Head of the IMF arrested for sexual assault

Because burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Owlish wrote:

Wow, that is total fucking bullshit.

So the fact that this guy has a miles-long reputation for being a rapist, and that at least two other women have come forward with their own stories of being victimised by him mean absolutely nothing. Hell, the fact that HIS DNA WAS ON HER means nothing, because of some throw away comment she made about him having money and changing her story after a traumatic experience.

Why is her background the only one that matters here?

All that the DNA proves is that they had sex. It doesn't prove rape.

And her background matters because when she takes the stand her credibility is what would convince the jury that it was rape. And if she changed her story (especially if that story differs from the one she gave under oath in the grand jury room), if she lied about her financial situation (she claimed on numerous occasions that her only source of income is her job, so either she's an unwitting dupe or a willing accomplice to money laundering), and if she's caught on tape implying that she can profit from the case, her credibility is zero in the eyes of the jury because the first question the defense attorney is going to ask on cross is "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

Can the prosecution offer the other women's testimony as proof of pattern of behavior, or offer his reputation? Sure. But that will not get them any closer to a conviction because at the moment they are only allegations. AFAIK, he's never been charged or convicted of anything.

You can't rewrite the law, or bend the rules, to get a bad guy off the streets. Sometimes the bad guy wins.

When it comes to rape the bad guy usually wins.

@Penguin and Spotts: Thanks, I'm quite familiar with the basic premises of the American legal system. I still think that some of those premises are total fucking bullshit.

Spotts1701 wrote:

AFAIK, he's never been charged or convicted of anything.

She's never been charged or convicted of anything either? Other than her holding large sums of money (which I admit looks suspicious, but not relevant to the DSK case) and making off-hand comments about DSK being rich, she has no criminal background either. So again, why does circumstantial evidence in her background trump circumstantial evidence in his background? Spotts, you're saying precisely that her alleged drug-trafficking makes her less worthy in the eyes of the public, or would you like to clarify? She's probably laundering money and dealing drugs on the side, so who gives a fuck if she gets raped, amirite?

Spotts1701 wrote:

You can't rewrite the law, or bend the rules, to get a bad guy off the streets. Sometimes the bad guy wins.

As far as I can tell this has nothing to do with law, but with trial proceedings and judicial precedent. I understand that you're explaining the intricacies of the criminal justice system as it is currently, but I'm saying that the entire system is fucking sexist and needs to be changed.

Owlish wrote:

She's probably laundering money and dealing drugs on the side, so who gives a fuck if she gets raped, amirite?

Oh good, you don't need me to clarify what the mindset is in the United States.

See, we get drilled into our heads from childhood that drugs are bad. They are awful, awful, things, even ones with the same long-term effects as alcohol, like weed, and doing drugs makes you a Bad Person, and Bad People have Bad Things happen to them. And everyone knows that the only women dealing drugs are whores. It's not like you can rape a drug-dealing whore.

I'm not kidding. I'm really not. We, as a country, often give small-time weed dealers longer and harsher sentences than rapists. And people seem to willingly forgive a rapist before they forgive a drug dealer. Even suggesting she has a link to drug-dealing is more than enough to turn the jury against her, not that she had a great chance anyway.

Owlish wrote:

So again, why does circumstantial evidence in her background trump circumstantial evidence in his background? Spotts, you're saying precisely that her alleged drug-trafficking makes her less worthy in the eyes of the public, or would you like to clarify?

Because the defendant has the right to confront their accusers. The only way you're going to get a conviction in this case is if the 12 ordinary citizens in that jury box believe that the person accusing the defendant of a crime is telling the God's-honest truth. Circumstantial evidence in any crime other than murder is likely not going to lead to a conviction because the jury will always be left with the question "why didn't the victim testify?" (There are exceptions, but they usually involve the proverbial busload of nuns as additional witnesses.) And you can bet good money that as sure as I'm breathing, the defense is going to raise every single one of those issues and they are entitled to do so under the rules of evidence because they all go to the witness' general reliability and veracity.

Now, if he were to take the stand could you put all of his past indiscretions before the jury? Yes, because he has waived his right to self-incrimination to a degree. But no lawyer in their right mind is going to let him within a hundred miles of that witness stand, and would probably resign as counsel if they couldn't convince the defendant that it's a really bad idea.

Does that suck? Yes. But until we come up with a way of draining the jury box of subjective views, it's what a prosecutor has to deal with.

Quote :

She's probably laundering money and dealing drugs on the side, so who gives a fuck if she gets raped, amirite?

I did not say that, and I resent the implication. Every time I get into the argument about this people put these words into my mouth, and it's a cop-out. The DA certainly cared enough to risk his political and legal career to make this case - he could have just let the guy skip the country and wash his hands of the whole thing, or bow to political pressures before he was arraigned. He didn't. But there are some days, as Gene Autry so eloquently put it, when you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Quote :

As far as I can tell this has nothing to do with law, but with trial proceedings and judicial precedent. I understand that you're explaining the intricacies of the criminal justice system as it is currently, but I'm saying that the entire system is fucking sexist and needs to be changed.

It wouldn't matter if he were on trial for rape, robbery, assault, fraud, or any other type of crime. It wouldn't matter if the witness was male, female, or a Time Lord who just popped in from Gallifrey. The issues would be the same - the witness' credibility has been damaged by actions they took and inconsistent statements they made (including a statement they made under oath and under penalty of perjury). It is just because of this particular set of circumstances that you argue we should ignore principles of the law that are designed to be objective and neutral, as well as provide the defendant his Constitutional right to a fair trial - a trial cannot possibly be fair if the witness' veracity and honesty is off-limits to the other side.

Tristane Banon To File Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Quote :

PARIS -- A French novelist will file a complaint on Tuesday accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of attempted rape, her lawyer said, raising the prospect of a new sex assault investigation starting just as the U.S. case against the former International Monetary Fund chief falters.

The announcement threw Strauss-Kahn's legal situation in his home country into question, and injected fresh uncertainty into a national debate about whether he will be able to return to his political career and enter the 2012 presidential race.

Strauss-Kahn went on the offensive against his French accuser Tuesday evening, saying through his legal team that he planned to file his own criminal complaint of slander against her.

Hahaha, wow. Can you possibly be any more of a douchebag?

Quote :

Banon, 31, said on a 2007 television show that she had been attacked five years earlier by a politician she had interviewed for a book. She later identified the man as Strauss-Kahn.

"It finished very violently," she said on the television show. "I kicked him. He opened my bra. He tried to undo my jeans. It finished very badly."

Lawyer David Koubbi said Banon had been dissuaded from filing charges by her mother, a regional councilor in Strauss-Kahn's Socialist party. Her mother, Anne Mansouret, admitted in a French television interview in May that she had urged her daughter not to file a complaint after the incident.

So the woman's mother was invested in DSK's politics, basically. Way to place your politics over the well-being of your family. A+ parenting, there.

Quote :

Strauss-Kahn's lawyers said Monday that Strauss-Kahn "has always said that the incident described by Ms Banon since 2007 is imaginary."

"He notes that this complaint comes quite conveniently right at the moment when there is no longer the slighest doubt about the false nature of the accusations against him in the United States," attorneys Henri Leclerc and Frederique Baulieu said in a joint statement.

Yeah, it's not like watching another rape victim come forward would give her the courage to seek justice for herself, or anything. She's just a vicious harpy out to destroy his political career!!1

The rest of the article deals with DSK's potential political future. Oh, and this:

Quote :

At least some were won over by what they perceived as his mistreatment in the U.S.

"I had no intention of supporting him in the first round, but if he returns to French political life I will certainly vote for him," Jean-Rene Gendre, 63, said as he went shopping in central Paris. "What happened to him I think was a terrible manipulation."

Regardless of what the judicial outcome is, misogyny is clearly alive well, kiddies. Make no mistake about it.

Owlish wrote:

I'm saying that the entire system is fucking sexist and needs to be changed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The system is biased in favor of the defendant because it's necessary to avoid railroading. It's pretty fucking difficult to prove that you absolutely did not do something. That's why the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

Which occasionally becomes a problem for the prosecution when the motives and integrity their star, and only, witness are called into serious question because of her own fucking idiocy and the rest of your case is completely circumstantial.

