was murdered by a group of young thugs screaming whitey in Harlem. Very little press, immediate acknowlegement that chasing a white guy in front of a car while screaming whitey was not a hate crime--possibly so as not to rile up racial tensions in that area. Apparently, fueling racial tension at Duke is the first agenda of everyone in this current case.
how can these people even get a fair trial, people are assuming that they must be guilty if they are white, etc.. there is no way unles they go to another country,.
thats the problem trial by media, trial by insinuation, it doesnt matter if they are innocent, they will be seen as guilty, as thats what some of the press is putting forth.
Me: anon 11:10
Helen,
I agree with you that the racial aspect of the NYU case should have been noted in the reporting of the incident. The evidence strongly suggests that race was a motive in that crime.
But why then could not race have been a motive in the Duke situation?
OF COURSE the media will treat these situations differenly. We know their political suasion. I think the difference is more a factor of race than of gender.
helen,
The case is being thrown all over the media because it gets ratings. People like to hear about this tytpe of case. it's one of a string of such cases. Natalie Holloway, Sandra Levy, OJ Simpson, the mother who drowned her kids in Carolina, Twana Brawley...
These are like made for TV movies. They will continue to get coverage as long as the public tunes in to the TV station. On Fox News Gretta VanSustern ran Holloway stories night after night, and continued to beat the competition in ratings. Do you think they would do that if they didn't get the ratings?
News has become entertainment, and the public decides what runs with their remotes.
helen,
What the problem with being arrested after a grand jury indictment?
Something else to note is that this is apparently the first case that this DA has handled personally in the past 5 years.
His behavior has been quite sensationalistic by any standard. The reason that his public stance is so worrying is that by publically promoting his certainty of the students' convictions he's effectively convicted them without a trial. Also if similar behavior by DAs ( e.g. Spitzer ) is indicative, these guys will be coerced into a guilty plea, on some charge, regardless of their innocence. The way that you do this is to press all available charges, make some up if you have to, tell the defendent that your office will push for mandatory sentences and consecutive terms. They're then offered a lesser charge to plea to in order to avoid the risk of spending the rest of their lives in prison.
If I were the father of one of these boys I'd be on the phone with the FBI ASAP giving them every piece of evidence I could find on this guy. That would establish a basis for an investigation and give the FBI time to get the proper approvals to put him under surveillance in case he starts extorting the defendents and their families.
http://www.dukenewsense.com/blog/2006/04/possible-e-mail-sting-by-durham-police.html
not a good sign. But don't you suspect that the public would have learned of an incriminating response?
Tricking people into confessions is not a new tactic ... they've just embraced technology now.
I'm still trying to get my mind around the negative DNA tests and the decision to prosecute. Obviously, they had a viable DNA sample from the alleged victim, otherwise there would not be any reason to get samples from all the alleged ... um. what? associates of people at a party in which three people may allegedly have committed a crime? The first question a rational person would ask after getting that negative result would be, "well, whose DNA did we get from the victim?" The second question would be, "if it didn't come from any of these guys, yet the victim says some of these guys did it, might we not want to ponder the possibility that the victim is being less than honest?"
But, then, I'm not a DA, so what do I know?
Are there really this many "anonymous" people in the world? When did parents stop naming their babies?
I love you Vicki.
it doesnt matter anymore if your innocent, you can still be blamed, even i you are found innocent by the courts, to some you still will be guilty.
dr Helen, interesting link http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml. this is another reason why men are not going out, staying at home, but even this can be dangerous.
What Pierce didn’t realize, and what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since the welfare reform legislation of 1996, is that when the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop -- even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father.
mercurior:
um, 30 days is the standard response time required in all civil actions. what's your beef? 30 days should be plenty of time to file a denial of paternity for chrissakes.
Anonymous 12:31,
The point is it is 30 days since you were "notified", which can be as simple as mailing a letter. NOTE: it doesn't have to go to your address, just be mailed. It is interesting that the notification can't seem to make it to you in time for the court hearing (if it ever arrives), but the wage garnishment always makes it.
If it was 30 days from the first appearance in court, it would mean you received the notification, and I would agree with you. This would allow for a denial of paternity using DNA, and is therefore why the law won't be modified to make that happen. Too many people have a vested interest in, and are profiting from, the system in the way it currently exists.
