Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
New Analysis from K.C. Johnson on newest Book; MUST READ - K.C. Book Review
Topic Started: Jan 26 2009, 03:27 AM (1,419 Views)
Lodge Pro 345
Member Avatar

.
darby
Jan 26 2009, 12:49 AM


Review: Race to Injustice


K.C. hits another round tripper...



THANKS DARBY!

Please check out the Analysis by K.C. Johnson at link above provided by Darby.

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lodge Pro 345
Member Avatar

.
A regular person may have a hard time figuring out how evidence was fabricated and false affidavits were presently, false testimony was given to a grand jury -- and there were no criminal charges. There was no criminal investigation. No one lost their jobs, really. Not the people that penned their names on those documents, swore to those affidavits, and gave that testimony. Remember, Nifong wasn't even allowed in the Grand Jury.

I can't help but escape the idea that Mike Nifong was enough for many people. That almost seems like a calculation made, throw them Nifong. Nifong was retiring and he took a one day laugher.

Based on the portrayals of the Book:

Where is the outrage about the racism that fueled this case and rendered every overwhelming revelation as unimportant and no match for the racial politics that so many believed had to be served, at any cost.

Walk the Duke campus, as I have done, and ask someone about Mark Gottlieb or Ben Himan - they will have no earthly idea who they are.

If the Duke Lacrosse case had been 3 black Duke football players falsely prosecuted in the same fashion - everyone would know their names. Duke would have 30 classes on this subject. Professors would've abandoned their careers to speak on the subject and teach lessons about it. The Justice Department would've been involved and then some. It safe to say that there would've been 10 times as many books written on the case.

Seems to me it's hardly worth writing a book if you're not going to break clean and tell the truth about the subject.

As K.C. states in his brilliant analysis, "bluntness is in order."

.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

I see nothing in KC's analysis that would indicate my initial suspicions were in error.

The book is a pile of shit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

abb
Jan 26 2009, 05:58 AM
I see nothing in KC's analysis that would indicate my initial suspicions were in error.

The book is a pile of shit.
So did you skip the first eight paragraphs of the review? Johnson begins his ninth paragraph with this: “The only disappointing legal essay came from Indiana University law professor Aviva Orenstein, whose CV shows an expertise in feminist jurisprudence.” Sure seems to imply that KC was not disappointed by the other legal essays.

Yes, the more “political” essays he lampoons. This is not surprising. But it does not result in his stooping to anything like your characterization of the book. Nor should it, given his (actual) reading of the legal essays.

I am still waiting for my copy of the book to arrive. More later . . .

:biggrin:
Edited by Duke parent 2004, Jan 26 2009, 07:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Duke parent 2004
Jan 26 2009, 07:37 AM
abb
Jan 26 2009, 05:58 AM
I see nothing in KC's analysis that would indicate my initial suspicions were in error.

The book is a pile of shit.
So did you skip the first eight paragraphs of the review? Johnson begins his ninth paragraph with this: “The only disappointing legal essay came from Indiana University law professor Aviva Orenstein, whose CV shows an expertise in feminist jurisprudence.” Sure seems to imply that KC was not disappointed by the other legal essays.

Yes, the more “political” essays he lampoons. This is not surprising. But it does not result is his stooping to anything like your characterization of the book. Nor should it, given his (actual) reading of the legal essays.

I am still waiting for my copy of the book to arrive. More later . . .

:biggrin:
KC is a published author. He has to be more circumspect in his criticisms.

Me, I'm just a cynical, mean, hard-assed Blog Hooligan. I was witness to a attempted lynching which as of this moment is still trying to be explained away by Marxist lawyers.

I want to see some guts spilled on the other side. I want to see them suffer. I want them to go through the same hell that the Lax families had to endure and are still enduring.

I want retribution.

:D Egr93:
Edited by abb, Jan 26 2009, 08:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

When the co-author of Until Proven Innocent speaks, I listen.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

abb
Jan 26 2009, 07:49 AM
Duke parent 2004
Jan 26 2009, 07:37 AM
abb
Jan 26 2009, 05:58 AM
I see nothing in KC's analysis that would indicate my initial suspicions were in error.

The book is a pile of shit.
So did you skip the first eight paragraphs of the review? Johnson begins his ninth paragraph with this: “The only disappointing legal essay came from Indiana University law professor Aviva Orenstein, whose CV shows an expertise in feminist jurisprudence.” Sure seems to imply that KC was not disappointed by the other legal essays.

Yes, the more “political” essays he lampoons. This is not surprising. But it does not result is his stooping to anything like your characterization of the book. Nor should it, given his (actual) reading of the legal essays.

I am still waiting for my copy of the book to arrive. More later . . .

:biggrin:
KC is a published author. He has to be more circumspect in his criticisms.

