So what are they going to do? Get bracelets with "Presumably innocent" on them?

 Anonymous -- 5/24/2006 8:46 PM  

Isn't the Women's lacrosse team just presuming they are innocent?

 Adam -- 5/24/2006 9:05 PM  

Well, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" would send a message that is much better than just "Innocent." Just that one word delivers the message that the women's team blindingly believes that the men were in fact innocent, a message which I think is extremely irresponsible.

This was apparently not condoned by the school, so I assume a student or a coach came up with the idea and didn't inform the administration.

But the solidarity that the women's team is expressing is disturbing to me because it is so driven by a misinformed sense of the athlete's code and team loyalty, which also informed the code of silence kept by the men's team in the initial stages of the investigation.

At what point does one's obligation as a member of the community override one's obligation's to the team or the organization? Isn't there some kind of NCAA code of ethics that is being blatantly ignored here?

 Satchmo -- 5/24/2006 9:07 PM  

I think the author is confusing the issue here because any person is allowed to have an opinion on whether another is guilty or innocent regardless of how much information is available to them. However, it is irresponsible to have the opinion that the lacross players are innocent, regardless of what information is available, when one sits in judgment of the players (i.e. is a member of the jury). By the logic of the author it would be irresponsible for friends of the alleged victim to state their belief that the lacrosse players are guilty because they don't have all of the information. But, I suspect the author would not support that view.

I would also remind the author, for what it is worth, that the season was cancelled before any arrests were made by the police.

 The Fan's Attic -- 5/24/2006 11:29 PM  

Fan's Attic,

You've offered a straw man's argument and successfully debunked it. Congrats. Of course they are allowed to have an opinion. The issues are how the opinion is formed, why it is formed, how one expresses it, and why one expresses it in the selected manner.

Will,

Excellent points. The code of loyalty that captures students goes to the power of the situation in college sports and sports in general. You're points about community obligations and NCCA ethical rules are also well-stated.

Adam,

I see your point, but it's unclear what they are presuming. They seem to be speaking in generalities about their reasoning.

Anonymous,

Although perhaps a tad verbose, "presumed innocent" bracelets would, for reasons that Will (Satchmo) also notes above, seem far more appropriate.

 Michael McCann -- 5/24/2006 11:51 PM  

I really don't see why it is irresponsible for friends of the accused to believe (based on what they know of the accused) that they are innocent. Is it irresponsible for the accused families to maintain the innocence of the accused? So, a mom can't say "my son is innocent." She has to say, "my son is presumed innocent." That is ridiculous.

They are basing their opinion on what they know of the defendants, people they presumably know well. I don't have a problem with them forming an opinion on that basis. If I had a friend who was accused of a crime that was not consistent with what I knew about the person, I would presume he was innocent. Meaning, I would consider him innocent until proved differently.

I actually applaud the lacrosse women for standing up for their friends. Not an easy thing to do, because they had to know they would get shots like this from commentators.

 john -- 5/25/2006 9:27 AM  

I guess, "We're glad we weren't invited to the Party" would be a bit hard to print up.

 Michael -- 5/25/2006 9:30 AM  

I think John has this one right. I dont see at all how it is irresponsible of friends to state a belief that a party is innocent based on their knowledge of the person's character, etc.

Your assumption appears to be that they know no more than we do about the individuals. Im not sure why this is an appropriate assumption. Of course, we do not know because, as you point out, they "seem to be speaking in generalities about their reasoning." But isn't this what friends do? Since when do friends of the accused have to "state their reasoning" to the press about their beliefs of innocence? They are not writing a law review article.

 Joshua Wright -- 5/25/2006 1:41 PM  

John & Joshua:

I am assuming that they know as much as we do. I have not seen or heard any facts suggesting otherwise. Until we hear otherwise, I believe it would be inappropriate and speculative to assume otherwise.

As to how friends respond, sure, friends get defensive and friends are loyal. But I guess if one of my friends was charged with raping a woman, and if I was not with him that night, I wouldn't run around with a t-shirt saying "innocent." To me at least, doing so seems tacky at best and foolhardy at worst.

And no, this isn't about writing a law review article; it's about using common sense and showing decency towards a victim of sexual violence. Moreover, and as Will notes above, these women, whether they like it or not, represent their university and the NCAA, and everything they do on the field is a reflection of those associations. Running around like propaganda drones just doesn't cast a positive light on anyone.

 Michael McCann -- 5/25/2006 1:47 PM  

Don't you mean "alleged" sexual violence? Isn't it irresponsible to assume that there was sexual violence without knowing for sure that there was, in fact, sexual violence?

And again, I'm not sure why showing support for a friend, makes you a "propoganda drone." The evidence that they have that we don't is a knowledge of the character of the defendants. Labeling them propoganda drones seems to me unfairly dismissive of what could be a principled and well thought out position by these students. (And of course, it's only "propoganda" because you disagree with it.)

 john -- 5/25/2006 2:02 PM  

Completely agree with john and Joshua.

What do you say McCann? How do you justify your assumption that the women's players are in no better position to judge innocence or guilt than we are?

Not only would they be able to base their position on character assessments, but I think a better assumption than yours is that they know much more about the facts than we do (albeit from onesided accounts, but that's still one more side than we have). Of course, this is not to say they should be making such a statement.

And c'mon, "simpleton loyalists", I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are better than that.

 Anonymous -- 5/25/2006 2:04 PM  

Sorry, I started that, left, and came back and didn't see that last post.

 Anonymous -- 5/25/2006 2:07 PM  

John,

No, it's not propaganda because I and others disagree with it. It's propaganda because it concerns the expression of pre-judged, uninformed conclusions that are based on biased opinions about the accused and the accuser. It's a classic case of situational capture and why loyalty can bring out the worst in otherwise sensible people. And I would feel the exact same way if players on other teams, while playing Duke, wore bracelets that stated "guilty." I'm just thankful that we don't have mob rule when it comes to our justice system.

 Michael McCann -- 5/25/2006 2:12 PM  

I am somewhat confused by your position Michael. You say it is premature to assume anything other than that the friends' knowledge is equal to our own and it would be inappropriate and speculative to do otherwise. But you obviously do not find it premature and speculative to label the players "simpleton loyalists" and "propoganda drones"? It seems wholly plausible, if not likely, that these people know more than we do if not alone in terms of character. Leaving aside that possibility, I am surprised that you leap to attacking the players here without any information about the formation of their beliefs.

Would you feel differently about a player's mother who wore a t-shirt that said "innocent"? Or to square the example with "representing the university," how about the player's coach? Counselor? Roommate?

 Joshua Wright -- 5/25/2006 2:22 PM  

Joshua,

No, I don't find it premature to label them as simpletons, just as I would not find it premature to label players who wear "guilty" bracelets as simpletons. They would all be prejudging the facts, and unlike the other actors you suggested, they would be using their team, school, and NCAA as vehicles to express their views. I would expect more from them. You may not, and I understand that.

As to the possibility that the women players can attest generally to the character of the accused, sure, that is possible. But aren't friends of criminals, at least after the families of criminals, often the most surprised of their criminality? Unless the women players were at the party, I find it hard to believe that they have any better idea what actually happened.

 Michael McCann -- 5/25/2006 2:36 PM  

Michael,

Is it your basic argument that the proper forum for this case is a courtroom? And, as a consequence the declarations of innocence/guilt should not be discussed at this point because not all of the information is available and/or information that is available is biased/incomplete?

If so, I can understand the underlying theory because innocence or guilt should not be determined in the media. I do think that is perhaps a bit unrealistic in this day and age. Moreover, I think that people should be able to express their opinions on a matter of public interest and scrutiny because of the simple fact that it is a matter of public interest. This is true even for the Duke Women's Lacrosse Team members. Just because the team is one of many faces of Duke, does not mean it cannot speak its mind. The players don't lose their right to opinions because they are members of the team and students of the university.

I would also like to say I was wrong in my last post about the author's supposed view on an issue. It is clear now that the author opposes any statement of support or opposition that does not come from the mouths of the alleged victim or accused, and not just those in support of the accused.

 The Fan's Attic -- 5/25/2006 3:04 PM  

Interesting, thanks for the response. You are right, I do not expect more from them than to stand by their friends if they truly believe they are innocent. Im not sure why I should. Perhaps they have no more facts than you and I, but I do not believe their knowledge of the players' character is not at all relevant (I am sure the jury will hear about it, and not *just* testimony about what happened at the party).

As to your question about who is surprised to learn about criminality and who is not, I dont know, nor do I comprehend why it matters. Sure, they could have informed beliefs and end up being wrong. Forming an inaccurate belief certainly cannot be a sufficient condition for becoming a "simpleton" or "drone", is it? Your point must be that the information they *might* have does not have any value. I (obviously) disagree. In any event, it remains plausible that they have a sincere belief based on their knowledge of the boys' character, and are expressing as much. I just dont view the terms "simpleton" or "propoganda drone" as helpful descriptors of what is going on here.

 Joshua Wright -- 5/25/2006 3:08 PM  

The Women's LaCrosse team has performed the acts of a jury, likely with more knowledge than anyone who has heard of the case through the media, in that they have heard evidence (stories from friends even if they weren't there (and likely they have heard from people who won't testify at trial)), have judged credibility, and made a determination of guilt or innocence.

I guess M. M.'s position is that guilt can only be determined by a jury, made up of people often on the lower end of the educational spectrum, who have no real background from which to draw credibility conclusions. So, even if OJ did use the knife he is innocent because the jury did not find him guilty. Remember, juries don't find someone innocent, they find them either guilty or not.

In conclusion, I find it amusing that the one who says others are being simple minded appears to be the most simple minded of the parties in question. In sum, I find your presumptions to be without merit, and your conclusions to be erroneous.

 Brad -- 5/25/2006 3:36 PM  

Let's take a different example - a post at Deadspin a few weeks ago related a story of a man walking home in Omaha, Nebraska on Mother's Day.

He saw someone dangling a sign that said "Jail the Durham Whore. Duke Lacrosse Power."

Now obviously, this man's protests are not well founded - he's making inflammatory and distasteful remarks in public about a rape case that he presumably knows nothing abut - at least, not more than your average person. He likely does not know any players or their families, or the woman involved.

Contrast that with the female players wearing wristbands with "Innocent" on them.

Is that statement any more informed by facts? Or are they letting their preconceptions and biases color their assessment of the situation as well? We can expect people to hold opinions about guilt and innocence that will be biased - this much is evident. But public displays of support are a bit more than that, aren't they?

I think the statement being made by the girls lacrosse team is not quite as inflammatory, obviously, but I still find it distasteful and irresponsible. Especially considering that the girls represent their school and the NCAA, and the guy was just a random bigot with a lot of time on his hands.

What's more important, the fact that the men's team lost their season, or the possibility that a crime may have been committed? The statement being made by the girl's team calls much of this into question.

 Satchmo -- 5/25/2006 3:45 PM  

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following "Satchmo's" comment. I mean, I think we can all recognize the difference between expressing an opinion about the innocence of the accused and. . . carrying a sign that labels the alleged victim a "whore."

I don't think there's anything wrong with stating an opinion as to the innocence of the accused. Particularly when it's expressed as the Duke women are expressing it -- that is, without attacking the alleged victim. And I haven't read a a compelling argument yet that makes me think the Duke women are off base.

 john -- 5/25/2006 3:52 PM  

John - the point of my comment is that the display of belief of innocence (the man clearly thought the woman was at fault, the lacross team clearly supports the men being accused of the crime) is not necessarily founded on fact.

Both incidents state an opinion. But we have to think before we make those statements, especially in the case of the lacrosse team, when they appear to be stating that they're more sensitive to the men's team losing their season than to a crime being committed.

I think the public statement needs more thought than that, and I think their move is neither in good taste, nor was made with consideration of the meaning of the statement.

 Satchmo -- 5/25/2006 3:57 PM  

As a side note - what should, if anything, the school do about this? The students are after all representing the school - even if their choice of apparel does not reflect the opinion of the administration, does the administration want the association being made?

Should the NCAA do anything?

Isn't what players wear on their uniforms regulated by the NCAA? Do the sponsors of the women's team have anything to say about what they plan on wearing? If this were a high profile men's team in a similar situation, would we react differently?

 Satchmo -- 5/25/2006 5:00 PM  

John said...

"Don't you mean "alleged" sexual violence? Isn't it irresponsible to assume that there was sexual violence without knowing for sure that there was, in fact, sexual violence?"

....Though sure this point will only go so far, isn't it irresponsible to believe, on the facts, that there was no sexual violence? The medical reports showed damage consistent with rape. There were also miscellaneous cuts and bruises. There were also reports she was sodomized by a broomstick (after, incidentally, lacrosse players threatened to do exactly that). But that parenthetical overplays my hand here.

Very simply:

1) Is there any plausible reason to doubt this woman was the victim of sexual violence?

2) Why should we care any less about that sexual violence if it was not committed by the men on trial for the crime, whether the actual culprits are other lacrosse players or not? Why does our regard for this case end with a sports team?

 Mackey -- 5/25/2006 5:14 PM  

Even if the Duke women's wristbands are not "in good taste" (which I think they are), since when does free speech have to be in good taste? And I think the statement is being made with "consideration of the meaning of the statement," -- and the meaning is. . . the Duke players are innocent. As in, not guilty.

