Seattle Sports Insider

Bias In Favor of Lueke?

Posted by

9/17/10

David H with provocative questions. They are fair questions, stated respectfully:

I'm interested in how you viewed the information regarding Alford pleas. I think it cuts both ways - if Alford pleas are possible, and Lueke did not affirmatively maintain his innocence, it seems that this would cut against him. These pleas are rare, though, and the prosecutor may not have been willing to go along with the plea deal if Lueke wanted to state his innocence on the record. A five second google search shows that California permitted these pleas at least as recently as 2006 (defendant: Jean Peyrelevade). But as to your larger point, Alford is indeed a formal, legal recognition that some defendants plead guilty while disputing their guilt.

I'm curious, though, about how many people rushing to give Lueke every possible benefit of the doubt would do so in other guilty plea (or nolo contendre) situations. I'm not calling anyone out specifically, and not assigning specific motives or biases, but would there be such support voiced if he was not a talented white athlete in the Mariners organization? Or just not a talented athlete? Or just not white? Or just not a Mariner? Think about all the people sitting behind bars because of a guilty plea right now - are you (not you jemanji but you commenters straining to find some gap in the information to support Lueke) as willing to assume they may be actually innocent as you are to assume that Lueke may be?

Here are over 250 people wrongly convicted and later exonerated by DNA or other evidence. According to the data compiled by the Innocence Project, "In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty." People confess and plead guilty when they are innocent. This is a known fact. Do you give the benefit of the doubt to other convicted felons, or just Lueke?

=== Single White Female, Dept. ===

I believe that the question about Lueke's whiteness is a little retro. The president is black, the most popular movie star is black, and conservatives will vote Condolezza Rice long before they'll vote John Kerry. :- )

Many here remember that one of the three or four hottest flame wars on Detectovision.com was over Dr. D's defense of Carl Everett -- a "very" black man. And everybody will remember the hyper-friendly SSI/MC attitude toward Milton Bradley.

Sports fans especially pick their faves -- Junior, Michael Jordan, Edgar, whoever -- based on factors other than the color of their skin these days. That's my opinion, anyway. I'd have rather had Jesus Montero than Justin Smoak....

=== Bias, Dept. ===

There is a tendency toward the Lueke side of the argument this week on SSI, no doubts there. I believe that this is for three reasons:

1) The other half of the story has been already been stated and argued, by Geoff Baker in the Seattle Times.

2) There is a backlash in America against a court system, and media system, that is unfair to white males accused of sex crimes.

3) The truth on this issue is toward the Lueke side of the argument.

The "backlash" isn't an Angry White Male thing. It's a simple recognition of injustice. Political excesses are necessarily going to cause equal-and-opposite reactions.

...............

Geoff has argued strongly, but in my humble opinion in some points incorrectly -- and the very detail of his argument have seduced the analysts here into filling the vacuum with accurate responses.

Any reader is welcome to go back to the beginning of this discussion, and see that, if anything, the general consensus was too tentative about defending Lueke's point of view. Only after the truth began to dawn, did opinion coalesce around the idea that, "Hey, this kid really isn't getting a fair shake."

Josh Lueke physically looks, and comes off in print, as a fairly unsavory character. I don't think people wound up siding with him because he's a sympathetic character.

..............

Hold up your hand, if you believe that SSI readers would have analyzed the arguments differently, if the accused had been Michael Pineda.

Respectfully,

Jeff

Comments

As to the non-athletes in society

David H asks,
would there be such support voiced if he was not a talented white athlete in the Mariners organization? Or just not a talented athlete? Or just not white? Or just not a Mariner? Think about all the people sitting behind bars because of a guilty plea right now - are you (not you jemanji but you commenters straining to find some gap in the information to support Lueke) as willing to assume they may be actually innocent as you are to assume that Lueke may be?

Great point...
In any case where a defendant's situation is called to my attention, I'm interested in justice.
It is because Lueke is a celebrity that his situation is called to my attention -- and because he's a Mariner. This is a Mariners blog. On my ThatProphet.com blog, we might be discussing Christians in China who shouldn't be in jail. Should I call on readers here to engage that? :- )
..................
I'm getting out of my depth here, but one of my assumptions is that the people in jail tend to be dirtier than Josh Lueke is -- and I've spent a fair amount of time around convicts, so I'm not just whistling in the dark.
My assumption is that a person like Josh Lueke tends to be a different breed of cat, than are most of the people that prosecutors put behind bars.
True that many of the people behind bars are there because of court errors. Also true that many of those same people deserve to be behind bars for other offenses.
We're talking generalities, of course. Josh Lueke isn't a gangbanger with a rap sheet a foot long, and by all accounts he's been a very good citizen since being released.
..............
Naturally, I'm going to be out of my depth real quick here. There are certainly people in jail who shouldn't be there, and when those cases are called to our attention, sure, we need to be consistent.

