Jacklewis.net is a regular read for me, and it has been for a few years. I swear to you, today I read the absolute dumbest thing ever on a blog, and it was on that site. Oddly enough, it wasn’t a quote of other people.
Now, about Nifong.
Yeah the guy’s a creep, and deserves prison for putting those boys through that just to further his career, although I expect there’ll be some civil suit followed by a career change and the actually criminal acts he committed will be brushed under the rug.
But as wrong as it was to go after these lacrosse players, I’m a little bothered by the continual use of the term “innocent” in reference to them. “Not guilty” is more accurate, since it’s obvious they didn’t do what the stripper claimed they did, but “innocent”? “Innocent” boys don’t pay $800 to have some strung-out prostitute take her clothes off while they get stoned. No one has denied those facts. Had even one of those players had the dignity to refuse to attend such a gathering, he wouldn’t have been dragged into it. Even Reade Seligmann, who apparently left about 20 minutes after the strippers arrived, wound up being arrested as one of three identified by the stripper.
What in the good name of the Lord Jesus Christ does that have to do with anything? The insinuation is that because these boys paid $800 for a few nappy headed hos to come dance for them, they can never be called innocent. I can’t even imagine how a statement could be dumber.
Let’s define one of the primary concepts of law in free societies, and that’s the presumption of innocence.
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to ‘prove’ anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Notice, it doesn’t say the “presumption of not guiltiness.”
That’s right. We presume that if we can’t prove someone committed a crime, they didn’t commit said crime. In some cases, despite the obviousness of their guilt, if we can’t prove it (Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson), they are innocent, case closed.
Hiring two strippers does not mean that the people who hired them raped them. The case was about rape. Since it was not proven that this woman was raped, they are innocent. As of right now, they didn’t do it. Didn’t rape her. Didn’t assault her. Didn’t “get away with it.”
The idea that anyone could have a problem with calling these boys innocent is repugnant, and the fact that Danny Carlton can, without the slightest bit of irony, express outrage that these boys are being called what they are, innocent, is insulting, and downright dumb.
Sorry Danny, but you just don’t get it, and if you do, and you still wrote that, you have problems.
[tags]jacklewis.net, danny carlton, duke, lacrosse, rape, scandal[/tags]