So, did he or didn't he?

[wiggin]

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.

[Timbuk2]

They do that in some places already, Timbuk2. North Korea comes to mind.

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

[wiggin]

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 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.

[Hazir]

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?

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.

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.

[wiggin]

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.

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.

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 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.

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:

"In the US they don't play around with sex cases, it's very aggressive," the source is quoted as saying.

"It's as though Dominique Strauss-Kahn were a war criminal, they won't let him go."

Source
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?

[Hazir]

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.

[wiggin]

Oh, really?

Perp walk

May 18th 2011, 15:10 by M.S.

I'VE been struggling to find something, anything, to say about the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and now I think I've found it. The New York Times reports on French shock at the broadcast footage of New York City police subjecting Mr Strauss-Kahn to a handcuffed "perp walk":

Though horrified by those alleged crimes, the French press and political elite on Monday seemed perhaps more scandalized still by the images of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s brusque treatment by the New York police, and his exposure in the American media.

“I found that image to be incredibly brutal, violent and cruel,” the former justice minister Elisabeth Guigou told France-Info radio on Monday, referring to widely published photographs of a beleaguered-looking Mr. Strauss-Kahn, handcuffed and led by several New York police officers. “I am happy that we do not have the same judicial system.”

I have to admit, I was similarly a bit shocked by the image. And the French weren't the only ones surprised. In the Netherlands, newspapers wrote that American police stations "have no back doors" through which the accused can be ushered out incognito. The greater anonymity Dutch justice tries to accord to the accused is encapsulated in the regulation that the press may refer to those accused of crimes, but not yet convicted, using only their first names and last initials. (In the case of trials involving the already famous, this would result in absurdities, and the rule appears to have been waived in the case of the trial of "Geert W." on charges of inciting hatred and discrimination.)

The New Yorker's Richard Brody, meanwhile, takes seriously the objections raised by French Green Party politician Eva Joly in L'Humanit:

These are very violent images and I think that it [the American system] doesn’t distinguish between the director of the I.M.F. and any other suspect. It’s the idea of the equality of rights… It’s also a much more violent judicial system because they don’t take into account mitigating circumstances as we do, and so, if you choose to plead not guilty and you’re convicted, you get a maximum sentence.

Mr Brody "takes them seriously" in the sense of considering them seriously, and deciding that he disagrees. The French judicial system, he writes, has no fifth amendment and no trial by jury. This leads to trials that are less theatrical, as defendants do not perform for the benefit of juries, but also far more hierarchical: defendants are subjugated to the authority of the magistrate who grills them directly.

Regardless, it seems pretty clear that the reason why I, and the Dutch, and the French were shocked to see Mr Strauss-Kahn being walked along, handcuffed, had little to do with whose judicial system is more solicitous of the dignity of the accused in general. Rather, it had to do with the surprise of seeing a wealthy, powerful member of an international governing body subjected to the same treatment by police that an ordinary joe would receive if accused of the same crime. Another line of Ms Joly's quoted in the New York Times article brings this out:

Ms. Joly, who is now a leader of the French Green Party expected to run in next year’s presidential election, added that this sort of media spectacle might be “more violent for a celebrity than for an unknown person,” but noted that the American justice system “doesn’t distinguish between the director of the I.M.F. and any other suspect. It’s the idea of equal rights.” *

That asterisk leads to a footnote explaining that the Times added more of Ms Joly's comments for context, because they seemed to have been misunderstood by readers. When Ms Joly says the system doesn't distinguish between average folks and the powerful, she's congratulating us.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...e_strauss-kahn

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/

[earthJoker]

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.

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.

[Loki]

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.

I.E. You let him go.

[Nessus]

I.E. You let him go.

That's what countries without for-profit prison industries do with the innocent....

[Loki]

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.

[Nessus]

Is that one lines or two? Do we adjust for screen resolution, or number of periods?

(The smiley indicates a joke, HAL)

[Loki]

I recall some people here openly defending Polanski before. Couldn't recall if you were one of them.

[wiggin]

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.

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.

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.

[Nessus]

I recall some people here openly defending Polanski before. Couldn't recall if you were one of them.

I was.

[earthJoker]

I.E. You let him go.

Which has what to do with the treadment of accused?

[Loki]

Which has what to do with the treadment of accused?

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.

[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.

[Loki]

Would a non-celebrity who raped an underage girl be sent to prison?

[Nessus]

Is he black?

[Loki]

Does Switzerland even need an excuse to discriminate against blacks?

[Nessus]

I can't come up with a good one-liner, sorry.

[earthJoker]

Would a non-celebrity who raped an underage girl be sent to prison?

An American non celebrity that had sex with an underaged (I think it wasn't rape on the other hand drugs where involed so it isn't clear) in the 70ties would probably not even be cought as nobody would have cared. I think there wouldn't have been an international search for him.

I think it would have made it easier if he was still American citisen and not French.

Edit: If you would have follwed the Kachelmann process you would know that such critism at prejudgement of the media is very common and not just because it happens in Amerika.

[Aimless]

Why is this retarded tangent being dignified with so much attention? Can we get back to the other discussion pls

[Dreadnaught]

I read a rumor that the accuser lives in a public housing program for families with a parent who has HIV, and DSK is in a protective ward at Rikers for prisoners who have a contagious disease. Seems far-fetched.

But on a semi-whimsical side...

