I can't believe these idiot prosecutors who just accept accuser testimony without due diligence. Like Duke Lacrosse or Kobe, they are so hungry to win a big celebrity conviction (and move out of the shitty DA office to politics or a corporate job) that they're not doing their jobs. Confirmation bias - just like the "sources" we used to justify the Iraq War. Or in the case of Ted Stevens, maybe they had a case but they muck up the evidence and procedure so badly that they blow it. Maybe the accuser is telling the truth despite questions about her personal issues, but if the DA doesn't have enough of a case to convince a jury or push for a plea bargain, why destroy someone's career and possibly your own?
I find it interesting that the French public pretty much never waivered in its support for DSK through all this, while in the US accused pretty much equals guilty in the media. By some accounts, socialist DSK was doing a good job at the IMF with the European debt crisis, and was slated to replace the unpopular conservative Sarkozy in the next French election. He may still have a chance, but this fiasco cost him his job and maybe future office. To me it seems similar to the Eliot Spitzer mess, a brash leftist politician taken down by dubious scandal. Sure both men are womanizers and have some personal failings. But other forces might have been at work to bring about their public downfalls.
http://www.client9themovie.com/
------
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05nocera.html?src=me&ref=general
------
I think the NYT author has some good points and I know my DSK email was more on the knee-jerk side. I do respect the DA for coming clean with doubts about the accuser early, rather than dragging on. I assume the NYC DA must be one of the best in the country, so they probably weigh their decisions heavily, especially concerning suspects of high profile. But I don't think America's history with Roman Polanski is relevant to the DSK case. Maybe if DSK was a criminal and was able to flee, it would be very hard to bring him to justice. But Americans like Kissinger and maybe some of the Bushies have been accused of war crimes by other nations, and we haven't allowed them to be extradited either. We should expect nations to protect their own, but that shouldn't make us rush our justice system decisions. I believe that even if DSK fled, if the US presented a compelling case to France, some arrangement for trial could be reached. Rape is still illegal in France, unlike their gray area concerning sex with minors. And sorry to be vulgar, but bruises and semen on clothes can occur in casual, consensual sex as well.
I don't agree with the author's comments about classism and such in the 2 countries. The poor in France generally have better access to social services than those in America. Of course both nations struggle with immigrant and Muslim issues, and US Muslims are flourishing in comparison (but the demographics of Muslim immigrants in America are vastly different than those in France - education, economic circumstances, etc.). Despite America's reputation, social mobility is higher in France and other EU nations(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162616.stm), and the US has plenty of problems with wealth inequality and class as we know (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html). Although the justice system often favors the rich over the poor (or corporations over normal people, as we've seen in the Roberts Court), I fear that cases like DSK's (if decided in favor of the accuser) may encourage other lower-income, desperate people to entrap or fraud rich people in their vices, in order to get a settlement. Maybe they deserve it, but it opens up another can of worms for justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment