Yes
No
He's a reasonable flight risk, so he's been denied bail. I don't understand why this is shocking or unusual.Originally Posted by Hazir
I agree it's damaging, and for good reason. But if you were the NYPD, what would you do? Be afraid to track down an accused rapist just because he's famous and it might damage his credibility?
Are you claiming a french citizen can leave the US without having a passport?
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.
Congratulations America
Eh, there's a difference between tracking down and arresting someone and the perp walk you guys have. Which I think is wrong for anyone, not just famous people.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I agree. Not that it surprises me, I have always considered the US a semi-police state where the police is only marginally better than the criminals.
Congratulations America
Are you saying a famous European would ever commit a crime against a lowly African? Impossible.
Hope is the denial of reality
Who are you speaking to? Why don't you use the quote function? Her nationality or race doesn't mean a damn thing in the US.....at least in our ideal. If she's Guinea then she's probably familiar with the French language. I'd be interested to know if language was claimed as some "misunderstanding" or "defense".
<I already posted about VIPs in General Chat regarding Arnold's dilemma.>
Read up on the French judicial process and the role judges play in it.
Hope is the denial of reality
Easy cop out. You try to figure out why visitors to your country consider the police a potential risk to their personal safety.
Congratulations America
Sure, if you give a source like I asked.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
If by visitors you mean rapists, then they're welcome to stay away.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, I am talking about people who merely want to do things that are legal in your country, that still don't feel safe when your police is around. Anyway, not that I am going to visit the US any time soon; your power crazy government can go stuff themselves with their obsession about collecting data about everybody and his uncle.
Congratulations America
I've visited America before, never felt unsafe when the Police were around
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 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.I've visited America before, never felt unsafe when the Police were around
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.
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.
Congratulations America
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.
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.
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?
This thread is strange. The deficiencies of the US justice system don't make DSK innocent.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Of course not.
Congratulations America
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.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
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.
The media here usually does that even if it knows the name, something like "Sussana S. (Real name known to the editorial)"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:
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Now you're thinking like a typical conspiracy nut.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
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.
Congratulations America
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?
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.
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.
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.
Congratulations America
The charges make a difference. He's not being accused of financial fraud, but sexual assault. There's a victim here, and victim claims are taken seriously, no matter who the perp is. Alleged sexual assault, rape, sodomy, battery, false imprisonment....those charges don't come with automatic bail. Defense has to show they're not a flight risk, and not a danger to the victim or the public. If both can't be proven, the judge can deny bail.
DSK was found on an airplane, ready to leave the country. Doubtful that if he'd made it to France would he have been extradited for trial (see Polanski). He was denied bail because he was found "attempting to flee" the country = clear flight risk. He's rumored to be in isolation to protect him from fellow detainees (who've been known to shank accused rapists) and to keep him on suicide watch. (Not sure why or when suicide became a concern.)
Where in there do you see a "blatant disregard" for DSK's humanity and presumption of innocence? He has high-priced legal representation. He's being kept safe from jailhouse violence, being fed three times a day, with private toilet and shower, with access to attorneys and (presumably) visitors.
You don't see how the fact that he's treated special if all they do is keep him safe makes people overhere feel that the US legal system is abusive of people who are still only suspected of a crime?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that all people who call his treatment degrading, that he has some special privilege to harrass women just because he's rich and famous.
Congratulations America
Actually I've seen multiple reports suggesting he only paid ~$500 for the night, which is high but not crazy for NYC. It's unlikely he'd get some special treatment, then.
My wife often gets upgrades to 'presidential suites' and the like when she travels for business, and she's a nobody (and no one knows who she is, either). It's mostly because they have the suites open and offer them to frequent business travelers (such as someone on a major corporation account or, you know, the IMF). That doesn't mean they get the red carpet treatment, it just means they get a nicer room.
You're making the same error that BHL did in his article. You have a preconception of DSK's innocence (for one reason or another), so you're making assumptions about the situation based on scanty evidence. BHL claimed that for such a room there would always be a 'team' of housecleaners to deal with a room all at once. I'm betting he hasn't a clue of what the actual SOPs are for the Sofitel's room 2806 any more than you or I do. Similarly, you're taking unsubstantiated reports about the price of the room (with no knowledge of the range of prices for Sofitel rooms, and how special room 2806 really is) and assuming he was given VIP treatment and that even the housekeepers knew who he is.
You could be right, but there's precious little evidence to support it.
So far, the only part of her story that doesn't 'add up' to you is that she didn't happen to know who he was. That's not exactly convincing.I don't say he's not enough of a sleazeball not to sexually harrass women, it's just that I don't believe the accuser in this case. Because her story doesn't add up.
You do realize there's a difference between being a 'suspect' and being 'accused', right? You can't hold a suspect for more than questioning, but someone who's been indicted and charged with a crime is an entirely different category.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote