Head of IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrested in New York

MacGuffin said:
I wasn't only referring to the day of the arrest. But maybe our different perception here is a result of the fact, that not everywhere in the world such processes are made publically, with cameras in court and stuff.

I don't see any public interest in presenting a celebrity in 2-day-old clothes and unshaven to a judge and air the whole thing live on TV other than to humiliate him.
Click to expand...

Such things here have always been a matter of public record, specifically because of historical (and documented, see how English courts treated American colonists who dared to disagree with British policy) misconduct on the part of European courts which (at the time) often operated behind closed doors and beyond the reproach of anyone but the sovereign of the moment. And sometimes even beyond that.

So US courts are, unless ordered otherwise, specifically open to any and all observers. Unfortunately, this means the press, which in recent decades have become more and more jackal-like, can cry First Amendment and televise most anything in a courtroom that strikes their fancy.

However, if I recall my New York booking and arraignment procedures, the attorney for the accused may attempt to arrange (through various legal mechanisms) to have fresh clothes given to the accused at least, and sometimes can arrange for basic grooming to be performed (the latter varies). This is sometimes done, but most often isn't and is often denied on grounds of equal treatment. The public interest in the accused appearing so is to prove to the public that the accused is being presented exactly as they were found and that they have not been abused by the authorities - see the doctrine of habeus corpus.

Whether or not the press blasting images from such a hearing all over the world is really in the public interest or is just sensationalism is both a problem with the media and another topic entirely. It is not, however, the judiciary's responsibility or the judiciary causing any embarrassment.

In any case, chances are the average Joe would not be allowed to 'freshen up' before their arraignment, therefore neither should a celebrity or a politician. Equal treatment for all should mean just that, not that 'some animals are more equal than others.'
 
Spectre said:
Such things here have always been a matter of public record, specifically because of historical (and documented, see how English courts treated American colonists who dared to disagree with British policy)'
Click to expand...
Or another way of looking at it, see how Colonial courts dealt with people who 'broke the law' at the time. ... NB not best practice I would agree.

And see how American Rebels dealt with people who disagreed with them (Courts not required) - many ran away to Canada. Still fortunately that was 200 years ago - we have been 'mates' mostly since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

US court and Justice system is based upon our adversarial system rather than the stupid Napoleonic system where everyone is guilty unless they prove themselves not.
 
Last edited:
The British home island courts were no better than the royal courts in the colonies. There is a reason why the US Declaration Of Independence mentions the following:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:


...among many other things. Mexico had similar problems with Spain; Texas had issues with Mexico ("It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government.") and so on. As the old saw goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant and an open court that treats all equally (even if, indeed, it may be equally badly) is the best guarantee against the ludicrous abuses conducted behind closed doors in historical courts of the past.
 
Thank you Spectre. From what I have read the police officers and detectives that arrested DSK had no idea who he was. They just thought he was some rich guy. I don't see where this false sense of superiority is coming from. The press is separate from the judicial system.
 
Chance are high, that they also didn't know what the IMF is.

Anyway, my point was not, that this particular rich and famous guy was publically humiliated, but that it is a general procedure to do so with every suspect. In my world of values, punishment should come after the trial and not before.

Until a suspect has been found guilty, he or she should enjoy a special protection from the public and the press to prevent a witch hunt and public humiliation, which would destroy his reputation.

This isn't a new discussion, you know. I recommend watching the Hitchcock movie "The Wrong Man" from 1956, where an innocent guy (played by Henry Fonda) is sentenced to prison, because witnesses falsely identify him as an armed robber.
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
Chance are high, that they also didn't know what the IMF is.

Anyway, my point was not, that this particular rich and famous guy was publically humiliated, but that it is a general procedure to do so with every suspect. In my world of values, punishment should come after the trial and not before.

Until a suspect has been found guilty, he or she should enjoy a special protection from the public and the press to prevent a witch hunt and public humiliation, which would destroy his reputation.

This isn't a new discussion, you know. I recommend watching the Hitchcock movie "The Wrong Man" from 1956, where an innocent guy (played by Henry Fonda) is sentenced to prison, because witnesses falsely identify him as an armed robber.
Click to expand...

'The Wrong Man' has little to do with public humiliation caused by the press and everything to do with false accusation, which is yet again a completely different topic. Mostly because back then, the press generally didn't do that sort of thing. I suggest you re-watch the movie.

As for 'enjoying special protection from the public' - no, because that immediately leads to abuse of the accused by the judicial system. The problem, again, is not the judicial system but the modern press which knows no restraint, believes it can do no wrong and thinks themselves a special class.

I suggest you check out Le Monde's coverage - not only do they name the accuser, they discuss her background (valid journalism)... and then go on to publish her bra size (not valid journalism). The press is to blame for any embarrassment for any party in this case, not the US judiciary.
 
Don't want to appear to be sitting on the fence, but you are both right in my mind.

The mere accusation of a sex crime, regardless of the final outcome, is often enough to end someone's career and/or marriage, even when proven innocent of all charges. Mud, once thrown, has a tendency to stick in such matters. As was mentioned, were DSK accused of murder it might work out better for him because society tends to accept a verdict once given. X did not kill Y, society is satisfied and X can get on with their life.

However is X is accused of inserting his penis into Y without permission, even if X is proven innocent, society will always have their doubts about X. You get labelled a pervert or rapist regardless.

Of course if this were just some Average Joe then the press would not be having the field day they are having with this story but to my mind it does lend weight to the argument that it should not only be the alleged victims of sex crimes who should be afforded the right to anonymity as they are here in the UK, but also those they accuse until such time as the case is over and a guilty verdict delivered.
 
tigger said:
I'm just trying to figure out how a Socialist party leader is running the IMF. :p
Click to expand...