Owlish wrote:

Hahaha, wow. Can you possibly be any more of a douchebag?

Sir, I beg you, for once in your life think with your brain and not with your ass. There are two possibilities, this new woman is telling the truth, or she is lying. This means he either attempted to rape her, or he didn't.

Now, if he didn't, he would obviously file a slander suit. I would do the same thing. Now, if he did it (and you seem to be operating under the assumption that's the case, cool Innocent Until Proven Guilty bro), it means two things:
1.) He couldn't be much more of a douche.
2.) If he had half a brain, he'd file a slander suit in an attempt to appear indignant about the charges which would give him a slightly more innocent appearance.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Owlish wrote:

I'm saying that the entire system is fucking sexist and needs to be changed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The system is biased in favor of the defendant because it's necessary to avoid railroading. It's pretty fucking difficult to prove that you absolutely did not do something. That's why the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

Which occasionally becomes a problem for the prosecution when the motives and integrity their star, and only, witness are called into serious question because of her own fucking idiocy and the rest of your case is completely circumstantial.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Mikey here.

TheHedonist wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I hate to say it, but I agree with Mikey here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's an awful, slimy feeling. Damn it.

I love how you're all totes fine with having a biased system that makes rape convictions virtually impossible.

I do like that I live with a system that operates on "innocent until proven guilty".

Except it doesn't apply to rape victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Except it doesn't apply to rape victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

So, wait, you want innocent until proven guilty for everything, from petty theft up to genocide, except Rape? I am reading you correctly here?

Somath Cegem wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Except it doesn't apply to rape victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

So, wait, you want innocent until proven guilty for everything, from petty theft up to genocide, except Rape? I am reading you correctly here?

I think she means that in most cases of rape trials/accusations that the guy gets the innocent until proven guilty while the girl is dissected, everything dredged up and inspected. Is she a liar, did she have a habit of sleeping around? Anything that could mean that her accusation is false. He's innocent until proven otherwise, and she's, potentially, a terrible, lying bitch.

Salamas wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Except it doesn't apply to rape victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

So, wait, you want innocent until proven guilty for everything, from petty theft up to genocide, except Rape? I am reading you correctly here?

I think she means that in most cases of rape trials/accusations that the guy gets the innocent until proven guilty while the girl is dissected, everything dredged up and inspected. Is she a liar, did she have a habit of sleeping around? Anything that could mean that her accusation is false. He's innocent until proven otherwise, and she's, potentially, a terrible, lying bitch.

Well of course both sides are gonna do that, the defence is gonna dig up anything they can to get their client off and the prosecution is gonna ask all these questions first and hope there is nothing for the defence to dig at. What do you expect them to do, just trust her word at face value? Because in most Rape charge cases her word is all either side get to work with.

Salamas wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Except it doesn't apply to rape victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

So, wait, you want innocent until proven guilty for everything, from petty theft up to genocide, except Rape? I am reading you correctly here?

I think she means that in most cases of rape trials/accusations that the guy gets the innocent until proven guilty while the girl is dissected, everything dredged up and inspected. Is she a liar, did she have a habit of sleeping around? Anything that could mean that her accusation is false. He's innocent until proven otherwise, and she's, potentially, a terrible, lying bitch.

This, sadly, is the truth. For most crimes, the victim is not held culpable (or not as much, anyway). Did the murder victim ask to be killed? Probably not, and even if they did do something to really piss off the killer, the question is not whether they deserved to be murdered, but rather whether the accused actually committed the murder in question. Some people might say that the mugging victim was asking for it by carrying something someone else might see as valuable, but the question asked at a trial is whether the mugger actually committed the crime, not whether they were really, really tempted by the other person's property.

With rape, however, the question that almost invariably comes up is "Was she asking for it?" The victim's background is dissected--her sexual history, her occupation, her attire, her hobbies, her Internet posts--everything. Did she like to wear sexy clothes and shoes? Was she walking alone at night? Did she live alone? Did she enjoy sex? Did she ever engage in prostitution, work as a stripper, drink alcohol, use drugs? She must have been asking for it! A woman who likes sex/alcohol/marijuana/designer shoes must be a slut, and everyone knows you can't rape a slut. Therefore, if sex took place, it must have been consensual, and she's just whining. The question is not "Is the accused guilty?" but rather "Is the defendant guilty?"

