So, did he or didn't he?

[Dreadnaught]

Regarding your bank employee: there are two distinct things I have to say about that. First of all, being employed at a bank requires a screening here, because it's easy to commit fraud, or abuse personal information. So the bank would be informed in this case, similar things apply for, for example, teachers and allegations of child abuse. OTOH, due to privacy, the employer requires you offer a 'certificate of good conduct' specifically for that job description, but they are not allowed to see your files at the DOJ. This means that the employee has to request a certificate, and he either gets one or not, but the employer only sees the certificate, or not, without knowing why it was or was not granted.

For jobs where you don't need a certificate of good conduct (and you need one for a lot of jobs), I imagine you could call in sick, or call in to say you have legal troubles without specification. It's not really their business is it, if it doesn't affect your work. Especially since at this time you are only a suspect and not convicted.

This sounds both highly opaque and a bit strange. Not knowing why an employee has/hasn't gotten a "clean bill of health" in their criminal background seems like a recipe for bureaucratic nightmare. It also basically creates a system where someone who has done something wrong is basically scarred for life in the employment market.

We have background checks where employers can specifically see if there is a criminal past. A bank shouldn't hire a convicted thief. But I don't see any reason why a carnival operator shouldn't hire one. People deserve second chances after all.

More importantly, there is a difference between telling your family, friends, and professional contacts, on a need to know basis if you want, and it being publicly announced. If you are accused of abusing a child, chances are your house may be trashed and you are forced to move, for only being accused. The big issue is that in one situation, the person decides himself what he shares with who, and in the other the DA/media spread it. That is a huge difference.

Note that indictments are not kept secret here, but privacy is also protected. I don't think it's law, but more of a gentleman's agreement that media never report the full name of suspects or recognizable images.

Once again, I think the opaque nature of this can really muddy the waters in a very different direction. The DSK case has been a media mess, but it doesn't negate the public interest in knowing if someone is indicted for a crime.

Using the logic of this "gentlemen's agreement" (which I'm sure protects the elite more than anyone else), Osama Bin Laden's name could not be published as the mastermind of September 11 simply because he was never formally convicted.

I realize that's an extreme example, but I'm trying to highlight how subjective this "gentlemen's agreement" actually is. I think that matters of law and media deserve clarity, not agreements to censor facts from the public.

[Flixy]

This sounds both highly opaque and a bit strange. Not knowing why an employee has/hasn't gotten a "clean bill of health" in their criminal background seems like a recipe for bureaucratic nightmare. It also basically creates a system where someone who has done something wrong is basically scarred for life in the employment market.

We have background checks where employers can specifically see if there is a criminal past. A bank shouldn't hire a convicted thief. But I don't see any reason why a carnival operator shouldn't hire one. People deserve second chances after all.

The background check is specifically for one job, e.g., the one I had to get for the nuclear power plant was only for 'access to sensitive information' and 'vital infrastructure'. Plus, most things are erased after a number of years.

Once again, I think the opaque nature of this can really muddy the waters in a very different direction. The DSK case has been a media mess, but it doesn't negate the public interest in knowing if someone is indicted for a crime.

Using the logic of this "gentlemen's agreement" (which I'm sure protects the elite more than anyone else), Osama Bin Laden's name could not be published as the mastermind of September 11 simply because he was never formally convicted.

I realize that's an extreme example, but I'm trying to highlight how subjective this "gentlemen's agreement" actually is. I think that matters of law and media deserve clarity, not agreements to censor facts from the public.

Why would it protect the elite more? If anything, they are exposed more often because people can put one and one together. Especially the non-elite are protected by this.

Of course it's somewhat subjective, but in OBL's case there were the extra circumstances: 1. he was big in the media around the world so everybody knew him anyway, 2. he was on the run and dangerous. Both reasons to make the name public. I think Dutch people who were convicted of terrorism are still somewhat anonymous, including for example the convicted murderers of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.

[GGT]

The background check is specifically for one job, e.g., the one I had to get for the nuclear power plant was only for 'access to sensitive information' and 'vital infrastructure'. Plus, most things are erased after a number of years. Why would it protect the elite more? If anything, they are exposed more often because people can put one and one together. Especially the non-elite are protected by this.

