Who wins?

miseeire

DominiqUE Strauss Khan has had to resign his position because of sofar unfounded allegations against him.Tonight we learn he has been released WITHOUT BAIL.Perhaps some of the usual see no evil,hear no evil brigade might like to defend the "lady"who made those allegations and destroyed a man entitled to be presumed innocent till proved guilty.

dvpower

A serious allegation was made; the suspect was leaving the jurisdiction. How should they have dealt with it?

miseeire

The way it was handled implied guilt.

dvpower

miseeire wrote: »

The way it was handled implied guilt.

The whole perp walk bit has a different resonance here than it does stateside, but even without that, he would have been arrested and bailed with strict conditions.
As a high profile figure, any arrest at all was going to tarnish him. So how could they have progressed the case without
a) giving him special treatment and
b) tarnishing him?

chunkylover4

Maybe tell him not to leave the jurisdiction and then do a proper investigation like with other crimes, that would be a start.

dvpower

chunkylover4 wrote: »

Maybe tell him not to leave the jurisdiction and then do a proper investigation like with other crimes, that would be a start.

He was let out on bail with strict conditions that kept him in the jurisdiction.
He obviously needed to be arrested in the first instance.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

A serious allegation was made; the suspect was leaving the jurisdiction. How should they have dealt with it?

The suspect, with full diplomatic immunity was not fleeing the jurisdiction because had he wished to do so, there was not a damn thing US law enforcement could have done to stop him.

When they boarded the plane, he apparently made clear to them that he had immunity but was happy to answer their questions. In this light, they could have asked him to accompany them "down to the station" for questioning since it was obvious that he was not going to flee (since he legally had no need to do so).

They put the cart before the horse and created an absolute mess by arresting and charging him before investigating the allegations fully while not actually gaining anything because their arrest warrant was not worth the paper it was written on given his status as Managing Director of the IMF.

Manach

France, being a lawful country, would have honoured a request to turn Mr DSK over would the US authorities have assembled a reasonable case. So, the US seem to been unsubtle in their handling of the issue, IMHO.

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The suspect, with full diplomatic immunity was not fleeing the jurisdiction because had he wished to do so, there was not a damn thing US law enforcement could have done to stop him.

When they boarded the plane, he apparently made clear to them that he had immunity but was happy to answer their questions. In this light, they could have asked him to accompany them "down to the station" for questioning since it was obvious that he was not going to flee (since he legally had no need to do so).

They put the cart before the horse and created an absolute mess by arresting and charging him before investigating the allegations fully while not actually gaining anything because their arrest warrant was not worth the paper it was written on given his status as Managing Director of the IMF.

I didn't know about the diplomatic immunity - I presume he waived it?

This leaves him in the same position as an ordinary person even if the arrest itself was going to be damaging. If you or I was staying in a hotel and a serious allegation was made, we would expect to be arrested and detained.

His status made the arrest more damaging for him that it might be for someone else, but I wouldn't think that there therefore should be a different process for VIPs (or celebs or politicians or friends of the aforementioned).

dvpower

Manach wrote: »

France, being a lawful country, would have honoured a request to turn Mr DSK over would the US authorities have assembled a reasonable case. So, the US seem to been unsubtle in their handling of the issue, IMHO.

Would you have this special treatment for any French citizen or just DSK?

Manach

For any, given that if French legal system can issue warrants for any other nationality, then that must respectfully turn over one of their own citizens if so legally requested.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

I didn't know about the diplomatic immunity - I presume he waived it?

This leaves him in the same position as an ordinary person even if the arrest itself was going to be damaging. If you or I was staying in a hotel and a serious allegation was made, we would expect to be arrested and detained.

His status made the arrest more damaging for him that it might be for someone else, but I wouldn't think that there therefore should be a different process for VIPs (or celebs or politicians or friends of the aforementioned).

My point is that nothing was gained by jumping the gun. Had the NY team taken the time to investigate the alleged crime fully before seeking his arrest they would have been none the worse off for that (and a hell of a lot better off as things stand right now). They cannot justify reversing the order of events (arresting before investigating) on the basis that the suspect might flee because, had he wanted to do so they could not have stopped him.

So yes, he waived his immunity, but the very fact that he had it to waive negates any argument that US law enforcement officials were "forced to act".

They were not. They F***ed up. No one wins as a consequence, in fact imho everyone loses.

dvpower

Manach wrote: »

For any, given that if French legal system can issue warrants for any other nationality, then that must respectfully turn over one of their own citizens if so legally requested.

Seems to me like a big ask to let any person accused of a serious violent crime like rape to leave the jurisdiction and have to go through an extradition process to get them back.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

Seems to me like a big ask to let any person accused of a serious violent crime like rape to leave the jurisdiction and have to go through an extradition process to get them back.

Immunity - hence no extradition process. Had he chosen to not waive his immunity he could not have been extradited - from anywhere - because he could not have been charged.

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

My point is that nothing was gained by jumping the gun.

I don't know if they jumped the gun (obv we have some benefit of hindsight now that the trial is falling apart).
I'm inclined to believe that arresting and detaining a rape suspect is normal procedure, that it is reasonable to put him before a judge to determine if he should be further detained, that they may want him to be accessable for further questioning.

If he was let go back to France, the story would now likely be that he was questioned about a rape, that he got special treatment, that the accuser was got at, that there was a cover up, that the justice system can be bought by the rich and powerful.

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Immunity - hence no extradition process. Had he chosen to not waive his immunity he could not have been extradited - from anywhere - because he could not have been charged.

That was in relation to Manach's comment re ordinary French citizens.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

A serious allegation was made; the suspect was leaving the jurisdiction. How should they have dealt with it?

dvpower wrote: »

He was let out on bail with strict conditions that kept him in the jurisdiction.
He obviously needed to be arrested in the first instance.

dvpower wrote: »

I didn't know about the diplomatic immunity - I presume he waived it?

This leaves him in the same position as an ordinary person even if the arrest itself was going to be damaging. If you or I was staying in a hotel and a serious allegation was made, we would expect to be arrested and detained.

His status made the arrest more damaging for him that it might be for someone else, but I wouldn't think that there therefore should be a different process for VIPs (or celebs or politicians or friends of the aforementioned).

dvpower wrote: »

Seems to me like a big ask to let any person accused of a serious violent crime like rape to leave the jurisdiction and have to go through an extradition process to get them back.

You have reversed the presumption of innocence not least because you didn't understand the burden of proof or the concept of diplomatic immunity. Don't you think that maybe, perhaps, given that you have been wrong on everything else to date, you might just possibly be wrong on this?

Hasn't it struck you, that just for one moment, you should cease trying to pre-empt the law???

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You have reversed the presumption of innocence not least because you didn't understand the burden of proof or the concept of diplomatic immunity. Don't you think that maybe, perhaps, given that you have been wrong on everything else to date, you might just possibly be wrong on this?

Hasn't it struck you, that just for one moment, you should cease trying to pre-empt the law???

I've done what now?

Its perfectly reasonable for a person accused of a serious criminal offence to be arrested if there is sufficient grounds and brought before a judge to determine if they should be further detained. Its debatable if this process reverses the presumption of innocence, but I didn't invent the process - I just think it should be applied without fear or favour.

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You have reversed the presumption of innocence not least because you didn't understand the burden of proof or the concept of diplomatic immunity.

Explain why you think I don't understand the the concept of diplomatic immunity.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

I've done what now?

Its perfectly reasonable for a person accused of a serious criminal offence to be arrested if there is sufficient grounds and brought before a judge to determine if they should be further detained. Its debatable if this process reverses the presumption of innocence, but I didn't invent the process - I just think it should be applied without fear or favour.

If I went to the gardaí now and said that [insert celebrity name here] raped me last night (despite the fact that I was at home posting on boards) you would be okay with that person being charged with a serious crime?

I would not be okay with that.

People should only be charged with crimes after the allegation has been fully investigated. To arrest based on allegation leaves open the possibility that malicious allegations will be countenanced, which in turn makes it more difficult for victims to come forward in future since they will need to prove that they are not motivated by malice or money on top of proving that they have been a victim of a crime.

Until an investigation takes place one cannot tell whether there are "sufficient grounds" for an arrest, because what looked like "sufficient grounds" to give DSK restrictive bail conditions are no longer sufficient to maintain those conditions.

What we have here is a travesty of justice.

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

If I went to the gardaí now and said that [insert celebrity name here] raped me last night (despite the fact that I was at home posting on boards) you would be okay with that person being charged with a serious crime?

I would not be okay with that.

People should only be charged with crimes after the allegation has been fully investigated. To arrest based on allegation leaves open the possibility that malicious allegations will be countenanced, which in turn makes it more difficult for victims to come forward in future since they will need to prove that they are not motivated by malice or money on top of proving that they have been a victim of a crime.

Until an investigation takes place one cannot tell whether there are "sufficient grounds" for an arrest, because what looked like "sufficient grounds" to give DSK restrictive bail conditions are no longer sufficient to maintain those conditions.

What we have here is a travesty of justice.

I don't think your example is comparable, certainly I don't there would be reasonable grounds to charge you.

It seems to be that there were reasonable grounds to arrest DSK (including arresting a suspect to aid the investigation) - there was a complaint, some evidence that he had left the hotel in a hurry, leaving behind some belongings. And he wasn't arrested on the plane - the arrest happened some time later, so it wasn't an especially hurried decision. I personally don't think that being arrested implies guilt at all, but I can see how it could be damaging.

His charging is a bit of a different matter, and didn't take place until a couple of days after the event and after a forensic investigation.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

I personally don't think that being arrested implies guilt at all, but I can see how it could be damaging.

It cost him his job. It may have cost him his chances to lead his country. It was hugely damaging and that was entirely foreseeable. Furthermore it led to other allegations about his private life which might not have been aired had he not been arrested, and mud throwing is an entirely foreseeable consequence of any arrest.

Since the prosecution have uncovered the evidence that their key witness may not be credible, they should have uncovered this before leaping into action. Contrast the Louis Walsh case, which I'm sure was uncomfortable for Louis, but much less so than for DSK, and Louis's reputation remains untarnished since he was never arrested or charged with a crime.

Forensic evidence is not worth much in a he said she said rape allegation. The credibility of both parties is, unfortunately but necessarily, what the case must turn on. As evidenced by the many public statements by the NY prosecutors as to the credibility of the complaining witness in the early days, public statements of support which it now turns out were based on lies.

Obviously not all prosecutions will result in convictions, but prosecutions should meet a minimum standard of proof - which it seems was not the case here.

dvpower

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It cost him his job. It may have cost him his chances to lead his country. It was hugely damaging and that was entirely foreseeable. Furthermore it led to other allegations about his private life which might not have been aired had he not been arrested, and mud throwing is an entirely foreseeable consequence of any arrest.

Since the prosecution have uncovered the evidence that their key witness may not be credible, they should have uncovered this before leaping into action. Contrast the Louis Walsh case, which I'm sure was uncomfortable for Louis, but much less so than for DSK, and Louis's reputation remains untarnished since he was never arrested or charged with a crime.

Forensic evidence is not worth much in a he said she said rape allegation. The credibility of both parties is, unfortunately but necessarily, what the case must turn on. As evidenced by the many public statements by the NY prosecutors as to the credibility of the complaining witness in the early days, public statements of support which it now turns out were based on lies.

Obviously not all prosecutions will result in convictions, but prosecutions should meet a minimum standard of proof - which it seems was not the case here.

I'm not sure if the Louis Walsh comparison is valid; its up to the arresting authorities to decide if there are grounds for arrest -we can't say that because one case was handled differently, that the other one should be.

I'd be reluctant to start looking at the damage that an arrest would do when deciding if an arrest is warranted (save that they should consider if the allegations might be politically or financially motivated). That would lead to one set of rules for the rich and powerful and another set for the rest of us. DSK basically paid the price for having a transparent justice system.

thb, I wonder how much damage has been done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he bounced back from this.

beeftotheheels

dvpower wrote: »

I'd be reluctant to start looking at the damage that an arrest would do when deciding if an arrest is warranted (save that they should consider if the allegations might be politically or financially motivated). That would lead to one set of rules for the rich and powerful and another set for the rest of us. DSK basically paid the price for having a transparent justice system.

You misunderstand me, DSK is just a good example of the damage that a criminal prosecution can inflict on an individual, of course the specific impact on any alleged wrong doer should not be taken into account in determining whether to press charges.

But the fact that charging someone with a crime could have negative consequences for them should be taken into account in determining whether the case is strong enough to prosecute.

We have two conflicting rights here, the right of the alleged victim and the rights of the alleged wrongdoer and a balancing act must be carried out, so charges should not be pressed until the case is fully investigated, and in a rape allegation the credibility of the alleged victim is a very big part of this.

If, as seems likely, the case is dropped because the DA concludes that the alleged victim would not be believed, then they have trampled all over DSK's rights for nothing.

Worse than that, in my opinion, they have set out a public standard that women who have told lies can never expect to get justice if raped. While the credibility of the witness is, and always has been, a key issue in relation to the charging of rape, the public nature of this case, and the very public character assassination of the woman concerned has to impact on the reporting of rape.

As things stand right now, who would have been worse off had the DA kept their powder dry until such point as they had actually investigated the alleged crime properly?

No one (besides perhaps Christine Legarde), but everyone involved would have been better off.