First of all, I would like to say Happy Passover and Eide Nourooz to all the Jews and Persians around the globe. I would have written something earlier about it but thank to law school finals, I did not get a chance to do it any earlier.
Three Duke Players were finally exonerated and all the charges were dropped against them. From the beginning, the whole story was a joke and it was obvious that the case will not hold water. Any moron, without any knowledge of law or evidence or criminal procedure would have said, these stripers were lying. However, why did the D.A went ahead with pressing charges? What I loved the most was media's reaction and they jumped to conclusion and they were all portraying these players as three rich white rapist. What happened to Justice? Due Process? Reasonableness?
There are three categories of classifying this case: 1) Black V. White-Plaintiff(s) were black & Defendant were Black 2) Poor v. Rich-You could look at it lower class v. higher class where we have a striper who is from lower class going after a upper class rich guy 3) and my favorit of all Female v. Male-Rape.
All three of these categories of struggle are very clear in our society. This is a typical reaction that is the characteristic of Leftist think tanks or former or current communists believers. The leftist media picked up on this case and unfairly destroyed these guys' image. In this case, as much as the society hates it, the justice is residing with the rich white upper class males. Justice should not be affected by the societal struggles; rather justice should only empower the element of fairness and truth. In this case, the media and society automatically made up their mind that these three rich white boys were guilty and the poor black strippers were raped. Unfortunately, the D.A. felt into the same trap.
If you look at global politics, we see the same exact scenario. The society always side with the poor or less powerful. An example of it is Israeli Palestinian conflict. It is usually the practice of the Left and former or Marxists believers who think the weak is always right. Just because Palestinians are weak, they have the right to act or do anything as they please. Another example is world's view toward U.S. Anytime, U.S. tries to defend itself or defend its interest, irregardless of the other county's ruthlessness (such as Saddam) or its treatment of its citizens, the left and the rest of world would presume this act as a negative act. In another word, Justice is being sacrificed for a concept created by Marx called "class struggle" which is rich against poor, or strong v. weak.
I do not agree with it. I believe justice should be blind to any outside theory or struggle regardless of class, race, sex, or social status!
What do you think?
7 comments:
I don't think you should connect world politics with the case of the stripper. They are totally different. You were not in that room so you don't know if they raped her. Stripping is not illegal but rape is! So just as much as you shouldn't always side with the the weak you also shouldn't side with the stronger side. You need to side with justice! Also, it is important to keep in mind that the weak harldly ever get their "liberal" "leftist" buddies to help them out because we all know that having money increase your chances of getting out of a mess. Just take celebrities as an example. Paris Hilton got a DUI what happend? Robert Downey Jr. was constantly caught with drugs, what happend? They all had lighter punishments that an ordinary or "weaker" party might have.
Paris Hilton did not get a lighter sentece, plus,
if it was ordinary care, the D.A would have laughed at the stripper's face. But again, they were women, they were black, and they were poor. They had a previous case of allegging rape that didn't work, plus no DNA was found, and the striper keep changing her story, come on miss x, i know you are a women and like to side w/ the weak, but i waited until all the charges were dropped before I wrote anything about it.
"irregardless" isn't a word
thank you mr. or ms. spell check!!
Irrelevant argument will be deleted!
irregardless is a word. look it up in dictionary.com
Hey dumbass, it's not a word, it's just commonly used by dumbasses like you who think it's a word:
"Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so."
Post a Comment