Last week, Durham resident Beth Brewer did a courageous thing: She asked the Durham Superior Court to remove Mike Nifong as district attorney in a sworn affidavit. I wish I had thought of that.
How fortunate, then, that imitation is the highest form of compliment, because Brewer is onto something. As we near the 12th month of the lacrosse case, Duke students unfortunately cannot make the wheels of justice turn any faster for our three accused classmates. But we can and should work to ensure that future Dukies will never again be systematically mistreated by Durham's judicial system.
Emblematic of these concerns are September 2006 revelations that Durham police officers disproportionately targeted Duke students for arrest in 2005 and 2006. In fact, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, who went on to become the lead investigator in the lacrosse case from March until September, was the worst of the offenders. One can only imagine how different the lacrosse investigation might have been if Gottlieb's one-man reign of terror had ended with his first violent or inappropriate outburst.
Unfortunately, though, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. To show how prevalent the inequality is-not to mention how easily it can be documented-let's compare one small (if especially curious) episode from the lacrosse saga: the $400,000 bail the players were initially required to post. As it turns out, this figure is exactly double the amount recommended by six-year-old Durham county guidelines governing bail. It is also many times greater than the sums assigned other defendants in comparable cases-oftentimes with significantly weaker ties to the community.
In Durham, judges may "deviate from the suggested dollar amounts at their discretion" when setting bail; however, a Nov. 26 Herald-Sun article noted the factors that would indicate higher bail include "public safety considerations, a person's previous criminal record and the likelihood a suspect might flee." Considering the defendants cooperated with police from the beginning, going so far as to offer voluntary DNA samples and even pass lie detector tests, it is hard to imagine that they met any of the traditional criteria for higher-than-usual bail.
Now compare Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans to some of the people who didn't merit higher bail-or even the recommended amount. For example, it was just two weeks ago that a Durham man was assigned only $25,000 bail after allegedly committing a "crime against nature" with a 14-year-old boy he'd met online, taking indecent liberties with that same child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor by engaging in oral sex.
April 16, just two days before Finnerty and Seligmann were arrested and charged, another Durham man was assigned $150,000 bail after being charged with incest, statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a 14-year-old girl. Last July, another man was assessed $30,000 bail for charges of second-degree rape.
Ironically, the Finnertys, Seligmanns and Evanses had relatively strong ties to the community; consider the case of a homeless man who was assessed $100,000 bail after being charged with sexual assault and rape back in 2004. Similarly, an adjunct professor at UNC-charged with incest with a child between age 13 and 15, second-degree rape and crimes against nature-was initially given just $300,000 bail after he had fled to Haiti and the Dominican Republic to avoid prosecution. His bail was subsequently raised following negative media coverage.
Yet another murder suspect got just $250,000 bail after police allegedly found him on the lam in Oklahoma, driving a murdered man's truck; he was extradited to North Carolina to face charges including murder, first-degree kidnapping, first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense, assault on a female and possession of a firearm by a felon.
Last summer the players' bail was lowered to $100,000. But even at that lower level, it is identical to that of a man like Jamal Manta Watson, who Assistant District Attorney Beth Koontz termed "one of the most dangerous people in Durham."
That's why, in the face of such compelling inequality, administrators should strongly consider hiring a team of outside lawyers-in much the same way they brought in a New York-based public relations firm to protect the Duke "brand" last year-to research and document all such instances of discrimination. If the attorneys do not find a compelling enough pattern, then at least the issue will be followed closely.
However, if there is sufficient evidence of discrimination, then they can pursue a number of legal remedies on our behalf. Particularly inspiring is the prospect of a "consent decree," which would be a binding legal agreement whereby Durham would agree (in principle) that Duke students are not to be discriminated against. Such an agreement would not require that the city or county admit any wrongdoing, but it would be enforceable in the event of any future violations.
And although it would be nice to have administrative support in these endeavors, students don't require it. Duke Student Government, for one, could lead such a charge. Or else a group of other motivated students-emulating the fine example set by individuals like Beth Brewer-could decide to proceed independently, as a sort of "class action." Rarely has one "generation" of Duke students had the opportunity to render such a powerful service for those who will succeed us, in the Class of 2011 and beyond.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.