I am all fine with zero tolerance when guilt is established.
Punishment for accusation alone is WAY over the line.
Duke University policy is to suspend students who have felony indictments. In this case I think that they should ignore that policy.
It appears that the best the defendants can hope for through the standard court system is acquittal next spring, after spending very substantial legal fees and keeping their lives in turmoil until then.
I am not a lawyer, but perhaps there are some better alternatives available to them.
It would seem that any such alternatives would involve first preparing a thorough statement of their complete legal defense.
This statement could first be presented to the DA, with a respectful request that he review it and then either dismiss the case or advise as to why he will continue.
If this approach is unwise or if the DA's response were to be unsatisfactory, then the statement could be presented to the judge or the NC Attorney General, if either has authority to act.
If none of this is viable, perhaps such a statement should be publicized generally, with the goal of causing the public informally to cause the DA to dismiss the case, upon his realizing how foolish continuing with the case would appear.
If all of these actions would be considered unwise, then another lawyer could prepare and distribute such a statement, based upon the information that has already been made public.
I realize that in most instances it is probably unwise to show one's case to the DA in advance of trial, but in this instance most of this information has already been publicized, and Reed Seligman at least seems to have an airtight alibi that wouldn't be prejudiced by this action.
I agree, but that is the whole point of zero tolerance. Accusations are generally enough to punish. They don't have to prove anything. You don't fit their mold? In the wrong place at the wrong time? Out. You're expendable. Your child is expendable. It does not take much.
Even if a student is later cleared in Court, he or she is still, in the final analysis, suspended, or thrown off the team, or expelled from school, and their future prospects are ruined. They are not treated as "innocent until proven guilty." Why? So someone in power can have their power trip and quickly close a case or "make an example" out of someone.
They don't care who is guilty. They won't listen, either. Any attempts you make to exonerate your child, even with solid proof, will make no difference in the rigged outcome. For them, it's all about finding a convenient culprit. A quick fix. And yes, the irony is that the truly guilty are not punished.
The reality is, we don't have the rights we think we have, and if you stand up and fight, you become the next target. Zero tolerance is all about intimidation, not justice.
It is for a jury to determine guilt or innocence. Suppose any one of these young men is cleared and waves his exoneration papers under the noses of school officials? He is still beyond finished. He will never play at Duke again and it is very likely no other school will accept him as campus protests will result. He will be harassed and treated like a leper. He will never beat the "guilty" tag. And he, and his family, won't get any apologies, either.
This is what life is like for those ruined by false accusers and their cohorts in the System.