We absolutely, definitely have an extradition treaty with France. Not having an extradition treaty with France would mean that if (an American citizen with no ties to France) could commit a crime here and then enter France on a tourist visa or whatever and the French would not be treaty bound to extradite me. We do have an extradition treaty with France and thus they are treaty bound to extradite me.
Our treaty with France states that both States have the option of declining to extradite their own citizens. The treaty also says the executive (President) of the United States may choose to extradite an American citizen if he so chooses. I do not know if that has ever happened. There is no clause on the French side because my understanding is it would be unconstitutional under French law because that is not a valid power of the French Presidency. We do have an extradition treaty with France, though. And them not extraditing their own citizens is not really that abnormal, I believe several countries we have extradition treaties with have that clause. FWIW France has I believe tried and convicted people who committed crimes in America and escaped to France, the punishments are different because they are based on French criminal code and not American, but the person typically won’t get off without any consequences (they could of course beat the case at trial.)
Roman Polanski, to my understanding, was never tried in France because it was never requested by American officials because they did not believe he would have been convicted in a French court given the French legal system. Plus he had already been convicted and served some form of sentence for his crime in the United States, and the crime he plead guilty to here would essentially not be a crime in France (the crime of forcibly raping someone is of course a crime in France, but Polanski as a rich and powerful man was given a sweetheart plea agreement in 1970s America, definitely would not happen in the year 2011.)
Ira Einhorn was extradited from France in 2002. Of course escaping to Europe does create a legal mess. Einhorn was convicted in absentia in 1993. He basically threw every play in the book to avoid being extradited to the United States. First he brought out the death penalty argument, France and most European countries (all that are in the EU, at least) will not extradite someone if they fear he will be executed. However Einhorn’s crime occurred at a time when the State (Pennsylvania) in which it occurred did not have the death penalty, and because there is no ex post facto application of the law in the United States Einhorn could not legally be sentenced to death here. Einhorn then brought up the issue of his being convicted in absentia, after review by French judges it was ruled that because trial in absentia is incompatible with the French legal system they could not extradite someone convicted in absentia. Pennsylvania quickly altered its laws to allow for a retrial of someone convicted in absentia if requested. Einhorn then filed a motion in France saying that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional. The French court ruled that it was not fit to decide on the constitutionality under the Pennyslvanian constitution of a Pennsylvanian law, but that the law itself met the requirements to approve extradition. Einhorn then filed an appeal saying that the justice system in America is essentially intrinsically unfair and he would be unable to receive a fair trial in America. That was also rejected. Finally he appealed everything up to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled against him and he was extradited to the United States.
I think the charges might be dropped due to lack of evidence if the woman, who is both alleged victim and only prosecution witness at this point, were to back out. Certainly if she were to be paid off it would almost eliminate chances of a conviction.
I’m not sure how easy it really is to skip out on bail these days, monitoring and et cetera are a lot more sophisticated than they used to be. I will note several fabulously wealthy individuals in recent memory who have been out on home confinement have not fled in the face of lengthy prison terms: Raj Rajaratnam, Ken Lay, Conrad Black, John Rigas (founder of Adelphia Cable), and Bernard Madoff.
With the kind of money any of those persons had if it was possible to easily buy your way out of the country I have to think they would have done so. Madoff’s home confinement by the way was overseen by the same security firm that is set up to watch DSK.
I wonder if this was the “posted” rate of the room – the rate listed on the inside of the door of the room that always seems considerably higher than the rate you paid.
It’s a suite, not a room, and if it’s got all the amenities, I can believe that it’s listed at three grand a night. I’d expect that most people get significant discounts, and that most take the suites by the week or month, which also gets discounted.
The number I’ve been seeing in the French language press is USD 525.
Having said that, DSK’s wife (his 3rd) is extremely wealthy, and before the rape accusation some of the French press (heh) were trying to paint a picture of him as a ‘jet-setter playboy’.
Guardian article from May 9 “When Porschegate erupted and the right took advantage, the MP Pierre Moscovici, a DSK lieutenant, warned against a campaign of “stink bombs”. It was interpreted not only as a warning against jibes about Strauss-Kahn’s wealth but also to silence rumours that the Sarkozy camp could go rummaging through his private life to catch him out during an election campaign.”
I’m guessing DSK will take a plea deal, assuming one is offered.
Otherwise, he’s a rich, French ( you know, them dang furriners we Amurikins love to hate) , Jewish guy standing up in front of a jury with a fair number of working class New York women, including black women and immigrants. Not a position I’d want to be in.
How can he explain banging an HIV positive (if the reports are accurate) woman in the ass, without condom or lube, because “she really wanted it”? Anal sex with no condom or lube, done in a rush, is likely to result in tearing of tissue and bleeding. (I’m assuming no condom, because otherwise, he wouldn’t have left “evidence” on the carpet, and her work uniform. )
The accuser might say, “I didn’t consent to sex with you, because, hello. I don’t consent to have sex with anybody! I have HIV, you fucking idiot!”
Not that HIV positive people don’t have consensual sex, but it does make her claim not to have consented more plausible.
On the face of it, it seems like DSK put his own health, and perhaps the health of his wife, at risk with this impulsive behavior.
Why would he know she is HIV positive? Why would he believe her if she said so? He might just see it as astory to avoid being raped – hell, he might hear that claim from every hotel maid!
Maybe he’ll claim that she didn’t tell him about her status. He could even say she lied about her status.
But I don’t believe reports about her being HIV positive, though. The idea that there are apartments that only accomodate HIV patients sounds suspect to me because all it would take is for your employer (or anyone else) to learn your address and then connect some dots to uncover your status. Such ease in breaching confidentiality would not be tolerated for an organization doing HIV/AIDS work in NYC. Confidentiality is taken extremely seriously in that realm, so seriously that when public health does contact tracing to alert persons who may have been infected by a positive sexual partner, they can’t even tell them who that partner is. So yeah, I think this aspect of the story is bogus.
I can easily believe there is an HIV equivalent of a Ronald MacDonald House in NYC. Besides, what would be the point of lying about her status? Oh, and why would you think an employer of well, basically low level menials, would investigate the addresses of their employees? As long as any mail they sent got through, what would be the point? It’s extremely doubtful that anyone would know anything from a street address, unless the building had a name like “HIV Victims’ Shelter” that had to be used as part of the address.
I just did some googling and came across HIV housing communities in NYC, so it seems I’m wrong to be suspicious about the idea. Mea culpa.
Still, the lawyer for the accuser denies she’s HIV positive. Since she’d have no incentive to lie about not being HIV positive–especially since this lie could easily be outed as such and then held up as evidence against her credibility–I’m tending towards not believing the HIV speculation.
There’s no evidence that she’s putting out the story that’s she HIV positive. It seems like a rumor that’s been picked up by the media, and has been denied by the accuser.