Good point

I think this is a good response. Perhaps if the situation of some other convicted felon was brought to this community's attention, it would voice a similar amount of support and doubt in the felon's guilt. I tend to doubt it, but it's possible. I think the fact of him being a Mariner might be more important than any other factor, so perhaps that's the reason for the support and doubt.
I don't think you made a good point in the main post above, though, with the "we have a black president" defense. If you think racial bias does not exist simply because President Obama is black and Condoleezza Rice is conservative, well, I honestly don't know what to say.
Regarding the "backlash in America against a court system, and media system, that is unfair to white males accused of sex crimes," I think that does not avert racial bias, but is a factor directly motivated by it. Maybe I'm missing the news on all the white people accused of sex crimes who are unfairly treated by the courts and media, but I can only think of the Duke lacrosse players. It seems like they were hosed. Taking that one case and deciding that the white man is persecuted by the court system and the media is absurd, though, in contrast to the injustices elsewhere. Where is the backlash against a court system and media unfair to Muslims? Or immigrants? Or people without money? There isn't a backlash, and that says something.
So when you explain, ""backlash" isn't an Angry White Male thing. It's a simple recognition of injustice," I think you miss the mark. It might be a recognition and opposition to injustice, but is selectively white and tellingly silent about other injustices.

extrapolation

I think you're extrapolating way too much here, david h.
I sincerely hope we've reached a point where questioning racial motivations only happens *when there is a reason to think it might be a factor*. As far as I can see, the only reason you are raising the issue is because Leuke's white. That's not enough.
Show us an inequity in how fans view their team's atheltes based on their skin color, then maybe we've got a problem. But as Doc points out, kinda the opposite is the case. This same group of fans has been decidedly supportive of troubled (non-white) athletes, particularly recently.
I also must say, your response to Doc's statement of it being 'a simple recognition of injustice' is shameful. Saying that it is 'selectively white and tellingly silent about other injustices' is a completely false and meaningless response. Take ANY injustice. Let's pick slavery in America. To discuss that injustice only would be 'selectively black and tellingly silent about other injustices'.
You're attempting to broaden the argument outside of what is relevent, and trying to paint your position as holier-than-thou. But this discussion is about Leuke's case, not all the other injustices in the world. Let's keep it at that.

Somewhere between narrow and broad

I wasn't arguing that the response to Lueke is necessarily racially motivated, rather, I argued that if there indeed is a general, societal backlash against persecution of white people accused of sex crimes, that general, societal backlash is selectively white. The criminal justice system and media treat tons of people unfairly, and do it in similar ways - if people find the strength to express outrage at only the treatment of white people accused of sex crimes, that is certainly selectively white and I do not see how you can say otherwise.
The general, societal backlash was posited as one of several explanations for the support of Lueke. I'm arguing that that factor does nothing to dispel the possibility of racial bias, because that backlash - if it indeed exists and if it indeed is a factor at play here - is borne of racial bias.
As for the questions I raised as a whole, they stem from my surprise at the fairly broad support for Lueke. Do I have examples of other athletes not getting such a benefit of the doubt? Not off the top of my head. But because I was struck by the responses, I asked some questions - is the response, which I perceive to be as out of proportion to an expected response to someone accused of rape and who is found guilty of a related, lesser charge - driven by race, talent, his employer, attitudes towards women who try to pick up men at a bar, a Pavlovian response to Baker taking the other side, or anything else?
Or is my perception wrong - this community would equally support some non-athlete, non-mariner, non-white female accused of some crime and found guilty based on a nolo contendere plea to some lesser charge?

addendum

in the last paragraph, add: if brought to the community's attention and posted as a topic for discussion.

