Why yes, you’re right. Now how are accused murderers treated worse than accused rapists?
Back on point: What a professional, well executed neck shot of a smear.
He’s def buying the very best representation.
No. But the fact that people rather tend to presume guilt is precisely the reason why it’s a good idea to protect the privacy of the suspect.
Regarding your question about the victim, I believe you’re right (that is, that unless thery are minors, there’s nothing preventing the medias from disclosing their identity). Showing their face is a different issue since France has very restrictive privacy laws regarding pictures, even when it isn’t related to any crime. If I’m not mistaken, you’ve to be voluntarily part of some public newsworthy event for your picture to be published without your agreement (or implicitely allow it, for instance by answering to a journalist with a camera).
However, I’m not 100% sure that what I just wrote is correct from a legal point of view, so I’m not going to discuss it further.
Otherwise, I agree that victims should probably enjoy as much right to privacy as suspects. The difference, I guess, is that the victim is usually perceived positively, so I suppose the reasonning is that she doesn’t really need this kind of protection.
Besides the law, I don’t know what is the media usual deontology about this issue, either.
Dont be rude.
Hell yeah, for that. Actually I think it is one of the biggest divide between right wingers and left wingers. A right winger sees an arrest and assumes the police did its job right. He identifies with the police.
A left winger sees the same thing, and he will wonder if the police did its job right; he identifies with the arrested.
In this case, France would be the left winger. And, I suspect, most of the planet would also be. Since when does the police do its job right?
The French have no special trust in their police, nor should they.
Presumption of innocence is not a legal “cache-sexe”. It’s a statement.
If it’s not cultural, then it’s just mob rule trying on the costume of Justice.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Maybe you’re refering the same thing Marley did (“Rape Shield Laws”?). In the case of French law, I dont think there’s a special right to trample one’s intimacy when the crime is rape. The rules regarding the legality of the disclosing of the names of the parties involved would be the same as that of any other crime.
Is “Capitaine” not the feminine spelling? My apologies anyway.
Do the facts bear out the French mistrust of their police, or is it, as I asked, just a cultural norm? Like, since you went on to explain it, an assumption that rape is no different from any other crime? That’s where the *real *appearance of strangeness comes into it.
American traditions of publicity regarding criminal processes developed partly in reaction to British use of secret proceedings, such as the Star Chamber. A ban on publicizing arrests would originally have been seen as abusively “disappearing” someone into the system.
No, a lot French words end up with “e”. It’s not necessarily a feminine marker (I’m sure Kobal2 could sum up the rules better than me)
1)I dont think the French trust their police, or police in general, a lot. But I’m not certain that that view is universally shared. Might just be a pet peeve of mine.
2)No, rape is a heavy accusation. I’m sure there must be some rules to protect the identity of someone accusing someone else of rape (especially for minors) but I got no cite on hand to back that. That said, there’s no confusion between the need to protect someone’s identity and the necessity of backing up the accusation. Most of today’s outrage in France stems from the quickness with which DSK was arrested and branded as a certified rapist, less than a year from our elections. It was assumed on this side of the ocean that the evidence must have been pretty damning to take him down like that. Despite the perception of brutality of the US judicial system, it was accepted.
But today we learn the case wasnt so solid (only one witness, no real material proof) and that that political disaster could have been because of nothing. That’s pretty hard to swallow.
Doubt it. First, even though is sexual behaviour wasn’t exactly a secret, it hadn’t been plastered all over the medias (along with some statement according to which he apparently often came close to harassment) . Plus his luxurious way of life (like the place where he was under house arrest) didn’t make him more popular (although in fact, the money is his wife’s ).
I suspect that is reasonable and no-nonsense public image has been hit hard too (not that it’s not justified)
Finally, assuming he’s clared in the USA, there’s a French woman who is yet to decide whether she’s going to bring charges against him for attempted rape (I doubt that a prosecutor is going to take upon himself to bring those charges given the circumstances).
Anecdotally, DSK already had to withdraw once from political life when he had to resign as a minister over accusations of embezzlement (he was cleared some years later).
Shouldn’t it be “alleged victim” rather than “victim” in all the previous posts? That distinction appears to be causing some confusion too.
Or in this case “alleged perjurer” is now the correct term? Or is it only perjury once you get into a court?
I don’t have any reason to believe or disbelieve either of the protagonists, but I note that one seems to have been treated very much more harshly than the other. Why is that?
Also : I believe an American cultural peculiarity is the importance granted to freedom of speech, the extent to which stuff can be considered speech (see the current thread about political funding being “speech”) and how it’s generally considered it should prevail over most other considerations. Is publishing my picture “speech” and a right deserving protection, for instance? On both counts, an American court would probably say “yes”, and a French one “no” as far as I can tell.
I don’t think that some of the restrictions placed on the medias in France or in other European countries would be acceptable in the USA, neither for the public opinion nor for courts.
FYI, here’s a summary that the D.A. has provided about her asylum application. Regardless of what happens with the case against DSK, I think she’s just given herself a whole ton of other legal problems.
In all fairness, I’d probably lie and say I was raped if I needed asylum and some protections in the U.S. for legal/citizenship reasons.
But the rest of it is fucked up.
Not sure there really are any, at least I don’t know none. This is French we’re talking about - I’m still not unconvinced the entire language isn’t a shibboleth by design 
But yes, lots of masc. nouns end with -e, and Capitaine is one.
As usual with that kind of thing, the only way to know the genre of a word is to already know it. There’s no real logic to it, nor can you reverse-engineer from spelling or even etymology (e.g. a wall is “un mur” (masc) in French, but “die Mauer” (fem.) in German, despite obviously sharing a common Latin root).
Oh, I’m not passing judgment on her - just pointing out that if it’s proven that she lied in order to get asylum, asylum can be stripped from her. And according to that statement, she* was *raped, just not gang-raped by the military as she stated in her asylum claim. It’s very, very difficult to win an asylum case that hinges on rape or other gender-based issue unless there’s an easily explainable political, etc. component to the rape.
I thought the masculine form was “capitain”. My apologies again.
I was referring to the victim, not the perpetrator. The general view over here is that it’s of such a different nature from ordinary violent crimes that the victim must be treated extremely carefully and respectfully. And it does have social connotations that last a lifetime, even when the victim regains her composure, if ever. So, we try to be careful not to “rape her a second time”.
That rapidity had something to do with his (apparent) attempt to flee the jurisdiction, wouldn’t you think? They had to drag him off the airplane.
I can virtually guarantee you nobody involved in the arrest even heard of the guy before, much less cares about anyone’s election dates.
The forensic evidence is reportedly pretty strong that they did have sex, consensually or not. What isn’t so solid is the alleged victim’s credibility on other matters.
"I want this guy to be guilty just to send a message to the pigs out there. "
Why would you ‘want’ him to be guilty and how do you really think it’s going to send a message to the “pigs”?
Frankly, it’s been my experience that women are more attracted to the pigs than the nice guys. They don’t respect nice guys at all.
On the larger question of this case, it looks to me that the prosecutors took a case that was questionable, but went full bore on it because the person was a celebrity and could flee the country.
I think this is the problem with prosecutors being elected officials, where they make decisions on who to go after based on politics and publicity rather than facts and law.
Backtracking a bit, but:
The circumstances of each case were very different but they all involved a sensational event that had a sexual hook. In each case the media reacted, created a sensation and rushed the public to judgment. In each case it was shown that what was presented as fact was highly flawed or not thorough and skewed to make the accused look guilty in the eyes of the public. In the end the accused had their reputations irreparably damaged and spent a lot resources establishing their innocence. While they may recover from the event they will never rise to the level from which they were brought down.
As to citing the media, I said,
To clarify, that is not to say what is reported b the media is wrong, what I was saying is that what is initially reported often turns out to be incomplete or highly inaccurate. Eventually, the story comes out but the media often rushes to create a sensation, reports what looks sensational, and by then the damage has been done.
Over time, I have tried to take a step-back approach to sensational stories hoping that I have learned my lesson. In this case, I feel like I got hooked again.
So very, very true — it’s almost as bad as having judges elected. I honestly don’t get that about the US at all.
Ideally all media outlets would be required to treat the accused identity with the exact same regard they do the alleged victim. Want to mention the accused name? Then you must mention the victim’s name in the next sentence. Want to publish his picture, publish her’s right next to it. Put his name in a headline? Her’s better be in that same headline. Of course there’s no way a law requiring this could possibely past constitutional muster. And yes, I think the same should hold true if the alleged victim is a minor as well.
“Serious dent”? :dubious: It completely destroys it. :dubious: Just imagine the field day the defence counsel will have with this in the (increasingly unlikely) event this ever goes before a jury.
IIRC there are now laws preventing it (except in the case of children) in the US either; it’s merely a journalistic custom.
No reasonable person could draw the conclusions you seem to have drawn based on my post. To be honest, I am not sure how you managed to interpreted what I wrote that way.
He lost his job because he is a public official accused of a heinous crime. Not sure the handling of the case is really at issue here. It’s not as if most people have any control over the IMF, or, quite frankly, even know what they do.
And if he is guilty, he has been treated exceedingly fairly considering what he has been accused of. The average person would have been thrown to the wolves by now. Regardless, he destroyed his own reputation in large part due to the conduct he has admitted to, and the position he has put himself in. It’s like what happened with Ben Roethlisberger or Kobe Bryant. The facts of the case are largely immaterial wrt their public image. For a person of their status to put themselves in that position is problematic on its face.
He’s not being locked up for being shady, or having bad judgment; he is being locked up because he’s been accused of rape. The point I was making is that even in his version, he had sex with his maid he’d never met, then, made a hasty exit, leaving his cell phone behind. For a man of his stature, with his connections and responsibilities, to leave their cell phone behind seems pretty strange to me. If for no other reason then to avoid having confidential emails, notes, phone numbers, and documents floating around out in public.
I said he didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt because of HIS past. Notably, this is the second time on record that he has been accused of sexual assault. The SECOND time! Even so, I am not going to say that I’m certain that he did it, just that he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in my mind this time around.