Very little press, immediate acknowlegement that chasing a white guy in front of a car while screaming whitey was not a hate crime--possibly so as not to rile up racial tensions in that area. Apparently, fueling racial tension at Duke is the first agenda of everyone in this current case.
Well you see, the Lacrosse players' friends won't riot and destroy cities over it. The powers that be have also become very solicitous of Muslims, while Christians are becoming second class citizens. Rioting and terrorism seem to be the way to get respect in the 21st century.
It seems we've gone from a demographic hegemony based on constructive ancestral achievement to one based on whose contemporary generation does the most to destroy civilization.
and it is via the last known address, it gets sent there, if you havent lived there, they will say you still got it. and bang your still liable.
It does not matter if he was on vacation, was confused, or (as often happens) didn’t even receive the summons, or if he simply treated the complaint’s deadlines with the same lack of urgency people routinely exhibit toward jury duty summonses -- he’s now the dad. "In California, you don’t even have to have proof of service of the summons!"
"They only are obligated to send it to the last known address
In fact, a March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that "most noncustodial parents appear to be served by ‘substitute’ service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served.
To mercurior and Anonymous 12:31
Why are you discussing the process for extracting money from some poor guy? You should be discussing the length of the woman's jail term. It's called "fraud" for a reason!
Right and wrong are no longer based upon WHAT you do, but instead upon what demographic (i.e. WHO) you belong.
exactly anonymous 9.14.
thats why consistently womens sentencing is lower than a mans for the same crime. there is a perception fostered by the press that these men are guilty, with no evidence, (as has been said bout paternity and the law).. there was no evidence of a crime, and yet they are still being prosecuted. and white men (some seen as priviledged) are the best victims.
innocence, has become he got off from the crime, but he is still guilty. look at OJ simpson, he was found innocent in court. yet he was guilty according to the press and courts..
and the system is being rebuilt to make more discrimination against groups. the presumption of guilt.
check these out.. just imagine if a man did it instead of a woman
http://www.australian-news.com.au/Daniela_Dawes.htm
http://www.australian-news.com.au/Claire_MacDonald.htm
http://www.australian-news.com.au/feminists_judiciary.htm
A 32-year-old woman, whose name was suppressed, walked free from the Western Australian Supreme Court on May 26, 2004 after pleading guilty to four counts of attempting to murder her two daughters, aged two and nine years old. She had attempted to murder her daughters by gassing them in the family car on two separate occasions on June 17, 2003
Mercurior,
You said, "Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge;"
That's how long everybody gets in a civil case. Women, too.
yes, but the thing is, its 30 days since notification. but the notification sometimes doesnt get through, so they send a letter out, it arrives at an address if you dont live there but you did once, and it isnt passed on, you have 30 days from that letter, which you never got.
as one anonymous said**
The point is it is 30 days since you were "notified", which can be as simple as mailing a letter. NOTE: it doesn't have to go to your address, just be mailed. It is interesting that the notification can't seem to make it to you in time for the court hearing (if it ever arrives), but the wage garnishment always makes it.
**
Mercurior,
Yes. You are correct. It's 30 days since notification. And that applies to everyone - men and women. One can argue over the reasonableness of the rule, but we must acknowledge it applies to all.
Mercurior, anonymous 6:59 is being deliberately disingenuous with his comment(s) of "30 days, 30 days, 30 days, ..." and is deliberately ignoring the point that both you and I made: that if you are not notified, or the notification arrives after the 30 days, you do not get a chance to exercise your "30 days". And as I noted, mailing a letter counts as "notification", and a bill requiring *proof of service* was defeated (hmm, wonder why).
If you do not appear in court within your "30 days", you then have a *default judgment* applied against you, which is why there is a real incentive to not have your "notification" arrive. However, as I noted previously, the garnishment (default judgment) will always arrive.
Anonymous 6:28,
Correct. And both men and women face the same 30 day rule.
18成人影城18成人影城18成人影城18成人影城18成人影像18成人影像18成人影像18成人影像18成人影像7x7美媚色色網7x7美媚色色網7x7美媚色色網淫窟淫窟淫窟
Post a Comment
<< Home