Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And.....? Would you like us to comment on how the abc.net reported the story so far, or what?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And.....? Would you like us to comment on how the abc.net reported the story so far, or what?
Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That was a quote from her brother; before all they turned to a lawyer. Since when do victims in rape cases need lawyers to report a crime? They wouldn't really need them would they? Of course, if you're in it for the money, then a lawyer makes a whole lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Now you're thinking like a typical conspiracy nut.
Agreed, but also pointing out some of those deficiencies doesn't make me claim that he is innocent. And saying that suspect treatment is crap doesn't mean I want preferential treatment for VIPs, it only means I think the treatment is crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Quotes from brothers aren't the same as sworn statements by victims. I don't really know what you're getting at (and dammit, these dual discussions between D & D and General Chat always confuse me!) The victim in this case is a Guinea immigrant woman who's employed by a sophisticated hotel, with their own corporate attorneys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I don't know about you, but if was a hotel maid told to clean an empty suite, and found myself chased around by an unexpected man coming out of the shower.....[insert testimony].....I would run to the hallway and yell for help from my fellow hotel maids. They'd most likely help me to our employee lounge and call management. Somewhere during the crisis 911 would be called.
Seriously Hazir, if you experienced sexual harassment or abuse (or any other crime) during your work hours, the FIRST thing you'd do is dial 911? Or would you enlist the help of your fellow workers and managers, and in your shock pretty much agree to whatever they suggested?
Lawyers represent you and help you evaluate options (do you press charges, do you press for a settlement, etc). And if our system is so unjust, doesn't everyone need protection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
There is a difference between information and ostentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Not true, there was an outrage over when a Swiss boy (11) was thrown into American prison like criminal because of sexual abuse of his sister, turned out he watched her pee.Quote:
Funny that no one in Europe gives a damn when this is done to a non-celebrity.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14937249.html
Google translation:
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...fHmprvz9Zt-bhw
And any guilty of him wouldn't make the system right. The damage to him by the system is already done before we know that. As a defense, other countries have problems with this issue too, e.g. Kachelmann process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The media here usually does that even if it knows the name, something like "Sussana S. (Real name known to the editorial)"Quote:
For comparison: even high profile Dutch criminals are generally not shown fully and have their names abbreviated. E.g. the Fortuyn killer is Volkert van der G., the Van Gogh killer is Mohammed B., and so on.
Courts are public, but know cameras are allowed. So we get this nice drawings:
http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archiv...ch_773482a.jpg
Interesting though that a victim of rape has settlement on her mind as the first point of business. And if you really need a lawyer to report a violent crime against yourself in your country it's even more proof that your system is broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Our borders aren't exactly airtight. It's routine procedure to deny bail to people who are likely to find safe haven in another country (say, if they are a citizen of a European country that is unlikely to make extradition easy - just look at the mess with Roman Polanski).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Plenty of people are declared innocent by our court system every year, and they walk away free men. I agree there are deficiencies in our justice system, as well as our prison system, but there is a difference between an accused criminal and a convicted one.Quote:
As for treatment, it's not just DSK, it's the whole level of violence against suspects that is disgusting. A system that makes no discernable difference between a suspect and a convicted person is by definition not a just system.
Fair enough - you're welcome to complain about the so-called 'perp walk'. I honestly don't care much either way, but if your problem isn't DSK's treatment in particular but rather the concept in general, feel free to be uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Ditto to what I said to Flixy above. It's certainly possible to have open court proceedings without a 'perp walk'. Of course, it's a little cumbersome to insist that prisoners be kept out of public places during transit from their prison to the courthouse, but I suppose it's theoretically possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Certainly, US law has already implied that 'perp walks' done with the sole purpose of a media event may violate prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights, though this is a very narrow ruling.
Honestly, though, I'm really bothered by this whole thing. The absolute outrage in France and other portions of Europe about his supposedly awful treatment is pretty ridiculous (These are 'violent' images? Really?). I feel like the outrage should be directed at DSK for his alleged crimes, not at fairly standard police procedure in the US.
I have to say, so far the "serious" media in Switzerland always added a "this is how it is in the US". There where several articles pointing out the different valuing of public interest vs. privacy rights and how and why it is done differently.
I am not aware on any pictures of Polanski's arrestment or his deployment from the prison to his house in Gstaad.
Holy crap, this is fascinating. Who said she has a settlement on her mind? I'm just listing a few reasons why she might hire a lawyer and now you're off to suggesting that she's a settlement whore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It's not about reporting a violent crime, it's about choosing your options once its reported.
I've visited America before, never felt unsafe when the Police were around :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
As for getting legal representation - if you've reported someone both wealthy and powerful for rape, I think it makes sense to get representation. In any nation.