Another way to put it

Again, regarding the backlash, if it exists - why is it against "a court system, and media system, that is unfair to white males accused of sex crimes"? Whys is it not against a court and media that is unfair to males accused of sex crimes? That is selectively white.
The comparison to discussions of slavery misses the mark. Antebellum American slavery is a discrete, historical topic. There is good reason to focus on that as a topic, as there is good reason to discuss other instances and forms of slavery past and present against all people. But what is the reason to single out white males charged with sex crimes and treated unfairly as opposed to males charged with sex crimes and treated unfairly? Is that such a large and discrete class such that it must be separated out from other similarly situated males?
Again, this point relates to the "backlash" factor, not to the entire Lueke response.

all of this debate because of

all of this debate because of lueke. if he wasn't any good, i am sure that the M's would have had him thrown out to some other teams just to avoid the noises. just like what they did to mateo, and soriano, and in a way sasaki. they are really sensitive about these kinda stuff, gender issues.

but, lueke looks to be golden. it is almost looking right now like are we willing to look into the past of a k-rod like player and accept him the seattle? yeah i'd take him. i wonder how geoff would look at this. is he ever going to let go of the lueke case and let him play, or wouldn't he stop until he runs him out of here? i know that this is not the original intent of geoff, but if lueke comes up to seattle next yerar (and he is looking like he is ready), is he going to let the subject go? or write about it again?

Response

"...if people find the strength to express outrage at only the treatment of white people accused of sex crimes, that is certainly selectively white and I do not see how you can say otherwise."
---- Yes, *IF* people do. I don't see that they do; and you haven't shown that they do. I'll offer one example that effectively blows your whole premise out of the water, Ben Roethlisberger. Again you're offering a weak, basically non-argument. 'If unicorns exist, I don't see how you can argue they don't'.
"I'm arguing that that factor does nothing to dispel the possibility of racial bias, because that backlash - if it indeed exists and if it indeed is a factor at play here - is borne of racial bias."
---- The burden is on you to show that there is racial bias. There's no reason to think there is. Even you state here, 'if it indeed exists'. You don't even know. You're just speculating, which is fine, but race is a sensitive issue and IMO should not be raised with such flimsy or non-existent evidence.
"is the response, which I perceive to be as out of proportion to an expected response to someone accused of rape and who is found guilty of a related, lesser charge - driven by race, talent, his employer, attitudes towards women who try to pick up men at a bar, a Pavlovian response to Baker taking the other side, or anything else?"
---- Jemanji addressses this rather thoroughly in his post. Also I have a news flash for you - celebrities tend to garner more attention. As a professional athlete Leuke was more exposed than most people. The Baker 'expose' and high profile trade pushed him, unwittingly, in to the limelight. It happens.
"Or is my perception wrong - this community would equally support some non-athlete, non-mariner, non-white female accused of some crime and found guilty based on a nolo contendere plea to some lesser charge, [if brought to the community's attention and posted as a topic for discussion].?"
---- The attention is being drawng because the story is high-profile. Any high-profile case is going to garner lots of attention and support on both sides of the issue, as this one has.
"..the backlash, if it exists - why is it against "a court system, and media system, that is unfair to white males accused of sex crimes"? Whys is it not against a court and media that is unfair to males accused of sex crimes? That is selectively white"
---- Doc's words there, not mine. Personally I wouldn't play the racial card on either side of that argument. That there is a backlash against injustices in the legal system period, and against males accused of sex crimes in particular, I can see that.
"The comparison to discussions of slavery misses the mark. Antebellum American slavery is a discrete, historical topic.."
---- Your arguments are thin and drop even further in my esteem when you redirect arguments this way. I offered slavery as one example of any of the billions of injustices that have happened in human history that would have served as an adequate example to refute your position. It was the first injustice that came to mind. I probably should have run with this example: My coffee this morning was 1/3 empty when I bought it. Discuss that injustice against me and that would be an 'injustice against cabinetmakers and tellingly silent about other injustices'. Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with it.
"But what is the reason to single out white males charged with sex crimes and treated unfairly as opposed to males charged with sex crimes and treated unfairly? Is that such a large and discrete class such that it must be separated out from other similarly situated males?"
---- I agree.

Maybe DH

And I'm well aware of the scoffing that I'd get at the UW HUB in protesting that Obama's presidency (or, in fact, any other milestone of social progress) was to any white man's credit whatsoever.
It is a fact that prison populations are far disproportionately nonwhite. The causes of this make for fascinating discussion. But as you can appreciate, SSI has gone far enough astray from on-field baseball for one month :- )
I'm not going to follow the gender-war and media-bias intermission with a much longer one on racial injustice in the USA. Gotta get back to balls and strikes shortly here.
To hash this particular subject out would take us a lot of words :- ) so I'll give you the last one.
...............
You amigos are welcome to this thread wth my compliments.

I think you miss my point

I have not argued that racial bias has motivated the response to Lueke. I have noted my surprise at the amount of support and eagerness to doubt his culpability, because in my experience, people tend to assume the accuracy of a conviction, and have asked whether, among several factors, race might be a part of it.
Where I have argued directly about race is in response to the suggestion in the main post above that a factor could be "There is a backlash in America against a court system, and media system, that is unfair to white males accused of sex crimes." I have argued that this factor does not dispel the possibility of racial bias, because this factor itself is racially biased, because there is no reason to distinguish between white males accused of sex crimes who are treated unfairly and all males accused of sex crimes who are treated unfairly, while there is a reason for someone to address, say, antebellum American slavery as a distinct topic.
I have no idea if this "backlash" exists, and I have no idea if it applies to the Lueke response. If such a backlash exists, I am not aware of it, as I indicated in one of my other comments. My only point was that this suggested factor does not address whether race is a factor.
Also as I mentioned in one of my other comments, I suspect the fact that he is a Mariner is the most likely reason for the support, and certainly the reason this issue is getting play in Seattle. I just hope people are as cautious about assuming the guilt of non-Mariners (and non athletes. and non-whites) where the circumstances create some doubt as they are of Lueke.

Also

My "tellingly silent" point is misunderstood. Discussing any single injustice is not tellingly silent about other injustices. On the other hand, a societal backlash against an injustice against one race, where that injustice is perpetrated against other races as well, is tellingly silent. As I mentioned in my above comment, I was addressing the suggested factor of a societal "backlash." I wasn't saying that the absence of discussion about other injustices on this website is tellingly silent, I'm saying that a societal backlash as defined in the post is tellingly silent where there is little societal backlash against other similar injustices not confined to white people, such that the "backlash" factor does not separate itself from race.

"...I know that this is not

"...I know that this is not the original intent of geoff, but if lueke comes up to seattle next yerar (and he is looking like he is ready), is he going to let the subject go? or write about it again?"
I fear that relentless hunting will be the password

In general

DH...in general, people don't have access to as many facts as we regarding Lueke's case. Here, we have eye-witness testimony that says the girl was drunk out of her mind and could remember about the night after the fact. We know all of this because Lueke is a famous ballplayer and subject to a controversy involving a make-or-break trade of a CY pitcher, so yesy, that may be a bias in Luele's favor relative to the average Joe in prison, but no, that bias does not come from his skin color. It comes from having more than the usual amount of info.

POTD

Maybe a good way to cap this off would be a POTD on Lueke the baseball player. Most of us know more about one drunken night of his life than we know about his abilities inside the diamond.
For levity's sake, Jeff at LookoutLanding tweets:
I have learned that the boys in the bullpen call Josh Lueke's split-finger fastball "The Splitsuation."
If true, that is A) hilarious, B) an indication that he's not exactly a distraction to his team mates and C) something I would like to see in the M's bullpen. Could he and Cortes and the many tatted League form the M's flame-throwing version of the "nasty boys" that Pinella assembled in Cinci all those years ago?

... one word too many ...

(sigh)
To add a quick comment - had the question stated stopped with JUST a backlash against a Justice System ... with no mention of race, I would've heartily agreed.
I cannot speak for the rest of the country ... but for myself, the race issue is one that is raised in far, far too many cases -- and because of the emotional content of THAT issue (wherever it might be raised - justly or not) -- it typically subsumes whatever other issue was being discussed, (and often becomes an intentional distraction for those losing the original argument). I don't believe that the case here. But, racial issues often tend to derail others.
That said -- yes, the Duke Lacrosse players were white - and falsely accused by a black woman, (and it is highly likely given the racial makeup of Durham, the overzealous white prosecutor likely was at least partially motivated by race - (but not in a normal "racist" context).
But, Michael Irvin was just as falsely accused, in a remarkably similar situation - and likewise was eventually exonerated.
For ME - the race issue is a red herring in regards to the general topic of prosecutorial conduct, (proper or otherwise). The quick public defense of Lueke from the masses in wake of the bad press ... that being a manifestation influenced by general discontent in regards to both the justice system and the press in matters regarding the justice system - THAT I can easily accept.

Y'know...