And while the Duke women have the right to wear "innocent" bands, the University has the right to tell them that if they do, they can't play for Duke University. I don't think the University should, but it certainly could. Much like the University shut down the men's lacrosse team before any of the players had been indicted of any crime, much less convicted (an action I agree with, btw).

I don't think the NCAA has any grounds to take action against the Duke women. I don't believe there are any NCAA regulations that prevent messages on wrist bands (as long as the wristbands don't display a Native American mascot!).

 john -- 5/25/2006 5:25 PM  

Holy Mackey. First of all, if there was a sexual assault, it would be tragic, and the responsible party should be caught, tried and hopefully convicted. But as to whether it should matter if "it was committed by the men on trial for the crime," well, I'll only say that I suspect it matters to the people accused of the crime. And that's all the Duke women are saying -- that in their opinion, the people accused did not do it. And they are making a stand because they believe their friends have already been convicted by the media and people like you and Satchmo and Mr. McCann. Please remember that defendants have rights, just as victimes do. And one of the rights is that they are innocent until proven guilty. It is of that that the Duke women are reminding us.

 john -- 5/25/2006 5:33 PM  

John,

A few quick points....

1) The thrust of my comment wa s simple but important correction: your comment implied that no sexual violence might have occurred. It seems infinitely more likely that sexual violence did occur, whether committed by lacrosse players or not. This oversight is, I think, very reflective of the reasons we are interested in this case. Our concern for the "rights of [these] defendants" seem to far outweigh our concern for the "rights of [these victims.]

2) To be quite clear, the only thing wrong with an individual presuming guilt is moral consequence, not legal consequence. The presumption of innocence is a legal concept; it has no bearing on how private actors assess guilt. We might think individuals _should_ presume innocence (I think they should), but they tend not to and it's an altogether very different question.

3) I am highly skeptical of the claim that the lacrosse players have been "convicted" by the media. While I'm at it, who exactly are "people like you and Satchmo and Mr. McCann"?

 Mackey -- 5/25/2006 5:45 PM  

I never presumed anything - it's just as irresponsible to presume guilt as innocence.

John, by wearing sweatbands with innocent, the Duke women are making more than a statement that they believe the men are innocent. They make the statement as they represent Duke and participate in an NCAA event.

That they support the men's team with the "innocent" sweatbands implies that they believe that the woman involved in the case lied and made a false accusation, and perhaps that the prosecutor in the case made erroneous indictments. They appear to make the statement without consideration towards the alleged victim or the community - the only mention in the article is of the men's team and how it's sad that they didn't get to finish their season.

You think this is responsible? I agree that they have the right to make a statement - I question their taste and their judgement, and I believe that insufficient foresight was involved.

Please don't apply labels where they don't belong. It doesn't do anything for your argument. If you believe that they made the statement as a result of perceived media persecution, please provide me an example.

Furthermore, if they really felt that the men were being done a wrong in having their season suspended, perhaps they should have refused to play themselves. Wouldn't that have been a much better statement of solidarity than a sweatband with "innocent" written on it? Shouldn't their anger be directed at the administration that cancelled the season and not the crime at hand, which they don't have any more firsthand knowledge about than you or me?

 Satchmo -- 5/25/2006 6:00 PM  

Mackey:

"infinitely more possible"?

Putting aside that I doubt the medical report used the term "damage", that she had injuries consistent with sexual assualt is really not that telling in and of itself. As many women will tell you, garden variety consensual sex is often tramautic to that area and obviously as the intensity increases so does the trauma, certainly enough to produce injuries consistent with rape. We also know very little about that report, so at this point I think it is premature to point to it as strong evidence that a sexual assault occurred.

You also refer to a "report" that she was sodomized with a broomstick. The only "report" of it I recall is her dad alleging it. Note that her dad also concluded that the use of a broomstick explained why the sex acts did not leave any DNA. Note also there is no indication that she ever told the police about it.

Finally, miscellaneous cuts and bruises? Considering all reports describe her as incapacitated by the end of the night(whether by her own doing or not), I don't think it is unreasonable to believe those cuts and bruises were not from a sexual assault.

You also have her previous allegation, which we know very little about, but which should also temper our rush to conclusions about anything.

My only point is that based on the evidence currently available I think it is irresponsible to conclude that more likely than not a sexual assault occurred. Therefore, referring to her as a victim of sexual assault is no more irresponsible that asserting the innocence of the players.

 Anonymous -- 5/26/2006 11:05 AM  

Is "innocent" some kind of kind of privileged white kid code for "lying ni$$er"?

 Anonymous -- 5/27/2006 12:39 PM  

Post a Comment