Of course it's somewhat subjective, but in OBL's case there were the extra circumstances: 1. he was big in the media around the world so everybody knew him anyway, 2. he was on the run and dangerous. Both reasons to make the name public. I think Dutch people who were convicted of terrorism are still somewhat anonymous, including for example the convicted murderers of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.

Well, DSK was somewhat "big" around the world, and he was a public media figure in Europe. He was also "on the run" and leaving the country where the alleged crime took place.

This "gentlemen's agreement" of keeping indictments secret would only feed into the mis-perception that arrests or indictments are just one step away from cut-and-dry convictions.

For all this talk about the French (or Europeans) believing in presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, it looks like arrest, arraignment, or Grand Jury indictments are (over the pond) one step away from conviction. There's also the assumption that the legal system and the media should censure itself, as Europe does, because people would rush to judgement.

The reason given is that the (European) defendant couldn't possibly get a fair trial, but that's only because you guys think indictments and media coverage means a prejudiced jury and automatic conviction. That's circular reasoning without much foundation, seems to me.

[Flixy]

Well, DSK was somewhat "big" around the world, and he was a public media figure in Europe. He was also "on the run" and leaving the country where the alleged crime took place.

This "gentlemen's agreement" of keeping indictments secret would only feed into the mis-perception that arrests or indictments are just one step away from cut-and-dry convictions.

For all this talk about the French (or Europeans) believing in presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, it looks like arrest, arraignment, or Grand Jury indictments are (over the pond) one step away from conviction. There's also the assumption that the legal system and the media should censure itself, as Europe does, because people would rush to judgement.

The reason given is that the (European) defendant couldn't possibly get a fair trial, but that's only because you guys think indictments and media coverage means a prejudiced jury and automatic conviction. That's circular reasoning without much foundation, seems to me.

There's a couple of things wrong with everything you wrote here. First of all, it does not feed any mis-perceptions like that at all, not sure why you think that. Second, not all European countries are the same (far from). Third, it's not just because people would rush to judgment, but mainly to protect a person's privacy. Fourth, it's not really secret, AFAIK courts are open to public, media report on cases, they just don't breach privacy unless there is a reason to. And finally, in my country at least, we don't even have juries.

[GGT]

So, Wilders name was never mentioned in the press during that court case/appeal...to protect his privacy? Your media is the arbiter of what's a "reason" to breach privacy?

[Flixy]

No, wilders' name was mentioned because he talked to the media about it himself. Plus, in that case , the entire case was about his public statements and who he is, so it probably would have been mentioned in the media otherwise, yeah. See it as a 'we don't report it unless it is important to the public to know'. And yeah, media generally have editors and perhaps an ombudsman to decide what can be reported and what can't, even US media does that But if they breach the privacy of someone and that person starts litigation, a judge will be the arbiter, I suppose.

On a side note, there has not been an appeal in that case. Looking at your last two posts you have pretty much only stated things that are wrong (it's not secret, we're not french and european countries are not the same, we don't have juries, wilders was mentioned in the press).

[Hazir]

Who wanted that case to be televised by the way?

You forgot the question of liability in case of acquittal and the fact that in Europe privacy is an actual and recognized basic right.

[GGT]

There's a couple of things wrong with everything you wrote here. First of all, it does not feed any mis-perceptions like that at all, not sure why you think that.

Based on the reactions (mostly Hazir) that simply being arrested, arraigned and covered in the news is tantamount to....egregious violations of a suspect, or a witch hunt, or something.

Second, not all European countries are the same (far from). Third, it's not just because people would rush to judgment, but mainly to protect a person's privacy.

Sure, we know countries over the pond aren't all the same. None are quite like the US, either. We have a Free Press and a public legal system with very open rules, where arrests are published in newspapers (minor's names aren't disclosed, and sexual assault claimants are un-named unless they waive that.) Suspects are still considered innocent.

Fourth, it's not really secret, AFAIK courts are open to public, media report on cases, they just don't breach privacy unless there is a reason to. And finally, in my country at least, we don't even have juries.

I suppose ours comes from the other angle---there's no reason for secrecy unless there's a good reason, and it takes a judge's gag order for that. Why don't you have juries?


<Latest news is that DSK's arrest was disseminated on Twitter well before the press even knew.>

[Dreadnaught]

The background check is specifically for one job, e.g., the one I had to get for the nuclear power plant was only for 'access to sensitive information' and 'vital infrastructure'. Plus, most things are erased after a number of years. Why would it protect the elite more? If anything, they are exposed more often because people can put one and one together. Especially the non-elite are protected by this.

Of course it's somewhat subjective, but in OBL's case there were the extra circumstances: 1. he was big in the media around the world so everybody knew him anyway, 2. he was on the run and dangerous. Both reasons to make the name public. I think Dutch people who were convicted of terrorism are still somewhat anonymous, including for example the convicted murderers of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.

But that's not a background check —*you're referring to a centralized clearing house for telling employers who has a record and who doesn't. It basically subjects workers to an up-or-down rating. And more importantly, it defeats the purpose of a background check.

The media agreeing not to mention the names of public figures who are indicted is clearly designed to protect the elites, because the elites are who the media cares about. It's not as if Jerome Kerviel had his name protected while he was indicted. But DSK would have because, well, he's part of the political elite and the French press is deferential to the political elite.

It's a farce —*any indictment should be fair-game for press coverage. It may lead to sensationalized stories from time to time, but that's the point of an open press.

[earthJoker]

The media agreeing not to mention the names of public figures who are indicted is clearly designed to protect the elites, because the elites are who the media cares about. It's not as if Jerome Kerviel had his name protected while he was indicted. But DSK would have because, well, he's part of the political elite and the French press is deferential to the political elite.

I have to say I don't know the French system, I even don't know if they have a similar agreement there. On the other hand I can assure for Switzerland you that this agreement is protecting the average Joe more than for the elite.

[Flixy]

But that's not a background check —*you're referring to a centralized clearing house for telling employers who has a record and who doesn't. It basically subjects workers to an up-or-down rating. And more importantly, it defeats the purpose of a background check.

The media agreeing not to mention the names of public figures who are indicted is clearly designed to protect the elites, because the elites are who the media cares about. It's not as if Jerome Kerviel had his name protected while he was indicted. But DSK would have because, well, he's part of the political elite and the French press is deferential to the political elite.

How does that defeat the purpose? Checks whether you are 'safe' for a particular job (be it working with children, handling sensitive information...), which seems like it's the point to me. Plus since it's issued by the DOJ they have access to more info (e.g. you could have an FBI file or something, or are part of an ongoing investigation).

And well, like Earthjoker I can't speak for the French situation - but over here it protects the small guy a lot better than the elite. Since with prominent figures, the person who it is is newsworthy in itself and may be mentioned. Not so famous people: the name is not newsworthy, ergo it is not mentioned. People like DSK would probably have hit the media here, while a person like Kerviel would definitely remain known as Jerome K., for example the guy who walked out with more than a million in cash from the central bank here and fled to india is not known by his full name. The idea is to protect mostly the average joe from allegations ruining his image and invading his privacy. It doesn't really add anything to the news story to have a name and a face, usually, but it does do a great deal of damage to that person. Therefore editors and ombudsmen make a judgment that generally has their privacy protected. Public figures on the other hand, by being public, give up a certain amount of their privacy (also legally) by choice already and are therefore more likely to be mentioned.

France may be different, they do seem to have a problem with elite covering eachother's asses.

It's a farce —*any indictment should be fair-game for press coverage. It may lead to sensationalized stories from time to time, but that's the point of an open press.

Oh, so that is the point of an open press, I must have missed that, here I was thinking it was for checking on the government, factfinding, informing the public of important stuff, etc.

I suppose it's also the point of your justice system to help them with that? I can see no other purpose of the 'perp walk' - only helping sensationalist media, and humiliating the arrested.

[Aimless]

And wait till you hear about their families...

[Hazir]

And wait till you hear about their families...

Well, her privacy evaporated when her husband got arrested. But if you don't want to do the walk don't commit the.... Oh wait, she's only guilty of believing in the innocence of her husband.