I just realized that until the poster DH accused us of being unconsciously racist, I hadn't even thought to look at a picture of Lueke...had NO IDEA he was white...DIDN'T CARE what color he was. That is called color blindness...DH is just setting us back with this racial talk.

The Human Aspect

I don't have a lot of time to chime in much, and I'm not sure whether this particular thread is the best one for my comment, but...here it goes anyway.
This is really a fascinating topic, and kudos to those in this thread who have managed to keep it civil. Extra to Geoff Baker for taking time to engage a forum such as this with a much smaller audience than his Times blog or that other over-credited main M's blog.
What particularly intrigues me in this discussion is the human behavior involved and how many variables exist among all of the parties. This includes everyone from Baker to Armstrong, Lincoln, Zduriencik, Fusco, Leuke, his defense attorney, the victim, and those in this discussion.
It's obvious that Lueke wasn't smart on the night in question. The victim likely was not either. Sometimes though, we get so involved with the plot, that we miss out on the people in the plot. I have no idea how much of a victim the victim really is. But the fact is, we have the legal equivalent of a conviction of a felony charge (at least until its pending reduction to misdemeanor). That alone should give us pause as to how we treat the victim. She deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the seriousness of the charges.
Without knowing the facts of the case beyond what's available to everyone, I've tried to put myself in Leuke's shoes. At the time of the plea, what does he have to gain in each scenario and what does he have to lose? In order to answer that question, I am going to assume that he believes he is innocent.
Option A: plead guilty. Likely avoids a long sentence, but also a felon. With this plea, his livelihood that he's worked his entire life to participate in is destroyed. Life totally changed. Nothing to gain, a LOT to lose.
Option B: plead innocent and stand trial. Fight the charges on principle. Trials depend on juries. Let's say he (and his lawyers) believe that even if innocent, there's a 20% chance of being convicted anyway. When it's someone else's life, it's easy for us to say "hey man, you gotta stand on principle - if you're innocent, you gotta fight". I'm betting it's a LOT different when you're in the hot seat. Good chance you'll win, decent chance your life is destroyed and you're sitting innocently in prison wondering what line of work you possibly qualify for after they let you out. A little to gain - a ton to lose.
Option C: plead no contest (i.e. I am not contesting the charges) in exchange for time served and a reduction to a misdemeanor. A wrongful felony conviction won't stick on your record (along with all the other sex-offender baggage that goes with it), as long as you're clean over the next couple of years, which if you're innocent in the first place, wouldn't be hard to do.
I am not saying I think Leuke is innocent. Whether he is or not is now moot. What I am saying is that if it was me and I was innocent, I would not have to consider this for very long. I take Option C. There's virtually no risk other than reputation (which would be damaged anyway if there was a trial and acquittal). After 2 years, the result is virtually the same and my life isn't destroyed. A lot to gain, very little to lose.
The bottom line to me is that Leuke is a human being and is presumebly connected to other human beings that care about him and vice versa. If he is truly innocent, he's done the smart thing, both for himself and those he cares about.
I think where I disagree most with Baker is the fact that this human element is left out. What I mean by that is that Leuke may have plead no contest and gotten the same result as a guilty plea bargain. The difference between that and no contest is very important. No contest is accepting the resposibility of the crime (the part I agree with Baker on). It does not logically follow that he is admitting guilt, nor does it logically follow that he should, if he believes he is not. In the example above, I would do exactly what he did, even if I was innocent (and even if the agreement stated I couldn't comment later on my guilt or innocence).
I can appreciate's Baker's stance on not wanting to take the Leuke angle and speculate more than what the facts are. I've mentioned this many times over the years, but growing up as the son of a sports journalist has given me a little extra perspective on these things. The objective of the piece was not to go over the legal processes and procedures of Leuke's case - it was to hold the Mariners accountable over their practices. This whole process shines a light on it. Lincoln's leaked email shows you how PR-concious they are. Apparently Z is not on the same page (at least to the same degree). With that in mind, I think it's important to understand why the specifics of the case were not included and Baker's piece achieved its objective. I think my father, had he written on this, may have included some piece about the difference in plea types, and thus given Leuke a softer hit than Baker did. But that doesn't really mean that I think he would have been more in the right. I am a context person. To me, the plea agreement (specifically the fact that no contest really is different than guilty) would have been germaine, but only to the extent of adding context to the story.
When dealing with the apparent contradictions in the Armstrong/Z quotes, the difference in how we or they view Leuke's plea may be an important piece.
Sorry for the length. I actually would like to add more, but short on time.