Me, I'm just a cynical, mean, hard-assed Blog Hooligan. I was witness to a attempted lynching which as of this moment is still trying to be explained away by Marxist lawyers.

I want to see some guts spilled on the other side. I want to see them suffer. I want them to go through the same hell that the Lax families had to endure and are still enduring.

I want retribution.

:D Egr93:
Well said, abb. Your first analysis was to the point and shows you don't need a lot of
words to call a spade a spade. Sometimes you know on the surface if a substance needs flushing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Well, I will keep my promise not to comment on another book without reading it all, but I have to comment again on the one KC reviewed. It's a new thread. Duke parent 2004 properly points out that KC faults only one of the legal essays. My concern is that the whole book is being adopted as a text in a good many classes, according to what we have been told. How many of the teachers will emphasize the responsible essays (most of the legal essays)? How will most teachers deal with the remainder of the essays? How many teachers will adopt the new book as the ONLY source book when they teach the Duke "rape" case (as the new book authorizes them to call it)? A syllabus or two may show up online before long. (Circumlocution: Zeta discourages you from using "syllabi".) It sounds to me still as if abb is right to suspect that this book will be used in ways that evade and distort the true lessons of the hoax and the frame.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darby

Lodge Pro 345
Jan 26 2009, 04:01 AM
.
A regular person may have a hard time figuring out how evidence was fabricated and false affidavits were presently, false testimony was given to a grand jury -- and there were no criminal charges. There was no criminal investigation. No one lost their jobs, really. Not the people that penned their names on those documents, swore to those affidavits, and gave that testimony. Remember, Nifong wasn't even allowed in the Grand Jury.

I can't help but escape the idea that Mike Nifong was enough for many people. That almost seems like a calculation made, throw them Nifong. Nifong was retiring and he took a one day laugher.

Based on the portrayals of the Book:

Where is the outrage about the racism that fueled this case and rendered every overwhelming revelation as unimportant and no match for the racial politics that so many believed had to be served, at any cost.

I agree..

I'll expand a bit on a comment I left at DIW.

I'm reminded of a time many years ago when a colleague conceived of a new process in our company. He did the analysis and sold the idea to the budgeteers and received funding. I was interested in the process and monitored it's progress over the first year or so if it's inception. I was constantly hounded by the colleague about how his group was doing so well as he compiled the cost and productivity results used to measure its success.

I was aware of many costs overruns that had not been included in the stellar results he was reporting ( accidents, equipment damage, property damage, etc. ). One day I had enough of his bragging and simply told him "it's easy to look good, when you measure yourself". Needless to say after an outside audit the process was later scraped.

Any time I look at a "study" I must ask myself cynically, who performed the study and what might be their biases. An after action report of a racially charged incident compiled by members of racist groups or AA studies proponents will normally have predictable results.

I've always found it interesting to include total outsiders or "newbies" when trying to study process improvement. They frequently ask interesting questions about why things are done a certain way. When you must justify a process you've historically taken for granted, sometimes it's difficult and eye opening.

IMO, some of the established contributors wouldn't recognize a flaw or contradiction in the metanarrative if it slapped them in the face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.law.ufl.edu/enews/012009/racetoinjustice.shtml

New book examines the legal ethics of the Duke lacrosse rape case

by Scott Emerson
Senior Writer

Race to InjusticeThe Duke lacrosse rape case was a train wreck of criminal injustice, and for 13 months the public couldn’t look away. The new book Race to Injustice: Lessons Learned from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case examines this high-profile pile-up between a prestigious university, an alleged rape, an unscrupulous district attorney, and a news industry ravenous for the next big scoop.

In the book, author and editor Michael Seigel, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, assembles legal- and forensic-science experts who join him in dissecting this messy clash between due process and the public’s right to know. The result is 14 unique perspectives on a case rife with false allegations, unethical prosecution tactics and simmering racial tension.

“The Duke lacrosse case was unusual in that it amounted to the ‘perfect storm’ of factors making it of intense interest to the media, public and academics,” Seigel said. “An alleged rape of an individual working in the sex industry makes it even more controversial. Add the fact that the allegations were made by a poor African-American woman against young Caucasian men who — merely by their attendance at Duke University ¯ were individuals of relative privilege, and you have an explosive situation involving race and class.”

Each chapter of Race to Injustice, published by Carolina Academic Press, provides academics and legal minds with an opportunity to evaluate and consider how the justice system could be improved. Chapter one sets the stage by outlining the facts of the case in chronological order.

Subsequent chapters provide readers with analytical cross-sections of the case ranging from the reactions of Duke faculty, town-gown relationships, to DNA-profiling and the presumption of guilt.

“I don’t think it would be fair to say that the contributors disagreed on specific matters; rather, I’d say that each possessed a unique point of view on the important lessons to be learned from the case,” said Seigel.

