Posted on 10/27/2006 5:00:15 AM PDT by abb
And don't forget supporting the local economy to the tune of $800.
At the media confab a week ago, Susannah Meadows said that they heard about it through other media (don't remember which) and she got assigned because she's a Duke alum. She basically disavowed the cover with the mug shots by saying it wasn't her decision. Contact any reporter about a headline over their byline and you'll get the same dodge - "I don't write the headlines".
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/ruth/index.php?title=i_got_my_invite_but_guess_what_you_can_c&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments
Hey Ruthie - pay attention. Someone has used your blog to name she who must not be named. And it's been there for 24 hours. Now, shudder, everyone will know.
I saw that yesterday. Not surprised that it has stayed up. N&O blogs apparently are not monitored well or at all.
Maybe we should post it on a regular basis. It would force them to pay more attention to their blogs - heh. This was by the same poster who had a comment deleted for suggesting that Linda Williams ethnicity might have had something to do with her editorial decisions in March.
The Newsweek reporter, Suzanne Meadows, is a Duke grad. I expect she learned of it rapidly through connections and came a'runnin'.
The only people involved in all this that I can see who need diversity training are black Durhamites and 88 Duke faculty members. None of them seem to understand that white people are entitled to the same rights as blacks and other minorities.
Oh, and add Brodhead and Liefong to the group.
LOL! Prolly 'cuz it's the weekend. You know, kind of like when they said there was nobody around to monitor and nix the printing of the entire team roster?
So, OJ should have gotten all his hundreds of thousands back from the government?
The problem is that any funds "paid" by the government are really paid by taxpayers. In areas where most of the voters actually pay taxes, this can provide some incentive for elected officials to avoid costing their constituents too much money. But in areas where most of the voters don't pay taxes, the voters may not mind someone whose malfeasance offers more excuse to 'sock it to the rich'.
Yeah, but should people be responsible for the reckless actions of politicians they voted against? I suspect that if Nifong is elected but then gets a major judgement against the city, the vast majority of the cost will fall on people who voted against him (and who, in any case, had never voted for him previously).
An automatic rule, like loser pays, will not work. Believe me some companies use legal action as predatory attacks on others. You need some means of ascertaining the reasonableness of the overall case - both sides. Obviously those who pursue unsubstantiated, nuisance or frivolous cases deserve to pay the costs.
I worked for a metropolitan DA's office for thirty-two years. Based on that experience, it's my opinion that a vastly larger number of people beat the rap than there are those who get railroaded. Because of the vagaries of evidence, some cases are much harder to prosecute than others, but the crimes committed by these offenders are no less devastating than those committed by "dumber" criminals. Because of the vagaries of jurors, some cases end in surprise verdicts of NG or are hung juries. I see no good in forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for their defense because a case was lost due to the whim of some leftist judge who refused to admit certain evidence or jurors who are either dumber than a box of rocks or biased in favor of a defendant for hidden reasons unknown to the prosecution.
If judges and juries were failsafe, there might be a modicum of merit to your idea, but given that they are anything but failsafe, I find the idea totally impractical and unfair to the people.
What I do think would be a solution worth considering is a review process of a DA's performance in terms of ethical standards he casts for himself, his deputies and investigators. Such a review process should include the authority to levy fines on the department, penalties on the individual DA or deputy if there was malice or fraud aforethought in the unethical act, and reimbursements paid to the defendant for legal fees if the review board finds in favor of the acquitted defendant. But some automatic right to reimbursement of attorney fees because a judge or jury went haywire would not only create chaos, but there would be a helluva lot more criminals on the streets because no DA would want to prosecute unless they had an absolutely ironclad, irrefutable case. Even then, a successful prosecution depends on being able to get all that evidence admitted and a host of other variables. One never knows what can go wrong in a trial until the jury comes in, and some events are just beyond the prosecutor's control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.