Duke Case: Travesty of Justice, Lessons Learned, and Compensation

Preventing the Travesty of Justice in the Duke Case

 1. What Could Have Been Done To Prevent This Travesty Of Justice?

2. Who Should Be Responsible Civilly To The Men Who Were Wrongfully Prosecuted In This Case, And What Should The Compensation Be?

The Duke case was reported in 2006 in which 3 men of Duke University were falsely arrested for rape by a black woman who was a stripper. However, in 2007 the charges against the boys were dropped and the prosecutor against the case had to withdraw from trail as he had manipulated with the evidence (DeMets et al., 2017). The essay aims to shed a light on the Duke case.

The police as well as the prosecutor had manipulated with the evidence. The travesty with the evidence could have been prevented if the judge of the court would have been directly involved with the case, with its proceedings and with the evidence that was brought before the judge. There should have been cross checking of the DNA test so that it could prevent the harassment that the boys had to face during the trail. There should have been a strict supervision on the police as well so that they could not violate the policies that had been set for them by the judiciary. Furthermore, the DNA test should be conducted in front of the jury and the judge to make the evidence more credible and prevent any tampering of the evidence. The judge should have dealt strictly with Mangum so that she could not change her story. Cctv should have been checked by the judge during the trial so that the case could have been closed much earlier. To further prevent the travesty of justice the court should have checked if the convicts as well as the victim was previously connected to a criminal activity or not. Thus, the above measure could have prevented the travesty of justice.

The court, victim as well as the prosecutor should be held responsible for wrongly accusing the boys of raping the black woman (McCannon & Wilson 2020). The boys should be compensated not only with money but also for the respect that they lost during their entire trail. They should get extra time to cope with the studies that they had missed as they were involved in the trail. All allegations should be withdrawn and it should be circulated in the media that the boys were not responsible for the rape as there was no rape that was committed. This would clear the remaining suspicion that people would have in their mind.  Furthermore each accused should be given $800 by the judiciary as compensation for their loss of time and education. They should also be provided with a scholarship that would help them to move on in their life and forget the traumatic trail. They should also be provided with a well secure job as after the incident no reputed organisation would hire them even though they were freed from the allegations. The court should further compensate for the attorney’s fees that was spent in proving their innocence.

Therefore, to conclude it must be noted that it is the responsibility of the court to recognise and identify the loopholes that was presented during the trial. The court for wrongfully accusing people should also realise the need for compensating the individuals and work towards rectifying their mistake as people look up to them for 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.