Redemption Stories

BTW, I am also a sucker for redemption stories, but that goes back to my own worldview. We all need redemption - to some degree.

I think my big disconnect...

...was touched on by another poster here who commented that he thought it was misdirecting the conversation to insert religious slogans or beliefs into a post on the topic of Baker's journalistic approach to this situation. I honestly believe that every decision you make in life - no matter what job you hold - should be driven by your fundamental core beliefs (ideally, fundamental core beliefs that make life precious, give people their inalienable rights, allow for free expression etc). If you stray from you core beliefs because you feel that your profession does not allow you to act the way you'd like to...then you should quit TOMORROW and find something that does...or you shuold re-examine your priorities. Being someone you don't want to be for the sake of a job is the surest road to misery that exists in this world.
I personally believe that journalism was better when the practicianers acted in accordence with their personal beliefs and therefore had better standards of integrity, fair play, and discipline (less driven by ratings this instant...more driven by becoming a name people trusted for an unbiased recording of the facts).
I believe Baker's approach to Lueke's story will get him more hits today...and cost him more fans tomorrow...than a fair and balanced perspective would have.
And, yes...I believe that Baker's actions were (and continue to be) deeply unfair and immoral and I live in hope that some day he'll reconsider. Lueke is a human being too, Geoff. Somewhere in your heart, you know this. Using him to hold the Mariners accountable for their practices is wrong...no one will ever convince me otherwise...I'm sorry if that offends.
The point to all this is...all professions can and should be held to moral standards...inserting religious comments into a post shouldn't be viewed as misdirecting...it shuold be viewed as common sense.

Well, SABRMatt

It's too bad you view it that way. Truth is, I'm not going to tailor my reporting to win me more fans or avoid having fewer fans. We have enough of those types of writers already. I do find it concerning that you label me as immoral and my reporting as unbalanced.
It sounds like you want me to write a piece that describes Lueke as a humanitarian of some sort. That's tough to do when we're telling a story about a case in which he went in accused of rape and sodomy and came out of it a felon on a reduced charge. It's not my job to dream up fantasy scenarios in which he might be innocent of the original charges. We asked him why he lied repeatedly to police (at ages 23 and 24, not 19 like some blogs keep writing) over a nine-month period. He gave his answer and we provided it to you.
If by "fair and balanced" you want me to write a story that raises the question of his innocence, once again, why would I do that? Is that typically done for all criminals in the public eye who plead down to lesser charges? Lueke did not tell me he feels he was innocent. He kept saying he accepts responsibility for what happened. So now, it seems, you want me to go beyond that, hop on his bandwagon and look for things that he did not argue himself. Again, why? Because he's a ballplayer?
And frankly, throughout all of this, having actually looked at the case, I've yet to see the victim tripped up on anything in her story. Not one, single detail has ever been contradicted with any evidence. After all this time. Many things said by Lueke over a nine-month span were contradicted and proven false. So, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to show "the human side" of him, or why. Is there any actual evidence to justify doing this?
Because why would I show the human side of Lueke and not go into even greater depth on the human side of the victim? You know, the woman who was never charged with a crime, nor held responsible for a crime, nor ever contradicted in anything she was saying?
Maybe because she's not a ballplayer? That doesn't fly with me.
We can nitpick and dissect the meaning of a no-contest plea to death and if you pick at something long enough, everything will seem full of holes. I've covered over 150 criminal and civil trials in my previous career as a legal affairs bureau chief at another newspaper and can tell you there was room for doubt in every single one of them. That's nothing new. Even in cases where juries decide on something in five minutes.
But in this case, you want me to assume a person's "innocence" by slanting my story to make people feel sympathy for a player who took responsibility for a felony charge. A player who is the only one of the two parties proven to have lied repeatedly. And the only one who offered up no credible evidence in his defense other than changing his story. That's the foundation for which I'm supposed to go out of my way to raise doubt in a case already decided by the courts? i don't think so.
Again, I'm not going to slant the story either way. You have a criminal case where Lueke emerged a convicted felon. You have a female victim who nobody in authority is suggesting tried to lie or mislead anyone. And who no one on the defense team has ever proved to be non-credible.
You want to put the victim on trial? Or start a campaign for Lueke's innocence? Go ahead. I'm not going to be the one to do it when the facts -- the only ones in front of us -- don't point in that direction. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But now, Lueke is considered guilty by not contesting the charges of false imprisonment with violence. If he, or his supporters, want to start a campaign in the other direction, I'll certainly listen with an open mind and investigate that theory as I have all others connected to this case. Believe me, I have looked into all aspects of this case deeper than you or anyone else I've read online. But the burden of proof is now on Lueke. It's no longer on the state. And it's certainly not on me. I'll sleep very well tonight, thanks.

Suffice to say...

...you've made my point for me beautifully.
There is no dishonor in being accused of a crime - not in America, nor was there at one time a journalist with an ethical sense that would repeat as often as he could get it into print that a man has a criminal prosecution on his record just to attract hit counts and attack the team for which he writes. There are only these facts:
Josh Lueke was ACCUSED of raping a drunken woman following a night of flirtation.
Josh Lueke plead no contest to avoid further jail time and a potentially painful trial.
Geoff Baker equates the above as absolute proof of Josh Lueke's guilt.
I think the third is a crying shame. And yes...I think it's immoral too.

Again, folks, a reading fail.

"...until the poster DH accused us of being unconsciously racist"
I'm fairly certain I have made no such accusation. Please tell me where I did. The only time I raised race as a potential reason for the support for Lueke was when writing, "I'm not calling anyone out specifically, and not assigning specific motives or biases, but would there be such support voiced if he was not a talented white athlete in the Mariners organization? Or just not a talented athlete? Or just not white? Or just not a Mariner?"
I posed questions for thought and conversation, and one of those was whether race had anything to do with this. I've also written that I think the fact that he is a Mariner is the driving factor behind his support. I guess if you think asking these open, non-accusatory questions is akin to accusing people of racism, then there you go.
The other post(s) about race were, as is clear in the posts and as I explained again above, in response to the "white males accused . . . " factor, which I simply argued is not a non-racial factor.

and italics fail too.

Second-to last graph shouldn't be italics, if that wasn't obvious.

How am I supposed to take that, DH?

When you throw the color thing into a sentence like that...and then defend your position that it may have been an issue with stuff about the treatment whites get (vs. minorities) in the courts, the media and amongst the general population...am I supposed to believe you didn't intend to ask the question "are we giving Lueke the benefit of the doubt because he's white?"
My answer is..."he's white? huh...didn't know that...didn't care. Why do you?"

I guess I'm still not making myself clear

". . . am I supposed to believe you didn't intend to ask the question "are we giving Lueke the benefit of the doubt because he's white?"
No, you are supposed to believe I did intend to ask that question, because I asked that question. However, I don't think asking that question is an accusation. I posited several factors that could be at play, I think his status as a Mariner is the most important factor, but in a society as racially cognizant and biased as ours, I think it is both a fair question to pose for discussion and, as a fair question, is not in itself an accusation.
. . . stuff about the treatment whites get (vs. minorities) in the courts, the media and amongst the general population . . ."
Now you are again referring to my argument regarding the purported "backlash" factor against the unfair treatment of white males. I pointed out, and I think rightfully and accurately so, that if that supposed backlash exists, and if it is a factor involved, that indicates rather than averts racial bias. I, however, would be surprised to learn that there is a backlash against a court and media system that unfairly treats white people accused of sex crimes.

Absolutes

I haven't weighed in at all on this fascinating discussion to date. And, really, my own thoughts on this likely are imprinted with a wide spectrum of the comments and opinions that have already been expressed here. There probably is a case to be made that Lueke plead no contest to "cut his losses" so to speak...SilentPadna's take may be the closest to what I think happened, at least in Lueke's mind.
That said, Geoff Baker has very little, if anything, to apologize for in his reporting of this case. He's been upfront, extremely upfront, throughout.
So then I read this as being presented as "the facts":
Josh Lueke was ACCUSED of raping a drunken woman following a night of flirtation.
Josh Lueke plead no contest to avoid further jail time and a potentially painful trial.

And I see spin. The facts, as we know them are:
- Josh Lueke was ACCUSED of raping a drunken woman.
- Josh Lueke plead no contest.

That's it. The rest is spin, an attempt at interpreting what might have happened (maybe even what LIKELY happened, but that's in no way "fact"). Baker's been reporting the facts. He hasn't been spinning...the facts presented as baldly as they are lead one to a certain set of conclusions perhaps...and maybe you could say that's "spin" as well, but it hasn't stopped a lively discussion of those same facts here and in other places that leads elsewhere.