[EyeKhan]

Not sure what y'all are talkin' 'bout but I still think he did it. So she's a lyer, a sheister, a money grubber. He still raped her. And I think he's going free. Maybe that's karma catching up with her - lie cheat and steal long enough and it will come back around sooner or later. At least that's what honest folk like to believe. But there's plenty of billionaires that came out of the realestate crash hunky dory that put the notion of karma to the test I think.

[Aimless]

Btw, GGT, re. your question about juries. I dunno 'bout Dutchieland, but in Swedish courts you usually have a panel of judges consisting of expert and non-expert members. It's our version of a jury, only the members are appointed (afaik) by elected officials at the municipal and county levels. I think many civil law countries have a similar setup.

I was surprised to learn that Swedish trials occasionally do feature juries, but only in matters of freedom of press.

[Dreadnaught]

It's happening...

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Accuser Speaks Out in Exclusive ABC News Interview



July 24, 2011
In an exclusive television interview, ABC News' Robin Roberts speaks with the hotel employee who alleges she was sexually assaulted by former International Monetary Fund Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

For the first time viewers will hear, in her own words, her version of the events that allegedly took place at the Sofitel Hotel in New York in May.

Strauss-Kahn, once considered the French presidential frontrunner, was recently released from house arrest after prosecutors said they had concerns about the hotel employee's credibility.

Strauss-Kahn denies all the allegations that have been made against him. The interview airs on Tuesday, July 26 on "Nightline" (11:35 p.m. ET) on the ABC Television Network.

A portion of the interview will air first on "Good Morning America" on Monday, July 25. In addition, excerpts will air on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline" and be available on ABCNews.com, ABC News Radio, and ABC NewsOne.

[Hazir]

Seems like nobody who counts thinks he did it. Or at least, that it can't be proven, and that's all that counts. I hope he'll sue her for the expenses.

[CitizenCain]

What point is there in him suing her for expenses? All he'll end up with is a higher legal bill, an uncollectable debt, and probably have to suffer through months or years more of being dragged through the muck to get it. Yippie, "justice."

[Hazir]

Dunno maybe it deters others like her.

[Dreadnaught]

Seems like nobody who counts thinks he did it. Or at least, that it can't be proven, and that's all that counts. I hope he'll sue her for the expenses.

Actually, she's already suing him already. Which is a pretty bad strategy before there's a criminal case in trial.

[GGT]

Seems like nobody who counts thinks he did it. Or at least, that it can't be proven, and that's all that counts. I hope he'll sue her for the expenses.

Whose opinion "counts" in your world of justice? You're basically saying: that which can't be proven is all that "counts". Really?

Answer this then....and assume there's no global VIP involved. How would a rape victim begin to "prove" their case with no witnesses, and only DNA and circumstantial forensic evidence, like vaginal bruising or internal tissue tearing?

Hazir, you could be a rape victim too, but how would you "prove" that to others? Your word against his? Maybe he says it was consensual anal penetration, and you asked for something rough. His word against yours, right? Wouldn't you still deserve a lawyer to represent you in a court of law?

Doesn't all this armchair guilt by news associated stories sound like a really horrible way to define and prosecute Rape?

[CitizenCain]

Dunno maybe it deters others like her.

Yeah, well deterrence would be achieved by bringing charges against women who bring false charges to the police, not by putting an even more unfair burden on an already unfairly burdened man. But as that rarely happens even in cases where we can prove the woman was lying, I don't see that happening here. (And I'm not all that familiar with the case - so maybe it shouldn't happen here, either.)

Whose opinion "counts" in your world of justice? You're basically saying: that which can't be proven is all that "counts". Really?

Answer this then....and assume there's no global VIP involved. How would a rape victim begin to "prove" their case with no witnesses, and only DNA and circumstantial forensic evidence, like vaginal bruising or internal tissue tearing?

He or she wouldn't, and probably couldn't. Which is something the authorities probably ought to consider when making the decision of whether or not to bring ruinous charges against someone. In the interests of not ruining someone's life unless there's a chance of proving guilt. Crazy, right?

[Dreadnaught]

Answer this then....and assume there's no global VIP involved. How would a rape victim begin to "prove" their case with no witnesses, and only DNA and circumstantial forensic evidence, like vaginal bruising or internal tissue tearing?

That's sort of a big problem with rape prosecutions in general. But there are still rape convictions nonetheless. And, nonetheless, our system values not convicting the innocent.

