The Battle Of The Duke Rape Case

Mr. Nifong from the beginning of the investigation seemed to have his mind set on convicting these white males of the allegations they faced from the accuser. The unethical manner in which Mike Nifong proceeded in the investigation tested the judicial system. The tactics that were used in the case undermined that you are innocent until proven guilty. A Duke was facing a crisis little did the judicial system in North Carolina know that they were about to have their work cut out for them as Mr. Nifong continued his journey to find these three lacrosse players guilty. According to

There are several factors to consider when examining the situation of publishing the Rolling Stone UVA rape story. The three theories used to examine more closely the ethical decision the editor had when publishing the story are Kantian perspective, virtue ethics and the Utilitarianism approach, as well as the pros and cons of the situation.

One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or wrong forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions.

A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?

District Attorney Michael Nifong acknowledged and offered a full and unqualified apology for his crusade to convict three innocent white Duke University students who belonged to the lacrosse team of raping a black woman in March 2006. Nifong acknowledged there had been “no credible evidence” of their guilt. In fact there had been exculpatory evidence that he had quashed. His apology was rendered to a judge who later sentenced him to one day in jail and a $500. fine for contempt of court. He could have received thirty days (Prosecutorial Indiscretion, 2008).

The Duke Lacrosse team’s story illustrates how a single lie can set off a storm of racial and status related tension that has been simmering for years. The events that took place can be best described by the ideas associated with the Conflict Theory Approach to socialization. The clash of white versus black, rich versus poor, and privileged or entitled versus normal, made this the perfect opportunity for media outlets to shed light on this idea of entitlement in society. Ultimately, turning what was supposed to be a criminal investigation into a full on status war within Durham, North Carolina and communities across the nation. This snap judgment of guilt that was portrayed throughout the media without the presence of facts or real evidence,

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

In one case, the University of Minnesota basketball team was playing a game in Madison, Wisconsin.  A woman met one of the players and agreed to go back to his hotel.  Once there they were joined by two of his teammates.  They imprisoned her for three hours and repeatedly raped her.  The players were found not guilty.  In Glen Ridge, New Jersey, four high-school athletes, all of them former football teammates, have been charged with wielding a small baseball bat and a broomstick to rape a 17-year old slightly retarded girl (Ekanzi).

The Steubenville and Glen Ridge rape cases are two very similar cases. The perpetrators were football student athletes with promising futures and the victims were teenage girls whose capability of consenting to the acts done to them were questioned. One of the victims was seventeen-years old and had an intelligence quotient of 64 and the reading comprehension of a second grader. The second victim was sixteen-years old and was publicly assaulted while she was completely intoxicated. This paper will discuss each victim and their perpetrators, as well as the trial sentencing and prosecution. It will explore the different reactions from the community and the debate over the victim’s responsibility leading towards the incident. In both rape

Miscarriages of justices occur due to many variables including faulty or wrong confessions, faulty identifications, wrongful DNA evidence, and the police’s overreach of power. On February 9, 1978, a student from the College of William and Mary, located in Williamsburg, Virginia was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. When the police arrived at the scene, she described her assailant as an African-American male about 5’6 in height and weighing around 145. Having gathered this information, the victim agreed to identify her assailant through photo arrays at the police station. Bennett Barbour was identified arrested and in the span of about two months was charged with rape on April 14, 1978. Despite having an alibi, not matching the victim’s description, and having brittle bone disease Barbour was declared guilty by a jury. Barbour’s case is representative of the many cases in which wrongful eyewitness testimony produces miscarriages of justice. Bennett Barbour served 5 years in prison and 29 years of parole until he was cleared of his charges due to DNA evidence when the Virginia Supreme Court cleared his charges.

America stands by traditional notions where rape culture is the norm and revolves around society. In particular, when a woman is raped, their actions prior to the incident are usually accounted for their fate of being sexually assaulted. Lately in America, there has been a controversy over women being victim blamed by legal authority in rape cases. These women are slut shammed for allegedly “asking for it” by being intoxicated and having the intention to “have fun”. Because of these accusations of allegedly seeking to engage sexually, rape victims are blamed for initiating the sexual act. An ongoing controversial rape case is the Stanford rape trial of Brock Turner, where the victim was sexually assaulted while unconscious near a dumpster. Turner was convicted for sexual assault, however was only incarcerated for three months. This has recently caused uproar due to justice and retribution not being equally served. The incident occurred near a university campus party; where alcohol was involved and memory loss was present. In addition, she was rushed to the hospital as a rape victim and was examined. Despite complying to use a rape kit and be evaluated, the victim’s accountability is undermined by the leniency of treatment in rape charges. When examining linguistic features of both parties’ written statements, several factors can be analyzed such as each participant’s stance and the credibility of their accounts. In addition, when dissecting a victim’s written account,

The DNA from the saliva was a perfect match with the DNA from the semen collected from the rape victims. Puetz, the investigator on the case defends the constitutionality of his evidence-gathering methods; the courts, he says, have held that once you've put out your trash, you've waived your right to keep the contents private, and "I don't see why the same wont hold true for saliva."(Adler).

Recently while reading Rolling Stone and looking for an article for this paper, and came across an article called “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” In summary, a freshman at the University of Virginia was at a frat party and her date was a member of that certain frat. She chose against drinking which is uncommon in most rape cases that occur on campuses. He later asks her to join him upstairs, and being an innocent naïve girl she decided to follow him. As soon as she entered the dark room and he did not turn on the lights she knew that something was wrong. Soon after she heard many different voices in the room and after seven different frat boys did horrid things to her she understood that this was something that some of these boys were doing this as an initiation into that frat. Of course, her friends who were so-called ‘loyal’ to their college urged her to keep quiet for fear that “she may never be allowed in a frat again” or “put a bad light on the university.” Furthermore, the UVA is under a federal investigation to try to determine if there have been other cases of rape that may have been ‘swept under the rug.’ In this essay I want to investigate the psychology of rape and the rapist, why it happens largely in college campuses and specifically fraternities, and also to understand the “rape culture.”

When dealing with other types of evidence such as hairs and fibers, tool marks, video footage, or even a weapon used at a crime scene; it can be challenging connecting the evidence to the suspect or even coming up with a suspect. These forms of evidence have been allowed in court in many cases and have also convicted many innocent people. Years later, their cases have been re-opened with new DNA evidence and have set the innocent free. According to the Innocence Project, Randolf Arledge was accused and convicted for murder. This article states that, “in 2011, they secured DNA testing of the physical evidence with the cooperation of the Navarro County District Attorney’s Office. The testing included hair samples from the hairnet and washings from the victim’s pubic hairs.” (Innocence Project , n.d.) With these findings it exonerated Arledge revealing the real perpetrator known as David Sims. Another case that was also exonerated due to later DNA findings occurred in 2003. “A Virginia man was released from prison after a post-conviction. DNA test proved that he did not rape a nursing student in 1981. The man spent two decades in prison after being convicted of breaking into the women’s apartment and raping her. Two juries failed to reach a verdict, but the third jury found him guilty.” (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). The argument at hand is many feel DNA analysis is not most effective, when it has become the one form of evidence that have saved people’s lives.

Rape is defined as the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised multiple times over the years, and they vary from state to state. Most states choose to label the crime of rape as a sexual assault. Sexual assault is divided into three degrees: first degree, second degree, and third degree. A person is guilty of rape in the first degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse: with another at least four years younger than the offender; or with another person by force and against the will of the other person. A person is guilty of rape in the second degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person: by force and against the will of the other