Or, he could have given his

Or, he could have given his plea because he was guilty and afraid of losing at trial. You have no idea why he made his plea and are trying to guess and lecture others about what they should think. Try sticking to the facts. He pled no contest. The system recognizes him as guilty. That's what we know. And no amount of fact-twisting, calling people immoral and wishing for something else is going to change it.
My moral compass is well-centered, thank you.

The facts are clear, Geoff.

I have twisted nothing...I am making a reasonable inference from facts you refuse to print in your articles. You never once mention that the girl involved shares culpability for her behavior - never once meantion the eye-witness testimony that makes her claims less than trustworthy - and never once mention that Lueke himself was before and continues to be afterward a model citizen who never encountered trouble with the law until this and never since.

on morality

To interject a "possible" shift in perspective for Matt to ponder.
Your interpretation of Geoff's piece and defense is that you view him as lacking a moral foundation (to some degree).
However - I could EASILY see Geoff's piece viewed as being *OVERLY* moralistic.
To distance ourselves from the case in point to try and look at the 'general' topic. Let's say, (as an example), I were to write a piece on a kid given the exact same punishment that Lueke received - but for a DWI-related crime - (hit someone with a car while drunk - but the person didn't die).
If *MY* personal morality is one that puts an extremely high value on personal responsiblity - and I believe that drunk drivers are treated FAR too leniently by our judicial system, then it could easily be a moral imperative *TO ME* to write a serious piece that might slam the kid, the courts, and the club for not punishing the kid further. My motivation could be completely morally based -- yet, the implementation of that foundation could easily appear to be an attack piece seemingly devoid of any concern over the impact it might have on the lives of others. (In my example, the over-riding intent of the piece might actually be a belief that in the long run, writing the piece might change behaviors and save lives).
That said -- I also completely understand and appreciate the concerns in regards to the power of the press in general to destroy lives (either by intent - or as "collateral damage"). The line between informing the public and damaging individuals is often very blurry. I got to show the film "Absence of Malice" about 40 times when I was in college to all the jouralism classes. The moral and ethical questions the press face on a daily basis are rarely clear and easy.
Christians during the Crusades - KKK members in the previous century - and Islamic Radicals today have all operated under what THEY believed to be moral imperatives. The sad reality is that one man's moral act is often another man's atrocity.

Well Sandy...

...I didn't say Geoff had no morals. I said his piece is morally wrong. There is a difference. To say a piece is morally wrong could imply either that it lacks any moral foundation at all...or that it has a moral foundation that is objectionable. In this case,m the latter would probably be more appropriate. Geoff clings desperately to the letter of the law - "He accepted a plea bargain...he accepted responsibility for the crime...I therefore have the right to be as stubbornly obsessive and obnoxious when talking about him as I want...it's all on him!" His moral code, apparently, is that as long as the things he writes are technically correct, he can be as much of a jerk as he'd like if it sells papers and/or fills his blog with hits and/or moves forward his personal agenda (oh wait a second...I thought journalists weren't supposed to HAVE personal agendas...........)
Treating someone like a number (prisoner 24601!) because they had a run-in with the law, whether deserved or not (my belief on Lueke's role in this crime is irrelevant to this point) is objectionable. That's what Baker insists on doing, and I think it's immoral...not because Geoff has no morals, but because his morals are screwed up.

Tend to agree with Sandy; the articles are moral

If morality is the judgment of human behavior according to ANY GIVEN set of standards of Right and Wrong ...
An a-moral set of articles would have said, or implied, that Lueke did nothing "objectively" Wrong -- that he should be excluded from the Mariners organization because of expediency.
An argument that said the Mariners should exclude Lueke, merely because he would hurt their attendance or relationships or prestige or etc., that would have been an amoral argument.
Might have understood Geoff wrong, but he seems to have been making an extremely "moral" argument -- that once a violation of his standards of Right and Wrong have occurred, that no repair (in this violation) is possible.

Again...read my response.

I never described Geoff as amoral. I described him as IMMORAL...i.e. his morals are screwed up.

BTW

I am reading this very late in the game (8 days later now), and with what seems like a lot less emotion and until glum brought it up I never thought DH was accusing anyone of being racist, and I still don't. He was merely asking an open ended question which has merit deserved an answer (an answer Dr D provided, and that DH gave as well: because Leuke is a Mariner, not because he is white).
Also I agree with him (and glum), Dr. D. probably shouldn't have specified "white males" and should have just gone with males in general in his point 3 above.