I thought the maid's lawyer said she had had no idea who he was?
Another patent lie; staff at hotels are thoroughly drilled on this type of customers. They tend to know the colour of their shit, just in case. I find it highly improbable that she didn't know. And even if she didn't then a guest in a '$3000 a night room' would without any doubt be the perfect victim for a false rape accusation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I am about as white as it gets and I felt unsafe in the presence of US policemen, despite the fact that I didn't do anything even remotely illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for representation; sure, once you have reported the crime, but if it's the first thought on your mind, then you're most likely in it for the money.
At this point, it's fairly clear what the purpose was. Hazir saw the news, was instantly convinced it was a ploy of some kind, and has been seeking reinforcement and/or a soapbox for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I was referring to Polanski to illustrate flight risks. In his case, he's accused of statutory rape - consensual sex with a 13-year old - but he fled to Europe (specifically, France) and has never been extradited. Imprisoning people without bail has its merits in such cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
For the record, this isn't only with European countries. Many American-Israelis are denied bail because they are considered flight risks to Israel (sadly, it happens semi-frequently in the Haredi world, and while Israel is generally willing to help extradite these guys, it's sometimes challenging to find them). Ditto for others with dual (or non-American) nationality.
Honestly, Hazir, it just seems like you're trying to come up with a way to blame the victim here. While I don't think we should convict DSK in the court of public opinion just yet, I also think that victims of rape should be a priori believed and supported, rather than subjected to this rather crass attempt at calling her a liar. You have zero evidence whatsoever as to your accusations except for the fact that she quickly obtained legal representation (crazy!), which hardly proves anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If media reports are to be believed, it appears that DSK isn't even going to bother denying that sexual contact happened, but is going to claim it was consensual. That's already pretty improper behavior, given the power differential between a maid paid minimum wage and man who can afford that hotel room, and it's not exactly news that men are prone to abusing their power. The only question is whether she was coerced or not, which presumably will come out in the trial.
There's an interesting phenomenon in ancient legal cases dealing with a 'modeh b'miktzat' (a 'partial admission'). That is, if someone is accused of certain behavior and admits that part of it is true, they are held to a higher standard than if they had no admission of guilt at all. Obviously that's not how our justice system works, but it's not a bad principle to think about.
Um, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
This is all just so much blah blah blah.
No one except the jury is furnished with all the known and pertinent facts at the point this comes to trial.
~
Tempted to start a thread on the cause for having a total media blackout for any person accused of any crime until the final outcome of any resulting trial (or non-trial) is known.
They do that in some places already, Timbuk2. North Korea comes to mind.
Agreed on the rest, though. Speculating on 'did he or didn't he' is ridiculous.
The implication being?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Justice needs to be done, and needs to be seen to be done, yes.
But not at the cost of an innocent party* being smeared forever more in the eyes of the public who have judged them guilty long before they have had a chance to prove their innocence.
And justice can rightly be seen to have been done through the result of any trial after the fact.
How is justice served by media speculation beforehand?
EDIT * This is no comment on the innocence or otherwise of DSK
I'm not suggesting the presence of media in the courtroom is to see that 'justice is done'. Far from it. Rather, I believe that having openness in our court proceedings is a way to ensure that our legal system follows our laws. That is, that the accused are given their rights (habeas corpus, a trial of their peers, that sorta thing). To ensure such things, you essentially need to make most legal proceedings open to the public. Once the media's there, there isn't much of a way you can limit them from publishing on it absent restrictions on free speech and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
So, essentially, I think that media coverage of trials is a necessary evil in order to provide a safeguard on our justice system. There was a lot of upset recently that the US was using military tribunals to try people who probably didn't fit the bill, with good reason. There's no way to verify how they're being treated, or that they are being given adequate representation and legal protections. The presence of the media in the courtroom helps mitigate such concerns in civilian courts.
(Note that this doesn't invalidate the points about the 'perp walk' mentioned above. That's a valid complaint, though one I'm not too exercised about.)
I agree that there is often irreparable damage to the reputation of individuals (especially famous individuals) from being accused of a crime. The process and details of a trial might make it worse (though it could also make it better, if the accused mounts a successful and convincing defense), but that has little to do with the actual verdict. In fact, jurors are normally selected for having little to no a priori knowledge of the case through the media, and are ordered to refrain from reading/watching the media until the case is closed.
Mildly amusing story in this vein: My father was selected to be a juror on an armed robbery case. It was apparently high profile enough to be covered in the media (I'm afraid I don't know the details; I was very young and at any rate he didn't really share the trial details). He was stuck in this case for a few weeks and was strictly prohibited from reading the newspaper, watching the TV news, anything. When he finally got off the case, he was startled to learn that he had completely missed the World Series earthquake of 1989.