[GGT]

That's sort of a big problem with rape prosecutions in general. But there are still rape convictions nonetheless. And, nonetheless, our system values not convicting the innocent.

Of course. But what our judicial system doesn't/shouldn't "value" is trial-by-media. If DSK hadn't been DSK, the DA might have brought this to trial weeks ago, to represent the victim, to present the evidence and let a jury or judge decide guilt or innocence.

Contrary to what Hazir has implied, DSK has actually received special VIP treatment. Our system of jurisprudence is supposed to hold both accuser and accused on equal levels, both presumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise in a court of law.

[Flixy]

Of course. But what our judicial system doesn't/shouldn't "value" is trial-by-media. If DSK hadn't been DSK, the DA might have brought this to trial weeks ago, to represent the victim, to present the evidence and let a jury or judge decide guilt or innocence.

Contrary to what Hazir has implied, DSK has actually received special VIP treatment. Our system of jurisprudence is supposed to hold both accuser and accused on equal levels, both presumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise in a court of law.

I'd like to see proof that any rape trial that involves a seemingly not overly reliable victim goes to trial within three months. The DA reckons his case isn't strong enough to convince a jury, so he won't even bother. That happens all the time, when the case isn't strong enough. That's not special VIP treatment. Or do you think all cases that don't involve famous people always end up in a court, within three months?

For what it's worth, I'm loosely involved in a court case, and the prosecutor starting the case (building up, not in court yet, but that's when they had a suspect and enough evidence to start the machinery up) 11 months ago and it's not even in court, yet. And the actual offense was two years ago.

[Hazir]

Actually, she's already suing him already. Which is a pretty bad strategy before there's a criminal case in trial.

But entirely sensible for gold-digging bitches.

[Hazir]

Whose opinion "counts" in your world of justice? You're basically saying: that which can't be proven is all that "counts". Really?

Answer this then....and assume there's no global VIP involved. How would a rape victim begin to "prove" their case with no witnesses, and only DNA and circumstantial forensic evidence, like vaginal bruising or internal tissue tearing?

Hazir, you could be a rape victim too, but how would you "prove" that to others? Your word against his? Maybe he says it was consensual anal penetration, and you asked for something rough. His word against yours, right? Wouldn't you still deserve a lawyer to represent you in a court of law?

Doesn't all this armchair guilt by news associated stories sound like a really horrible way to define and prosecute Rape?

I didn't know that the presumption of innocence had been suspended in the US? You know, where it used to say 'innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law?'.

Just face it, she wasn't raped, she just saw a juicy lawsuit and couldn't resist it, then went about to ruin a rich guys' life.

[Flixy]

Innocent until proven guilty applies to both parties.

[GGT]

I'd like to see proof that any rape trial that involves a seemingly not overly reliable victim goes to trial within three months. The DA reckons his case isn't strong enough to convince a jury, so he won't even bother. That happens all the time, when the case isn't strong enough. That's not special VIP treatment. Or do you think all cases that don't involve famous people always end up in a court, within three months?

For what it's worth, I'm loosely involved in a court case, and the prosecutor starting the case (building up, not in court yet, but that's when they had a suspect and enough evidence to start the machinery up) 11 months ago and it's not even in court, yet. And the actual offense was two years ago.

You're right about the timing, Flixy. Seems so much longer than just 3 months passing! Ugh Still, charges could have been officially filed, and victims could have demanded their day in court. I can't speak for everyone, but if I'd been raped, or any of my loved ones had been raped....I wouldn't accept any DA or public prosecutor saying the case isn't strong enough to go to jury, so they "won't even bother".

Also, victims don't have to be deemed "reliable characters" before prosecuting a case with DNA evidence. That's a protection for any/all victims, including prostitutes, and people in subservient positions (workers vs bosses, hotel maids vs powerful political figures).

[GGT]

I didn't know that the presumption of innocence had been suspended in the US? You know, where it used to say 'innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law?'.

Just face it, she wasn't raped, she just saw a juicy lawsuit and couldn't resist it, then went about to ruin a rich guys' life.

Admit it, you've made your decision by media. You would be excluded from US jury duty faster than you could say juicy lawsuit.