“Some wanted to use the case to teach about things such as prosecutorial ethics, forensic DNA evidence, proper line-up procedures, and the impact of pre-trial publicity on a defendant’s reputation. Others saw the case as an opportunity to examine the historical mistreatment of black women in Western society, or the treatment of female sex workers in the United States.”

Seigel said he refers to the case when teaching entry-level criminal law courses. He added that in the future, he will use the book to teach the case to second- and third-year law students.

“We designed the book to be an excellent vehicle for teaching ‘capstone’ seminars in law school, pertinent master’s degree programs, or at the upper class undergraduate level,” Seigel said. “Through the book, students already schooled in the basics will be able to study how various forces of the law, procedure, ethics, society and evidence sometimes converge into an explosive real-life situation.”

Race to Injustice draws on Seigel’s experience as a federal organized crime prosecutor, the first assistant United States attorney for the Middle District of Florida and a professor of law. Seigel said his intent in writing the book was to provide insight into one of the most embarrassing episodes in recent legal history.

Nancy King, an expert in criminal procedure and professor of law at Vanderbilt University School of Law says Seigel’s book hits the mark.

“This book is a fascinating expose. The story of this shocking case is an unforgettable reminder of what can go wrong when politics and justice collide,” King said. “It is full of lessons to be learned by anyone interested in prosecutional discretion, sexual assault, campus administration, evidence, media coverage of crime, grand juries, college drinking, race relations or wrongful convictions.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9713.html

News Release
Monday, January 26, 2009

Last modified: Monday, January 26, 2009
IU law professor explores "Presuming Guilt or Protecting Victims?" in new book on Duke lacrosse case

1. E-mail this page
2. Print this page

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jan. 26, 2009

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Nearly three years after several members of the Duke lacrosse team were falsely accused of raping an exotic dancer, a new book examines the legal implications of where the case went wrong; it also looks at how future sexual assault cases can be pursued without jeopardizing the rights of both the victims and the accused.

Race to Injustice: Lessons Learned from the Duke Lacrosse Case (Carolina Academic Press, 2009) looks at how various factors -- including an overzealous prosecutor, social stereotypes, and a society quick to condemn the accused -- led to one of the more troubling legal issues in recent memory.

The players accused of rape and other offenses eventually had all charges against them dropped. Mike Nifong, the Durham County prosecutor who pursued the charges, was disbarred after making inflammatory comments and ignoring evidence that exonerated the defendants.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law -- Bloomington Professor Aviva Orenstein authored the book's final chapter, "Presuming Guilt or Protecting Victims?: Analyzing the Special Treatment of Those Accused of Rape."

Orenstein cautions against drawing the wrong lessons from the Duke case and "dismissing valuable protections for victims because of egregious prosecutorial misconduct in one case."

She said the Duke case provides an important illustration of how protecting the rights of a sexual assault victim must be weighed carefully against protecting those of the accused.

"In the chapter, I probe the various stories told in the Duke case and the power of such narratives. I advocate for a delicate, nuanced balance between the needs of victims and the rights of the accused," Orenstein said. Her chapter argues in favor of rape shield laws, privacy for rape victims, as well as permitting certain expert testimony about rape trauma. "It questions, however, the fairness of character evidence about the accused's sexual past and various harsh post-release restrictions," Orenstein commented.

In all other criminal cases, for example, a defendant's prior criminal history is inadmissible in court if offered to prove the person's criminal tendencies.

"For example, if you're prosecuting a burglar for burglary, you can't bring in evidence that he's done it five times before," said the book's editor, Michael L. Seigel, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. "In cases of sex offenses, it's the opposite. Aviva looked at a bunch of different rules. She looked at the Duke case and essentially asked, 'Has the pendulum swung too far? Have we gone overboard in jeopardizing the rights of the criminal defendant?'"

Take, for example, how the media treats those accused of rape. Orenstein notes that the accused are typically named in both the media and in court documents, while the legal system tries -- often unsuccessfully -- to allow the victim to remain anonymous. In the Duke case, the players accused of rape were identified quickly after the alleged incident, yet the name of the accuser didn't emerge until after it was discovered that her story was false.

"This is an important topic," Seigel said. "What happens to a defendant accused of rape? How would these players have been treated had there been a trial? The purpose of this study is to teach us to avoid making this mistake again."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lodge Pro 345
Member Avatar

From Abb's post (Scott Emerson piece):

“I don’t think it would be fair to say that the contributors disagreed on specific matters; rather, I’d say that each possessed a unique point of view on the important lessons to be learned from the case,” said Seigel.

“Some wanted to use the case to teach about things such as prosecutorial ethics, forensic DNA evidence, proper line-up procedures, and the impact of pre-trial publicity on a defendant’s reputation. Others saw the case as an opportunity to examine the historical mistreatment of black women in Western society."