The point of the story is that even major stories don't necessarily filter through to normal conversations, so picking up details on the case is likely limited to those who actively consume media on the subject. Limiting juror's exposure to such media helps matters out, though obviously it's a bit of an honor system.
At the end of the day, the arguments in court should be enough to convince a juror one way or another. Since the system is slanted in favor of the accused (all 12 jurors need to enter a verdict of guilty), it's unlikely that media pressure alone can cause a conviction, even in high profile cases. When balanced against the need to protect the accused from unlawful procedures in our courts, it's clear that the media has a place in the courtroom, however distasteful they may be.
Well, any claim of rape, sexual assault or harrassement I have learned should be treated with more than usual suspicion. Because chances are higher than with any other accusation that they are not true. I also am not inclined to look at the 'victim' with any kind of sympathy especially if there is every reason to assume that she is more concerned with matters other than justice being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Also, you should read more carefully as there was no admission whatsoever that any sexual contact took place between DSK and that woman. The lawyer just stated that the forensic evidence was not consistent with forced sex. For all I know this woman had consentual sex with another guy and is now trying to cover up the fact. It wouldn't be the first time that rape is abused that way.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims? Either that rape cases are more likely to be untrue or that this victim is more concerned with something other than justice. So far, you've got bupkis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I agree it's unclear if that will be their defense, but if the forensic evidence indicates sexual contact occurred, it's likely their only route. I'm completely flabbergasted that you think this could be a coverup for consensual sex with someone else - DNA evidence would quickly disprove her claims in such a case.Quote:
Also, you should read more carefully as there was no admission whatsoever that any sexual contact took place between DSK and that woman. The lawyer just stated that the forensic evidence was not consistent with forced sex. For all I know this woman had consentual sex with another guy and is now trying to cover up the fact. It wouldn't be the first time that rape is abused that way.
I'm more startled by the response of many Europeans, and the French in particular, to this whole mess. It's like they're shocked - shocked, I say - that a wealthy and famous person might be treated the same as any other accused criminal by our justice system. Crazy.
Just look at this execrable piece from BHL:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...-kahn-i-know/#
Or there's always this gem from an 'unnamed French official:
SourceQuote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Crazy. The US won't let someone accused of sexual assault walk freely? They aggressively prosecute those accused of attempted rape? Bastards, how could they?
No, it's not because it happens to famous person. It is because people actually see the abyssmal treatment of suspects in the US, because DSK is famous. And yes, it is shocking to us, this blatant disregard for the dignity of a human being who's not been found guilty.
Oh, really?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...e_strauss-kahnQuote:
Originally Posted by Democracy in America
Ms. Joly's comments, whether congratulatory or not, are quite revealing.
See here for the original NYT: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/201...efs-perp-walk/
Sorry, but it's only coincidence that I used Polanski as an example too. I used him as an example how we handle a potential raptist over here. It was defenitely not this kind of media show we see now.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I.E. You let him go.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
That's what countries without for-profit prison industries do with the innocent....Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:D
I forgot that raping underage girls isn't a crime on your side of the pond. Private business and all. And that's doubly true for your celebrities, who shouldn't be arrested for anything short of murder.
Is that one lines or two? Do we adjust for screen resolution, or number of periods?
(The smiley indicates a joke, HAL)
I recall some people here openly defending Polanski before. Couldn't recall if you were one of them.
Oh, okay. I think part of the disconnect here is that perhaps this treatment of DSK would be unusual and perhaps uncalled-for in France or Switzerland or whatever, but it's de rigueur for the US. I think this means that American audiences (and jurors) are less likely to be swayed by such imagery (but 'violent'? Really?). We fully expect to see accused criminals in pictures in the newspapers, so it doesn't carry the same presumption of guilt that it might in other countries. It's only in unusual cases that the perp walk is particularly remarked upon (such as Jack Abramoff's somewhat poor choice of outfit when showing up for court). Perhaps the uniqueness of this case is that exposure in the US won't affect his trial much, but it does affect his political career in France precisely because such treatment is uncommon there. I'm unconvinced we should give him special treatment because of this, but at least it kinda makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I start thinking this way, but then I read another op-ed piece in the French press (albeit translated) and I realize I'm being too charitable.
That's not to say there isn't something wrong with perp walks in general, even in the US, of course, but I think that's an argument for another time.
I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Which has what to do with the treadment of accused?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The fact that you give no rights to the victims. Of course you treated Polanski better: a decent chunk of your population doesn't think celebrities should be arrested for committing rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
That's bullshit, but it suits your prejudice about your favorite country.
The thing is that if there is a country were celebrities blend in with normal people than it's here, even presidents go to office by the tram.
Would a non-celebrity who raped an underage girl be sent to prison?
Is he black?