It's Europe, "Socialist Party" usually means "social democratic" party. While quite left wing compared to American politics, they tend to love stuff like the EU, the IMF and stuff like it. They love globalized international trade, just look at people like Tony Blair.
 
So, someone suggested Gordon Brown as the new head of the IMF, I think I'd rather have Bernard Madoff.

:lol:
 
^
Probably thought, "nah, couldn't be .." :unsure:
Anyways, Grumpy, Grouchy, "sad bear" Gordon, would be terrible.
 
Look at the nations in the world that handled the recession best, ask the finance ministers of the time.

Anyone agree?
 
^
Yes! :thumbup:

.. so, .. no Greek dudes either. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
'The Wrong Man' has little to do with public humiliation caused by the press and everything to do with false accusation, which is yet again a completely different topic. Mostly because back then, the press generally didn't do that sort of thing. I suggest you re-watch the movie.

As for 'enjoying special protection from the public' - no, because that immediately leads to abuse of the accused by the judicial system. The problem, again, is not the judicial system but the modern press which knows no restraint, believes it can do no wrong and thinks themselves a special class.

I suggest you check out Le Monde's coverage - not only do they name the accuser, they discuss her background (valid journalism)... and then go on to publish her bra size (not valid journalism). The press is to blame for any embarrassment for any party in this case, not the US judiciary.
Click to expand...

You know, there was a TV discussion this week here on this very same issue.

The discussion group consisted of journalists, lawyers and politicians from France, Germany and the USA. And apparently there must be some kind of unsurmountable trench in the way Europeans and Americans think at times.

The American journalist in the discussion (I believe she was the German correspondent for ABC News) kept on going about "treating everybody equally" and "that's how our juridicial system works" and the Europeans were going on about "human dignity" and if it can be allowed to publically humiliate somebody, who has only been accused with something but not sentenced yet.

There was no understanding and if such highly intelligent people cannot come to terms with each other, why should we? ;) The ABC woman did not even recognize let alone answer the question, how under such circumstances a fair trial and an impartial jury is possible. She completely ignored that.

Europeans and Americans sometimes have a completely different perception. I think we must accept that. And that's why I haven't been replying on the issue anymore.

Just wanted to let you know, so you don't think I have backed out due to a lack of arguments. We could go on but it would be completely pointless.

Gyvon said:
Speaking of which, why did anybody trust someone named Madoff (made off) with their money?

Ok, back on topic.
Click to expand...

Easiest answer in the world: GREED. It turns the most intelligent persons into complete idiots.
 
Last edited:
It would be quite hilarious I admit.
 
Case Inches Towards Dismissal

Court Lifts Strauss-Kahn's House Arrest

A Manhattan judge released former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn from house arrest on Friday after prosecutors revealed they have grave doubts about the alleged victim's credibility. Though the court still holds the Frenchman's passport, restricting his ability to travel, the ruling means the case appears to be close to dismissal.

A New York court on Friday released Dominique Strauss-Kahn from house arrest, but held his passport and restricted him from traveling outside the United States. Prosecutors had told the judge overseeing the pre-trial hearings that they had serious problems with the case.

One day earlier, the New York Times reported that the case against Strauss-Kahn had begun to unravel, with prosecutors expressing doubts about the credibility of the key witness. The court hastily scheduled a new hearing for the French politician on Friday.

The judge's decision to end the 62-year-old French politician's house arrest and ease his strict bail conditions was a "stunning reversal in a case that reshaped the French political landscape and sparked debate about morals, the treatment of women and the American justice system," New York Times reporters wrote.

Strauss-Kahn stands accused of attempting to rape a 32-year-old hotel housekeeper in May. The allegations in what was initially billed as a strong case created so much pressure on Strauss-Kahn that he resigned from his IMF post and watched his favorable chances of running as the Socialist Party's candidate for the French presidency crumble. Friday's dramatic turn of events is already fueling speculation in France of a possible professional and political rehabilitation for the former International Monetary Fund chief.

The New York Times reported Thursday evening that the sexual assault case against Strauss-Kahn is "on the verge of collapse" because investigators have uncovered "major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper" he allegedly attacked in a New York hotel suite.

Witness Lies Emerge

Citing two well-placed law enforcement officials, the paper reported that "prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself." One of the officials told the newspaper that the Guinean woman has "possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering."

The housekeeper alleges that Strauss-Kahn ripped her panty hose and tried to rape her as well as force her to perform oral sex in his hotel room on May 14. He has been under house arrest since the end of May, unable to leave his rented townhouse in Manhattan. In addition, Strauss-Kahn had to post a $6-million bail and agree to wear an electronic ankle bracelet. He was also forced to bear the enormous costs of his mandatory detainment, including the security contingent watching over him, totaling some $250,000 a month.

Forensics tests provided "unambiguous evidence" of a sexual encounter between Strauss-Kahn and the woman, the New York Times wrote, but even the prosecutors now do not believe much of what the alleged victim has said. One of the law enforcement officials cited by the newspaper said she had lied repeatedly since making her initial rape claim.

The paper reported that the day after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, the housekeeper "discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him" in a phone conversation with an incarcerated man that had been recorded. The man she spoke to had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. The New York Times reported that the man made multiple cash deposits into the woman's account over the past two years totalling around $100,000. Investigators also found inconsistencies in the asylum application she filed when she sought residency in the US.

kla -- with wires

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,771894,00.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Try to stay calm but... Michael Jackson is dead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top