The Duke’s Case: The Tragedy of Justice, Lessons Learned and Compensation

Question

Stop the farce in the Duke case

1. What should have been done to stop this travesty of justice?
2. Who has to take the civil liability for the people being unfairly sued in this case and how much is the compensation?

The Duke case was reported in 2006, in which three Duke University men were falsely arrested by a black woman who was a stripper. However, in 2007 the charges against the boys were dropped and the prosecutor handling the case had to withdraw from the trial because he had manipulated the evidence (DeMets et al., 2017). The essay aims to shed light on the Duke case.

The police as well as the prosecutor manipulated the evidence. Distortion of evidence can be avoided if the court judge has been directly involved in the case, in its proceedings, and in the evidence presented to the judge. The DNA test should have been cross-checked to avoid the harassment the boys faced along the way. There should also be close supervision of the police so that they cannot violate the policies set forth by the judiciary for them. In addition, DNA testing should be performed in front of juries and judges to make evidence more reliable and prevent any tampering of evidence. The judge should have given Mangum a tough sentence so she couldn’t change her story. CCTV should have been checked by the judge during the trial so the case could be closed much sooner. To further prevent the deception of justice, the courts should have checked whether the convicts as well as the previous victims were involved in criminal activity. Therefore, the above measure may have prevented the deception of justice.

Courts, victims as well as prosecutors must be held accountable for falsely accusing boys of raping black women (McCannon & Wilson 2020). Guys should be compensated not only with money but also with the respect they have lost along the way. They should have more time to tackle the studies they missed because they were on the road. All charges should be withdrawn and it should be announced in the media that the boys are not responsible for the rape because no rape occurred. This will dispel any remaining doubts people will have in their mind. In addition, each defendant will receive $800 from the justice system to compensate for the loss of their time and education. They should also get a scholarship that helps them move on with their lives and forget their trauma. Of course, they should also be given a job because after the incident, no reputable organization will hire them even if they are cleared of the charges. The court should compensate more attorneys’ fees spent to prove their innocence.

Therefore, in conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the responsibility of the court to recognize and point out the shortcomings that were presented during the trial. Courts that wrongly accuse people should also recognize the need to compensate individuals and strive to correct their mistakes as people look to justice.

References

DeMets, D. L., Fleming, T. R., Geller, G., & Ransohoff, D. F. (2017). Institutional responsibility and the flawed genomic biomarkers at Duke University: A missed opportunity for transparency and accountability. Science and engineering ethics, 23(4), 1199-1205.

McCannon, B. C., & Wilson, M. (2020). “A Million Dollars in Free Advertising” Politics and Sex Offense Prosecution in the Wake of Duke Lacrosse. Supreme Court Economic Review, 27(1), 000-000.