Short of being a victim of a heinous crime, there is hardly anything more cruel that can be done to a person than having that person falsely accused of some heinous act or crime that the person did not commit. It is very possible that three Duke students from the lacrosse team, Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans, may be the victims of this cruelty. The bottom line is whether or not the allegations are true. Regardless of what kind of background these three young males have or what they may or may not have done in the past, it is still a travesty if they are indeed innocent from the beginning.
While some people do not care about this case, I find the sociopolitical dynamics fascinating. We live in a society where many right wing people believe that people who play certain sports or come from certain homes are allowed to commit acts that the rest of us would be jailed for. Those acts include beating up people you believe are gay (which Colin Finerty once did), beating up people in general, and abusing women all in the name of "boys being boys." Nevertheless we must reject the urge to convict these three people simply because thousands of others have gotten away with crimes that were covered up by school officials, local police, etc...
It is this boys being boys mentality that has driven right wing conservatives from the beginning to act like the ACLU while defending these 3 lacrosse players. While indeed it may appear that these right wing conservatives are right in their conclusion, I suspect their motives are not rooted in the constitutional protections we all are entitled to.
I have listened to right wing radio, right wing TV, etc... to listen to their comments on this case. And if you thought the ACLU was liberal, these right wing talking heads take the cake. Here are some of the examples:
- Innocent Until Proven Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt- The right wing has mentioned this legal standard time and time again. They are right. However, when it comes to people they don't like being accused of crimes, does the RW support this same standard? Of course not.
- The Brady Rule - The Brady rule requires a prosecutor to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense. The right wing has complained that the prosecutor violated this important rule by withholding DNA evidence. Again, they may be right. But isn't it ironic that RW Supreme Court Justices oppose this rule? And what happens when the rest of us cite support for this? Yes, the RW will call that "liberal." Yet they seem to love liberalism.
- Prosecutorial Abuse of Power - The right wing has complained that the prosecutor in this case has abused his power and is out of control. Again they may be right. However everyday in America, some prosecutor abuses his or her power by going on witchhunts, prosecuting a case based on office winning percentages instead of the facts, etc...
- Fully Investigate Before You Arrest - The right wing has complained that the police should have done a full investigation before tainting a person with an arrest. Again, they are right. However, when the rest of us point out how people are falsely arrested across America on a daily basis when police don't do their due diligence, we get labeled as soft on crime or cop bashers.
- Sue the Hell Out Of Them - While listening to right wing radio, caller after caller advocated that the three young men should be suing Duke and the prosecutor. Again, they are right conceptually. However, when the rest of us point out that the only way to hold people accountable for their wrongdoing is through the courts, right wingers talk about tort regression and the need to restrict people's access to the courts.
- An Arrest Doesn't Mean A Person Did It - The right wing has mentioned this truism as well. But do they apply this same standard to others? Everyday people in America are falsely arrested. What does the Right say about that?
If you go through everything the ACLU stands for in terms of the rights of an accused, the conservative right wing has supported the ACLU's entire agenda. It once again proves that conservatives are only conservatives until it affects them personally.