Duke Lacrosse Case
The Duke Lacrosse Team and the Prosecutor
Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………5
Impact on Stakeholders……………………………………………………………………….5-8
Outcome and Fairness of Punishment………………………………………………………8-10
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………10-13
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………14
References……………………………………………………………………………………15-16
Abstract
The Duke Lacrosse team and the prosecutor were involved in a racially driven rape case at Duke University in Durham, NC in 2006. The focus of the investigation by the District Attorney was to convict three of the members of the team with first-degree sexual offense, kidnapping, and the rape of an African American female stripper. The purpose of this paper, is to explain where the judicial responsibility of a prosecutor failed, how race can play a major factor in how a case is being handled and how justice was served by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. By the end of this paper, the reader will have a better understanding of the series of events that took place in the Duke Lacrosse rape case and how the three white males had everyone against them until their names were cleared of all charges.
Introduction
The Duke University lacrosse rape case in 2006 impacted the prestigious institution of learning that is known for academics and athletics. This turn of events for a nationally ranked team shocked the community and the nation. When three Caucasian members of the team Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans were charged with rape, kidnapping, and sexual offense on an African American stripper, this became a racially biased case. The district attorney Mike Nifong jumped to conclusions to convict these members of the lacrosse team and some feel that his decision was politically driven
Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………5
Impact on Stakeholders……………………………………………………………………….5-8
Outcome and Fairness of Punishment………………………………………………………8-10
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………10-13
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………14
References……………………………………………………………………………………15-16
Abstract
The Duke Lacrosse team and the prosecutor were involved in a racially driven rape case at Duke University in Durham, NC in 2006. The focus of the investigation by the District Attorney was to convict three of the members of the team with first-degree sexual offense, kidnapping, and the rape of an African American female stripper. The purpose of this paper, is to explain where the judicial responsibility of a prosecutor failed, how race can play a major factor in how a case is being handled and how justice was served by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. By the end of this paper, the reader will have a better understanding of the series of events that took place in the Duke Lacrosse rape case and how the three white males had everyone against them until their names were cleared of all charges.
Introduction
The Duke University lacrosse rape case in 2006 impacted the prestigious institution of learning that is known for academics and athletics. This turn of events for a nationally ranked team shocked the community and the nation. When three Caucasian members of the team Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans were charged with rape, kidnapping, and sexual offense on an African American stripper, this became a racially biased case. The district attorney Mike Nifong jumped to conclusions to convict these members of the lacrosse team and some feel that his decision was politically driven
References: Buckler, K., Cullen, F., & Unnever, J. (2007). Citizen assessment of local criminal courts: Does fairness matter? Journal and Criminal Justice, 35(5), 524-536. doi: 10.1016/j.crimjus.2007.07.005 Buettner, C., Khurana, A., & Slesnick, N Butler, J. (2012). Chapter 18: Legal aspects of DNA testing and the scientific expert in court. Advance Topics in Forensics DNA Typing: Methodology, 515-547. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374513-2.00018-x Espinoza, R., & Willis-Esquenda, C Fortunato, J. (2008). Restoring a reputation: The Duke University lacrosse scandal. Public Relations Review, 34(2), 116-123. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.006 Franklin, T Franklin, T. (2010). Community influence on prosecutorial dismissals: A multilevel analysis of case and county level factors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 693-701. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.043 Garoupa, N Pyrek, K. (2007). DNA: Convicting the guilty, exonerating the innocent. Forensic Science Under Seige, 291-340. doi: 10.1016/B978-012370861-8/50013-9 Tetlock, P., Visser, P., Singh, R., Polifroni, M., Scott, A., Elson, S., Mazzocco, P., & Rescober, P Wilson, D., & Barstow, D. (2007). All Charges dropped in Duke Case. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/us/12duke.html?ref=dukelacrossesexualassaultcase Wilson, D., & Glater, J. (2006). Files from Duke rape case give details but no answers. Retrieved from http://today.duke.edu/showcase/mmedia/pdf/nytimes825.pdf