Frank Maguire
Rape v. rapacity?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Frank Maguire
April 22, 2011

"In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, but being seasoned with gracious voice obscures the show of evil." Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

The following is from Michael Gaynor's renewamerica.com April 21 2001 article: Duke case update: Mangum got a pass, Reginald Daye died after she stabbed him....

    Associated Press, April 18, 2011:

    "The woman who falsely accused Duke lacrosse players of raping her is now charged with murder in her boyfriend's death.

    "Crystal Mangum was charged Monday in Durham with first-degree murder and two larceny charges.

    "Mangum has been jailed since April 3. She was initially charged with assault with a deadly weapon in the stabbing of 46-year-old Reginald Daye. He died after nearly two weeks at a hospital."


I now take the opportunity to add my commentary to Gaynor's, that I wrote, in Liberty Clarion at the time of Mangum's accusations against the Duke lacrosse players.



Let's look at some of those engaged in an assault upon the Duke University lacrosse players accused of an alleged rape.

Jesse Jackson! Attorney Willie E. Gary! The New Black Panthers! The Durham People's Alliance!

Though all of the above have implicitly agreed that the three indicted Duke players are guilty, the real fact of the matter is proven guilty or not, that is not what matters: primarily, I risk saying, to Jackson and Gary.

All involved know that in 1996 the accuser — the Black female employee of an "escort" agency — claimed that she had been raped by three men. The charges were dropped, and we are told now that it is irrelevant and immaterial in determining the veracity of the current accusations. In today's environment of fevered, feminist fabrication crying "rape" is not equivalent to crying "wolf."

A reasonable, unprejudiced person would conclude that if the Duke players are found not guilty, or if the case never sees the inside of a courtroom, that the accuser has brought false charges. They would also, reasonably, conclude that the person who should be charged for numerous offenses would be the accuser. Also, if the accuser is criminally charged, should this not make her susceptible to civil charges? This is what a reasonable person would conclude.

In a wonderful movie, starring Robert Donat, (based on a true story), entitled The Winslow Boy, a thirteen year old boy was expelled from a government military school for allegedly stealing five shillings.

The boy's father, determined that his son was truthful and innocent, set out to prove it. Unfortunately, the government would not allow a hearing so that the boy's case could be heard. Fortunately, a notable attorney (played by Donat) accepted the "brief" and argued before Parliament that the Winslow boy, though he was only thirteen, had the same right to defend his reputation as did any other subject of the King. "Why," he asked, "is this so?" After a pregnant pause he answered the rhetorical question, because "Right must be done."

But what do Jesse Jackson and Willie "Giant Killer" Gary know that reasonable people do not know? Let's regress, for a moment, and go back to the Kobe Bryant case. The Bryant case should have gone to court, for the sake of justice. But Bryant's accuser, personally dropped the charges against him. Neither was the defense of her virtue nor a pursuit of justice at all the issue. Bryant is a very wealthy public figure. So his accuser brought a civil suit, and the case was settled out of court. In the matter of Veracity v. Voracity, Veracity lost.

So, what did we have? We had a woman whose virtue was still generally doubtful. Even more so since she was seen as a sexual mercenary. Not sadder or wiser, only wealthier! Bryant's character is still in doubt, but he also cared less for his character and for justice than he did for just selling short. So much for truth, justice, and the American way!

Now we have the Duke case. Three young persons (I won't afford them the maturity of "men," yet, because I will not presume their innocence) from affluent families are accused — by a stripper with a sketchy background, who has a history of crying rape — are likely to be Bryant-ized, if Jackson and Gary pull off the civil-suit stunt. Guilty or not, we can expect a civil suit against the families of the Duke players.

In a revealing article by Wendy McElroy entitled "Is 'Duke' Case Headed to Civil Court?" (Fox News, May 16, 2006), the writer tells us that in April, the parents of the accuser met with lawyer Willie E. Gary. The meeting, she says, was "facilitated by...Rev. Jesse Jackson."

Gary plays the tort game very well, especially when he can wax righteous about so-called civil rights and implications of implacable White racism. He obscures, as Shakespeare wrote, his true purpose with "a gracious voice."

In a magazine called Essence, which targets a Black female readership, Gary is quoted as saying "It appears that a grave injustice has been done. And if I can help in any way to level the playing field, then I'm willing to do it." Why sure he is. This gritty defender of real justice can already smell the greens.

Gary knows that this case is being constantly decided by factions that use race as the trump card. In fact, in Essense there were three articles in the issue in which Gary was quoted. All three articles imply that the accuser is the clear victim and that the Duke players are members of the affluent White establishment.

McElroy, author of a book entitled Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century, describes how the civil action is criminal cases works.

"Whether the Duke case becomes a civil suit is separate from what happens in criminal court. Criminal and civil courts express different paradigms of law. Criminal law prohibits and punishes specific acts, such as rape; its general purposes are punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

"A 'guilty' verdict in criminal court can be used to establish liability in a civil one, but if the verdict is 'not guilty,' or the charges are dropped, a civil case can proceed independently."


McElroy goes on to tell us how and why this works. "The practice of using both criminal and civil courts to address the same offense has increased substantially. There are at least three reasons.

"First, due to decades of litiginous feminists, it is now common to address criminal offenses such as sexual abuse or domestic violence in civil court.

"Second, civil suits can be lucrative.

"Third, it is easier to win a civil case; standards of evidence and other legal protections enjoyed by a defendant (in a criminal case) are significantly lowered in civil court."


In addressing the political game being played by the prosecutor District Attorney Michael Nifong, Thomas Sowell, in a May 16 article in Townhall.com, entitled "Justice Delayed?" points out that while the defendants are pushing for a rapid trial in order to prove their innocence, Nifong has allegedly decided to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007. This political deceit allows Nifong to benefit, he believes, in the upcoming elections. He can posture for the Black vote yet escape the possibility that his cynical actions might result in his losing the case, and perhaps the election.

"Suppose," Sowell writes, "for the sake of argument that the players are guilty. What is the point of letting a bunch of rapists remain at large for another year? What about the danger that they would pose to women on or off the Duke campus?

"Now, suppose that the players are innocent. Isn't it unconscionable to have this damning charge hanging over their heads for another year?"


Thus, Nifong takes us back to Shakespeare. The ambitious, self-promoting D.A.'s "tainted and corrupt" scheme "obscures the show of evil."

With Nifong, Jesse Jackson, and Willie Gary on the side of "right," we can all expect a heinous "wrong," ostensibly in the cause of truth and justice. And a further scornful degradation of the American way!

© Frank Maguire

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Frank Maguire

Frank Maguire was born in Dorchester, MA, 1938, attended schools in Massachusetts, California, and Arizona, where he completed degrees in music and English writing/Journalism. Frank has been married to Helen Isabel Maguire née Estevez of Culver City, California, since 1957. They have six children, 14 grandchildren, and 10 great grandchildren.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Frank Maguire: Click here

More by this author