May 17, 2011
Droit du Dirty Old Men
By STEPHEN CLARKE
Paris

SINCE Sunday, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, was arrested on sexual assault charges in New York, French politicians have been loudly expressing their horror at his “violent” treatment at the hands of America’s criminal justice system. It must be a shock to them: the sight of a top French establishment figure being treated like an ordinary criminal is about as rare as a photo of the Queen of England in a bikini.

But they are not merely voicing their concern for an esteemed colleague; many of them are also thinking, “There but for the grace of God (or rather the grace of living in France and not the United States) go I.”

France may think it had a revolution, but in fact it just got a new, and even more powerful, elite. They believe themselves so indispensable to the running of the country that trying to topple one of them is a bit like threatening to shoot a prize racehorse for nibbling your lawn. You’re meant to shut up and let them nibble.

This is why the French establishment sees Mr. Strauss-Kahn — rather than the traumatized chambermaid the police say he attacked — as the victim. The same case would never have come out in the open in Paris. The woman would have been quietly asked whether she thought it was worth risking her job and her residence permit. She would have been reminded that it was her word against his, and frankly, whom would people believe? The witty, famous man with the influential friends, or the nobody?

French politicians are known to be serial seducers, and as a rule no one bothers them about it. It is widely accepted that a male politician can combine efficiency in his job with a tendency to leap into bed with as many people as possible. And maybe it’s true — the French eat a balanced diet and have lots of energy.

The danger is, however, that their reputation as “chauds lapins” (hot rabbits), to use the French term, can give them a sense of impunity. Surely it’s a thin line between thinking that because you’re powerful and famous, everyone will succumb to your charms, and assuming that anyone who resists is being unreasonable. By this logic, forcing yourself on an unwilling partner is only making her bow to the inevitable. It’s all very Louis XIV.

And it’s also a thin line between sexual impunity and legal impunity.

In 2004, Alain Juppé, a former prime minister, was convicted of corruption. He was given an 18-month suspended prison sentence and barred from public office for 10 years because, in the words of the judge, he had “betrayed the confidence of the people.” But he appealed and today is foreign minister, representing France on the world stage.

Jacques Chirac was implicated in the same scandal, but benefited from presidential immunity until 2007. Since then, all attempts to bring him to justice have stalled, and the whole affair is now treated as something of a running joke.

The most telling parallel with the Strauss-Kahn case is that of Roman Polanski. Whatever his talents as a filmmaker, he fled the United States to France in 1978 to avoid being sentenced for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. When he was arrested in Switzerland in 2009, at the request of the American authorities, the whole of the French cultural establishment rose up to defend him.

At this year’s Césars ceremony (the French equivalent of the Oscars), Mr. Polanski received an award for “The Ghost Writer,” which, to quote France’s most respected newspaper, Le Monde, “marked his return to the family after his legal troubles.” They made it sound like a speeding ticket.

All of which leads me to my belief that even if Dominique Strauss-Kahn is convicted and has to serve time, he will someday return to France, publish his autobiography (which will, of course, be adapted for the big screen by Mr. Polanski) and eventually be made a government minister. Minister of gender equality, perhaps?

Stephen Clarke is the author of “1,000 Years of Annoying the French.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/opinion/18clarke.html

[earthJoker]

http://translate.google.com/translat...ory%2F10115135

I found that read quite balanced. If you want I can fix the errors that google does in it's translation.

[Loki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0....html?ir=World

This piece talks about Benard-Henry Levy's defense of DSK.

[Hazir]

http://translate.google.com/translat...ory%2F10115135

I found that read quite balanced. If you want I can fix the errors that google does in it's translation.

Yeah that was quite balanced. Made me realise that I should stress there is a difference between my position and that of people who feel DSK deserves better even if he were a rapist and that even in that case the woman bears some of the blame. That is a ridiculous position, if DSK raped that woman he deserves to get a severe punishment. As things stand I doubt the accusation so much that I tend to think there was no rape, and would go as far that I doubt there even was a sexual encounter.

American puritanism has a place in the Schwartenegger case, not here.

[earthJoker]

Here some comments from my (according to Loki) French celebrity loving fellow citizen.

"The "Egalité", France has long been sacrificed to the neo-royalist. To authorities is looked up to their misconduct or even crimes are covered up, played down or ignored. Now the gentlemen are called Strauss-Kahn, Polanski, Chirac or whatever."

"The fathers of the French Revolution turn around in their graves. . . Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité: is probably only on state letterhead and is "elitist" heads disappeared from (or never was there?). The ramblings of this "philosopher" is an insult to the "normal French people". ."

But my favurite comment on Benard-Henry Levy is:
"Monsieur Strauss-Kahn, according to the specifications of Levy is not capable of such an act. He is missing - in other words - the ability to be able to make a sexual act. Is called our language is not in impotence? Perhaps the wife of Strauss-Kahn can help us here."

[wiggin]

http://translate.google.com/translat...ory%2F10115135

I found that read quite balanced. If you want I can fix the errors that google does in it's translation.

BTW, I love Google Translate, mostly because it makes hilarious sentences.

That being said, I don't find the article offensive, but I do disagree with some points. I don't think it's 'puritanism' for citizens to hold their elected officials to a high standard of conduct, including in their personal life. There's a difference between an electorate that, say, makes a scandal about an interracial marriage and an electorate that prefers a leader who sticks to their word - whether marriage vows or a campaign promise.

Furthermore, DSK's case has nothing to do with puritanism. Sexual assault is wrong, full stop. (I know the article recognizes this, but why even bring up puritanism? Politicians who have consensual affairs are completely different from the crimes DSK is accused of, and I assume the French can figure that out.)