Collin Finnerty.  Reade Seligman.  David Evans.

The names may not be familiar but their notoriety as the accused Duke lacrosse players may ring a bell.

The story went like this. Members of the Duke lacrosse team hired strippers to come to a team party that they were hosting. One of the women later claimed to have been sexually assaulted at the party and the three men listed above were charged with a number of crimes including rape.

Despite contradictory information, strong alibis, conflicting eye-witness reports, DNA and serious credibility issues on the part of the accuser, the case moved forward in both the legal system and, more importantly, the court of public opinion. With intense coverage by the media, flamed by the fire of racial tensions in the Durham, N.C., community, the lacrosse players were painted as guilty merely because they had been accused. Duke’s lacrosse coach resigned under pressure, and the lacrosse season that year was suspended.  

All charges against the young men were eventually dropped and the District Attorney lost his job, was disbarred and was held in contempt for irregularities in the way he handled this case. Numerous lawsuits were filed, not only by the three accused but by other members of the Duke lacrosse community, including former coach Mark Pressler, for the way the university, the city, the DNA lab and other entities handled the accusations. Those young men, their teammates, their families, other students, faculty, alumni – and the community of Durham – were all impacted by the rush to judgment. 

And then there is Frank Kush.

A native of Windber, Pa., Kush was an All-American football player at Michigan State who, after a stint in the military, went on to become a successful, if not controversial, college football coach with a reputation for demanding practices and unconventional disciplinary tactics.

In 1979, Arizona State punter Kevin Rutledge sued the university and Kush for mental and physical harassment which he alleged caused him to transfer to another university. Rutledge accused  Kush of punching him after a bad punt and then using intimidation to cover up the assault. Kush was fired by the university administration before the case even went to court. Alumni and football supporters at Arizona State were outraged and the community of Tempe, Ariz., was torn apart by the conflict.

Two years later, Kush was found to have no liability in the case and Rutledge was required to pay court and legal fees for Kush’s defense in the lawsuit. Kush eventually returned to Arizona State as an athletic director and in 1996, the Sun Devils Stadium gridiron was named “Frank Kush Field” in honor of the former coach.   A decision to terminate before due process once again ended up costing significant time, money and resources – as well as damage to reputations and individual lives.

That brings me to Joe Paterno.

Paterno was terminated as head football coach at Penn State on Nov. 9, 2011 after more than 45 years as head coach. From the outside, it appears that that termination was based on what he did or did not know and what he did or did not do in response to being told something about the alleged sexual assault of a young boy in the football building.

Like at Duke and Arizona State, the court of public opinion decried “guilty” before any aspects of the Jerry Sandusky scandal had even seen the inside of a courtroom.  With intense media coverage, 24-hour news, constant Twitter and Facebook updates, public outrage and the horrifying nature of the alleged crimes in this scandal, did our collective need for action and “someone has to be held responsible” place Paterno in the position of scapegoat?

If the attorney general of Pennsylvania did not see fit to charge Paterno with a crime, how can those with even less information call for his hanging in the public square? The bloggers, ESPN and other news outlets, and perhaps the Board of Trustees, asked “How could he?” before the first slam of any courtroom gavel.   

With the benefit of hindsight and perspective, it raises the question - will the termination of Paterno, without due process and before the Sandusky case has even gone to trial, be another example of the rush to judgment?

One of my all-time favorite movie quotes comes from the movie “Men in Black.”  Agent K (played by Tommy Lee Jones) is sharing with Will Smith’s character his rationale for why the government keeps secrets from the populous about aliens on Earth. “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

The name Richard Jewell has become synonymous with the “sorry about that” public opinion verdict. Jewell was the security guard nee hero who first reported a suspicious backpack and likely saved the lives of many in the Atlanta Olympics bombing before becoming the prime suspect. In another rush to judgment, the headlines quickly read “guilty.” Later, when the investigation cleared Jewell of all wrong doing and it was determined that the charges were manipulated by law enforcement, it was a second page news story. He died from complications of diabetes at age 44 having said he could never outrun the notoriety of a verdict without a trial.

You can’t un-ring a bell.

In announcing that the three young men at the heart of the Duke lacrosse scandal were innocent of all charges, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper was quoted as saying “there were many points in this case where caution would have served justice better than bravado.”

The crimes at the heart of these allegations are unfathomable and the young men who are stepping forward need our support. Despite our anxiety and our need for justice, we need to make sure that it is the right people who are made to pay. 

What will be the eventual cost of judgment without due process?