Thursday, April 12, 2007

I object. But sir, it's your witness.

Now that the three Lacrosse players from Duke have been cleared of any wrong-doing and it's pretty clear that the North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong brought up the charges against them without having any evidence to support the charges, attention is sure to turn now towards whether or not the players file a lawsuit against him. So far, attorneys for the three players have not said whether or not they're planning civil action, but they have also not yet ruled it out. They’re probably reviewing whether or not a case like that is even winnable since district attorney’s have certain immunities that protect them from being sued every time a defendant is found not guilty. And that makes sense. We can’t have that. But from everything I've heard on the subject, the protection of immunity for prosecutors is pretty broad unless it's ruled that they had malicious intent or that it was something close to that. I guess it's very difficult to prove intent, so it's a difficult case to win.

Question though. The justice system has been around for hundreds of years now, and I’m sure there’s been countless modifications to different rules and laws due to situations that have come up in which caveats and special circumstances surrounding those laws were overlooked. So how in the hell has something so important (or so it would seem important) as immunity for a district attorney manage to be one of those circumstances? Is this particular situation really that unprecedented? You’d think over the course of hundreds of years, there would have been more than one overzealous D.A. trying to make a name for himself by bringing up ridiculous charges.

Okay I’m done now. But please come back later to see if I’m discussing something else way over my head.

Labels: |