Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Firefly: In America we have an adversarial system, on the one side we have the state with all of their power....to include the fact that they run the process and have a police force...on the other side we have the citizen with what ever power he can afford to purchase to defend himself. And then we toss it all up and see how it lands, maybe the state wins, maybe the citizen wins, this is justice"

So Firefly, in your opinion State v Citizen is a fair fight? It can be a fair fight when the states main goal is to win?

NO. *******. WAY!


That is why the state must temper its power, it must make sure that justice has prevailed, it must ONLY go after the citizen as a last option. Punitive measures must be applied only after all other options have failed or would not be tolerable, to include the option of doing nothing, and the state must use only the level of force that is absolutely needed to maintain order.

The problem is that you police state advocates believe in using state power to change who people are, to make sure that people are doing what you want us to do long before your rights have ever been interfered with. You cant stand that other people make choices for themselves that you hate and you need to do something about it or you could not live with yourself. You LIKE it that the state runs over the citizens, that is why you feed us this cockemamy story about how the state against the citizen is the road to justice.....and then you pray to your God that we are stupid enough to believe you. It was not Justice when it was the King going against the citizen, and it is not justice when it is America taking on the citizen either.

Now Hawkeye, really....you know how hard it brakes to avoid running over women .

Hey pan --Salem was started with denunciations. One guy was crushed to death with stones because he wouldn't admit it. The KGB had kids informing on their parents. And man that Geneva crowd and what it spawned was pure evil. There are no words strong enough to come close to exaggerating.

Of course I had a straight face. It's a straight face matter. Mike Tyson was denouced. So was Michael Jackson.

The up-thumbs you've got for your obvious drivel shows how stupid the facility is.

Not at all. They presume a credible suspicion. Not guilt. Was there a credible suspicion in this case? Something above the simple allegtion of the maid.

Once the arrest is made and proceeded with in the fashion it was in this case the prosecutors have a vested interest in guilt. The alleged offences might become a secondary matter beside their reputation.

Prosecutors, like the defence, should want to see justice done not "winning" as if it's a game with DSK as the football. But, alas, human nature comes in.

And nobody gives a hoot what you are impressed with ff. Nor with where you would start if you was on the jury. That stuff is fine sounding prattle aimed at the dozing dummies in the bleachers.

You seem to me to have formed some pretty firm opinions.

I wonder if DSK considered refusing the ridiculous bail terms. In Riker's could he have had books, a TV and food brought in?

Defence attorneys operate in a free market. Prosecutors are using tax dollars. Once the latter are appointed, probably with some crony string pulling, they have to do something pretty bad, as at Duke, to be removed. Defence attorneys are like footballers. They are the stars and they are better paid. So there will be envy at work.

D.A.'s in the U.S. are elected--they can be voted out of office.

Defense attorneys are not always better paid than prosecutors--it depends on the amount of work they get, how well known they are, etc. You can't judge all defense attorneys by those we see in very high profile trials--those are the most highly compensated. The average criminal defense attorney in the U.S. probably handles mostly minor criminal matters on a day to day basis, like driving while intoxicated, shop-lifting, etc. with an occasional more serious crime.

And we alll do not know that fact you do love blowing smoke up our asses or at least is trying hard to do so.

Once more all such people should be given complele immunity from this point forward as this case prove that such is needed.

No local police department at the word of a hotel maid should be allow to increased the likelihood of 100s of milions of people being harm worldwide because they are interferings witb dealing witb major economic crisises.

Did anyone happen to see a TV interview with Tyson accuser after he was found guilty?

To me at the time she came across as phony as a three dollar bill.

I'm not sure that government does take the issue of criminality out of the hands of the people--unless you mean that government prosecutors replace lynch mobs and vigilantes.

Once someone is charged with a crime, the prosecution really can't maintain a totally neutral position--the very act of charging someone, or of having a grand jury indict them, violates that neutrality because there is already presumption of guilt. No ethical or sane D.A. would charge or prosecute someone they knew to be innocent--and D.A.s don't convict anyone, juries do that. It is juries who mete out justice following trial--and juries are the people and not the government.

Justice for those charged with a crime is also in the procedural rules that police and prosecutors and judges must follow--after an arrest, you must be brought before a judge within a certain period of time, you are entitled to hearings, if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed for you, etc.--that guarantees that everyone in the community arrested for a crime receives the same fair and equal treatment and ensures an organized, predictable legal process. The defense attorney acts to make sure all of the procedures are correctly followed, and, in that sense, is the watchdog on the prosecution--the defense assures checks and balances.

But, once a trial starts, the first thing the prosecution is going to tell the jury is that the defendant is guilty, and that they will prove it. And, actually they have been asserting the defendant's guilt since he was charged with the crime.

That both sides want to win is not the problem--that is what ensures that the jury will hear not only the evidence, but all of the arguments against the evidence. And cases involving sexual matters are in no different category than any other cases. Few cases taken to trial, for any crime, are clearly black and white without any ambiguities. If guilt were crystal clear, without any defense possible, we wouldn't have trials--and many plea deals may reflect such instances.

The case Ionus posted is fraught with many issues besides a false rape allegation, and I am puzzled why the defense attorney in that case had not addressed those issues. That man's unfortunate nightmare reads like he had no adequate defense counsel at all. A mentally disturbed individual can stalk, harass, slander, incriminate, and attempt to wreak havoc on the life of someone else in many ways beside a false rape report--and there are legal remedies one can take in such instances. But that case does not strike me as at all relevant to the situation regarding Strauss-Kahn we are discussing in this thread.

The police are no more inclined to unquestioningly believe a rape report than they would be to believe any other report of an unsubstantiated crime. In fact, the main complaint about the police has been their tendency to discount reports of rape and classify them as "unfounded" without further investigation. So, the argument that the police generally rush to arrest anyone accused of sexual assault, based only on a totally unsubstantiated complaint, really does not match reality in most instances. The police do generally start from a position of neutrality--they have to be convinced that a crime has occurred. Obviously, how much evidence it takes to convince them will vary from case to case. And, when they first present the case to the D.A., that person also starts from a position of neutrality and also must be convinced.

In the Strauss-Kahn case, we have two individuals who did not have a relationship with each other of any sort--they were strangers to each other. The maid entered what she believed was an empty suite to perform her housekeeping duties, a job she had done in that hotel for three years. She alleges that the male guest in that suite suddenly attacked her sexually. It is not unheard of for women to be sexually attacked by strangers, including vulnerable immigrant women working as hotel maids to be sexually assaulted by strangers who are hotel guests. Such things do happen. It is not a totally implausible scenario.

This maid was known to her employers, and this particular guest was known to the hotel management from his previous visits--and there were probably pre-existing opinions about both of them regarding their usual sorts of behaviors. When the maid reported her alleged sexual assault to hotel security, they had not only her words to go by, they had her general appearance, her demeanor, her emotional state, and possibly evidence of what appeared to be a struggle on her body or the condition of her clothing. They would also know whether she had made such reports to them before. They also might have had some opinions about the guest she was accusing, given what they knew about him. Considering all of it, they found her account credible enough that they notified police.

The police, including those from the Special Victims Unit sex crimes division, also observed all of the external factors of appearance, demeanor, etc. and questioned her at length, likely looking for any red flags that might indicate a false report, as these officers are trained to do. They knew who she was accusing, and they had to consider possible ulterior motives on her part, since they are also trained to do that. These are not naive or easily persuaded detectives, they do nothing but investigate crimes of a sexual nature in a very large city where such crimes occur with frequency. They also examined the alleged crime scene to note consistencies or inconsistencies with the woman's report. And the woman also went to a hospital for a physical examination. So, they had sources of information available to them that went beyond just this woman's word. And they concluded that she had given them a very credible account of a sexual assault. And the D.A. apparently concurred with that conclusion. And so, they arrested the suspect. And, since they knew the prominence, and influence of this man, and the international repercussions of making this arrest, it is fair to assume that they were very convinced of the hotel maid's credibility, and their ability to corroborate her story, when they made the arrest.

I don't doubt that if this case involved a U.S. citizen, who was not about to hop on a plane and leave the country, that they might have taken a little more time before making an arrest, but possibly not, if they wanted to move before forensic evidence on the suspect's body would be destroyed. These people, both the police and D.A. involved with this case, are highly experienced in sexual assault matters, and they are also aware of the legal ramifications of false arrest suits, particularly with well known, very influential individuals. They weighed everything they knew, they made a judgment call, and they made an arrest.

So far we have heard nothing that substantially calls into question their wisdom in making this arrest--there is nothing that would immediately exonerate this suspect. The criminal complaint was reviewed by a judge. The grand jury heard evidence that included more than just this woman's word and they handed down an indictment. The rest, as would be the case in all crimes, and not just crimes of a sexual nature, will become a matter for a jury to decide. And it is the jury who will represent the community, and not the government, in that trial courtroom. Both sides do want to win in that courtroom, by convincing those jurors, but, when all is said and done, it will be those jurors who will decide this case. And I think we have to have some trust that those jurors will try to impartially and fairly listen to this case and decide it only on the evidence placed before them at trial.

The up-thumbs you've got for your obvious drivel shows how stupid the facility is.

Don't get your knickers all wadded up.

It's what happens after the denunciations that separates an evolved society from barbarism.
Comparing Uncle Joe's pogroms to this case was disingenuous at best.

Patricia J. Williams – Tue May 24, 2:29 pm ET
The Nation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20110524/cm_thenation/160895_1

More contemplation of the lack of justice in America's "justice" system....

Why on earth would someone have given a minus for this beautifully written, stark in its honesty posting?

There surely are a lot of weasels here at A2K. Why not point up the problems "you" see, why not open your mouth and actually say something, Weasels?

Yes indeed. Why not weasels?

People here, some pretty hard bitten, are disgusted with a programme running about your prisons. From the bit I have seen I was somewhat shocked. It seems to me to be a factory to create more of the same.

What are you, the last man at A2K who thinks that the voting system serves a purpose...that votes are worth paying attention to? The fact is that a -5 post is as likely to be a gem as is a +5.

It is with elation that I notice that the arrest and treatment of DSK, perhaps partly because the the heavy criticism from the French, has finally prompted Americans to begin to look critically at the American "justice" system treatment of the accused. It is a natural progression from our looking at the failures of the capital punishment system, and might have something to do with finally coming to terms with the extravagant accumulation of debt that the government has been practicing and the role that excessive criminalization of daily life plays into that, but it is great to see this day finally arrive. If the feminists were not convinced before now that hooking their wagon to the "justice" system and preaching the virtues of punishing men has not brought the results that they expected and that it is now time to do something else then the backlash to the states behavior in the DSK matter should be a wake up call.

I said that long ago, Hawk. You probably cribbed it from me.

I just thought it a good time to remind the weasels just how weasely they are.

My deepest apologies to actual weasels everywhere. Funny how we humans have taken what we mistakenly think are animal characteristics to describe what are actually human characteristics.

This is being made way harder than it needs to be. A man has been accused of a serious crime. He was arrested and released on bail. A grand jury, after hearing testimony from the accuser, has indicted him. He is awaiting trial. He is innocent until proven guilty and will be judged by a jury of his peers. If there is a trial, it's up to the prosecutor to prove guilt; it's not up to the accused to prove his innocence. If it can't be proven that he did it, he'll be let go. If there's evidence that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, he'll be fined and/or sentenced just like any other criminal. Not all that complicated.

The Earth is flat! This is being made way harder than it needs to be.

Given your attitudes, you may be less than elated to find out that DSK's arrest has also prompted re-evaluation of attitudes in France--particularly a possible heightened sensitivity to inappropriate behavior toward women by men in power.