This is loony - plain and simple. Some weren't ready to give up the opportunity the case presented for the metanarrative - facts be damned, engines full-steam ahead.

Loony and Dangerous!

.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Lodge Pro 345
Jan 26 2009, 07:40 PM
From Abb's post (Scott Emerson piece):

“I don’t think it would be fair to say that the contributors disagreed on specific matters; rather, I’d say that each possessed a unique point of view on the important lessons to be learned from the case,” said Seigel.

“Some wanted to use the case to teach about things such as prosecutorial ethics, forensic DNA evidence, proper line-up procedures, and the impact of pre-trial publicity on a defendant’s reputation. Others saw the case as an opportunity to examine the historical mistreatment of black women in Western society."


This is loony - plain and simple. Some weren't ready to give up the opportunity the case presented for the metanarrative - facts be damned, engines full-steam ahead.

Loony and Dangerous!

.

Of course it is. And some "law schools" could use this pile of shit as a textbook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darby

It still amazes me after all these many months we still can't get a major expose on the Lacrosse case that has as it's premise.....

Magnum Mangum Forces --- "How a lying skank can make outrageously false accusations costing society millions in actual costs, if not billions in opportunity costs, not to mention the human tolls exacted, yet still be treated as an untouchable victim and walk away scott free?"

Crystal Mangum has joined quite a few politicians and bank executives as poster children for the "it's always someone else's fault and everyboby else gotta pay" society we now live in...

This book appears to be just another tap dance to the PC boogie...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

abb
Jan 26 2009, 07:25 PM
http://www.law.ufl.edu/enews/012009/racetoinjustice.shtml

New book examines the legal ethics of the Duke lacrosse rape case

by Scott Emerson
Senior Writer

Race to InjusticeThe Duke lacrosse rape case was a train wreck of criminal injustice, and for 13 months the public couldn’t look away. The new book Race to Injustice: Lessons Learned from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case examines this high-profile pile-up between a prestigious university, an alleged rape, an unscrupulous district attorney, and a news industry ravenous for the next big scoop.

In the book, author and editor Michael Seigel, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, assembles legal- and forensic-science experts who join him in dissecting this messy clash between due process and the public’s right to know. The result is 14 unique perspectives on a case rife with false allegations, unethical prosecution tactics and simmering racial tension.

“The Duke lacrosse case was unusual in that it amounted to the ‘perfect storm’ of factors making it of intense interest to the media, public and academics,” Seigel said. “An alleged rape of an individual working in the sex industry makes it even more controversial. Add the fact that the allegations were made by a poor African-American woman against young Caucasian men who — merely by their attendance at Duke University ¯ were individuals of relative privilege, and you have an explosive situation involving race and class.”

Each chapter of Race to Injustice, published by Carolina Academic Press, provides academics and legal minds with an opportunity to evaluate and consider how the justice system could be improved. Chapter one sets the stage by outlining the facts of the case in chronological order.

Subsequent chapters provide readers with analytical cross-sections of the case ranging from the reactions of Duke faculty, town-gown relationships, to DNA-profiling and the presumption of guilt.

“I don’t think it would be fair to say that the contributors disagreed on specific matters; rather, I’d say that each possessed a unique point of view on the important lessons to be learned from the case,” said Seigel.

“Some wanted to use the case to teach about things such as prosecutorial ethics, forensic DNA evidence, proper line-up procedures, and the impact of pre-trial publicity on a defendant’s reputation. Others saw the case as an opportunity to examine the historical mistreatment of black women in Western society, or the treatment of female sex workers in the United States.”

Seigel said he refers to the case when teaching entry-level criminal law courses. He added that in the future, he will use the book to teach the case to second- and third-year law students.

“We designed the book to be an excellent vehicle for teaching ‘capstone’ seminars in law school, pertinent master’s degree programs, or at the upper class undergraduate level,” Seigel said. “Through the book, students already schooled in the basics will be able to study how various forces of the law, procedure, ethics, society and evidence sometimes converge into an explosive real-life situation.”

Race to Injustice draws on Seigel’s experience as a federal organized crime prosecutor, the first assistant United States attorney for the Middle District of Florida and a professor of law. Seigel said his intent in writing the book was to provide insight into one of the most embarrassing episodes in recent legal history.

Nancy King, an expert in criminal procedure and professor of law at Vanderbilt University School of Law says Seigel’s book hits the mark.

“This book is a fascinating expose. The story of this shocking case is an unforgettable reminder of what can go wrong when politics and justice collide,” King said. “It is full of lessons to be learned by anyone interested in prosecutional discretion, sexual assault, campus administration, evidence, media coverage of crime, grand juries, college drinking, race relations or wrongful convictions.”
Not a review. A book report / puff piece with one solicited comment. No scrutiny of the contents at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply