Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 1

message: A request was made this afternoon.  Abe Froman 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Is_it_right_to_name_the_alleged_victim.3F for the discussion on this topic.   Abe Froman 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone Please lock this page so people won't keep naming the alleged victim -- this is wrong and has no place on wikipedia!

message: Following a conversation with a sysop, I created this page because this topic was taking up too much space there. See also the Duke's talk page. Anagrammarian 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are significant POV problems. Hopefully now the debate can be focused on this page and not on Duke's. Still, this is almost certainly an article which merits placing  at the top. I may do that after I write up some problems, but you are welcome to do so as well. Thanks for your vigilance! Anagrammarian 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Duke University]].  

message: I placed a clean-up template on the article because there are several problems with the way information is presented in it. 
*First of all, it is just plain messy and needs some significant work on headings to organize the way information is presented.
*Second, there are clear NPOV problems as well as some more subtle ones in the emphasis certain facts are given and the ways in which others are treated. There may also be factual errors. 
I recommend that we both organize and significantly reduce the content of this article. I also don't think we need to include every little aspect of the case. This is a Wikipedia article, not a detailed list of breaking news reports. Perhaps a Developments section should be included as well as an External links section, but we should be careful not to overload either. Any help cleaning up this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Anagrammarian 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up and NPOV problems 

message: In:Timeline-
" An African-American woman alleged that, on March 13, 2006, three white members of Duke University's lacrosse team had beaten, strangled, and sexually assaulted her." [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wduke02.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/02/ixworld.html
In this citation, as well as most others, the person involved was simply refered to as black. The transposition of this to African-American incites a further racial tone in the US.  
" She then allegedly attempted to leave but was convinced to stay."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12100397/
  She then left the house but was convinced to return inside.
I haven't found anywhere that this is in dispute or denied.
In:Background of the Accused-
"Finnerty agreed to community service to escape harsher sanctions".[8]
http://www.nbc17.com/news/8830631/detail.html
I didn't see this bold bit in this citation[8],furthermore, it's assumptive!
Citation [9]http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-725409.html -seems dead, but I use dial up!
I have not yet edited the main body.
I did a quick change to "as an alternative" to remove any perceived connotations with the word escape. SCrahan
: Community Service in lieu of jail for first time offenders is standard.  The statement to escape harsher sanctions is accurate.  Abe Froman 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I like the word "escape" in this context, but I'm not sure what a better term would be. "Avoid" seems to have the same problem. Anybody have ideas? SeaworthyViolin 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I'm not sure I see the relevance of this information.  Particularly the line 
Many arguments about her made to the media by Defense attorneys on behalf of their clients may be useless in court due to these laws. 
What allegations have defense attorneys made that could possibly be precluded by the NC rape shield law? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JCO312 (talk • contribs) .
: The supported point of the passage is this: The defense can say nearly anything about the victim outside of court, but inside court, the sexual behavior of the complainant is not admissable due to North Carolina's rape shield law.  See  Abe Froman 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not entirely true.  The sexual behavior may be admissible under certain circumstances, as your chart makes clear.  My point, though, is that the line suggests that defense lawyers in this particular case have made statements which would be inadmissible at trial.  If that's true, they certainly aren't mentioned anywhere in this entry. JCO312 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited it to make it more accurate.  A rape shield law doesn't prevent a victim's sexual history from being brought out in public, it prevents it from being presented as evidence.  Also, since I still can't find anything that the defense lawyers said that's possibly covered by such a law, I edited the second line to make it more general. JCO312 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your edits.  Abe Froman 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I further edited the rape shield line, because it's not true that all evidence of employment is not covered.  There's certainly an argument that an alleged victim's history as a prostitute, for example, would be inadmissible under the rape shield statute.  I also added the word "likely" because it's impossible to say for sure how a court might rule on a motion to exclude evidence of this type.JCO312 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new sentence confuses the issue.  Employment does not fall under the rape shield law, prior sexual history does.  The new sentence implies that strippers can expect to be raped.  I do not think it should be retained.  Abe Froman 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certain employment could very well (and has) fallen under the rape shield law.  I don't disagree that it might be worth taking out altogether.  Frankly, I disagree with the new edit, because it picks from one of the several exceptions to the rape shield law in NC.JCO312 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where in the statute on rape shield law in N.Carolina  does it mention employment?  It does not.  Mentioning employment in the context of the statute goes beyond what the citation supports.  Abe Froman 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't mean anything.  Look up the statute in Lexis or Westlaw.  It will cite to plenty of cases that deal with employment (primarily prostitution) as being included in the rape shield law. I think ultimately we agree that it's not worth talking about employment at all (see my most recent edit to the text in question), but for what it's worth I thought I'd point out here that employment can in fact be covered.  JCO312 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your last edit.JCO312 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line on Rape Shield Laws