Cyberwulf wrote:

Except it doesn't apply to victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

FTFY

You seem to be unaware of how the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" works. Either that, or you're perfectly fine with "innocent until proven guilty EXCEPT FOR RAPE CASES THEN ALL RULES GO OUT THE WINDOW BECAUSE WITCH HUNTS ARE TOTES AWESOME ALSO TOTES IS A WORD"

If you can't see what an incredibly, ridiculously dangerous legal precedent that making an exception to the foundation of the legal system sets, you're either woefully ignorant or completely deranged.

Agreeing with Mikey makes me feel... dirty.

And the system America uses to try rapists and other sex offenders needs sorting out, because a guy can get accused multiple times and get off the hook multiple times, until he picks a pure and innocent victim. That's appalling.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I love how you're all totes fine with having a biased system that makes rape convictions virtually impossible.

They system is not biased. The jury is. Now stop bashing it unless you can come up with a fair and viable alternative.

(PS automatic belief and freedom from skepticism from every rape accuser all the time always is an alternative, yes, but it is neither viable nor fair.)

Salamas wrote:

I think she means that in most cases of rape trials/accusations that the guy gets the innocent until proven guilty while the girl is dissected, everything dredged up and inspected. Is she a liar, did she have a habit of sleeping around? Anything that could mean that her accusation is false. He's innocent until proven otherwise, and she's, potentially, a terrible, lying bitch.

1. If she does then she should say that.
2. This precedent is set for all crimes, not just rape. I will admit, though, that the stakes (as far as their respective reputations after the fact are concerned) are far higher for both parties.
3. If the plaintiff has already perjured herself in this very case then that is a damned good reason to have doubts about, oh, I don't know, anything else that comes out of her mouth. She lied. About this case. Period. Whether or not she enjoyed sex is irrelevant, whether or not she slept around is irrelevant, whether or not the defense lawyers of rapists often use these things to cast doubt on the plaintiff is irrelevant. What is relevant is that she lied under oath and now everything she said under oath has to be called into question.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Agreeing with Mikey makes me feel... dirty.

And the system America uses to try rapists and other sex offenders needs sorting out, because a guy can get accused multiple times and get off the hook multiple times, until he picks a pure and innocent victim. That's appalling.

1. Someone already said the first thing. Like, I'm pretty sure they phrased it almost exactly like that but I'm entirely too lazy to check.
2. I'm pretty sure agreeing with you (on the second thing) makes me feel dirtier than agreeing with Mikey makes you feel, but it's only a hunch.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Except it doesn't apply to rape victims. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore she is a lying bitch (guilty of slander/libel/perjury) until proven truthful.

Well, if Woman says Man raped her, and Man is innocent (as we assume until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt), then she is at least mistaken.

However, if Man wants to get Woman convicted for slander for levying such charges against him, he has to prove a couple things (in America, at least):

1.) She knew what she was saying was a complete lie.
2.) There was damage as a result of this lie.

So now Man's on the short end of the Burden of Proof stick.

Sally wrote:

I think she means that in most cases of rape trials/accusations that the guy gets the innocent until proven guilty while the girl is dissected, everything dredged up and inspected. Is she a liar, did she have a habit of sleeping around? Anything that could mean that her accusation is false. He's innocent until proven otherwise, and she's, potentially, a terrible, lying bitch.

God forbid the defense, uh, defends their clients.

Innocent until proven guilty I can live with. But the accuser being on trial too? She's all too often guilty until proven innocent by friends, family, teachers, neighbours... that's why so many rapists and sex offenders walk free.

Because the fact that the woman had sex with the man isn't enough. The fact that she says she didn't want it isn't enough. The fact that the man is a total stranger isn't enough. Just walking down the street after dark alone is enough to call into question her entire case.

Unless she's a married woman with kids, the defendant's lawyer will pull everything he can to show that she's lying about not wanting sex.

Lady Anne wrote:

With rape, however, the question that almost invariably comes up is "Was she asking for it?" The victim's background is dissected--her sexual history, her occupation, her attire, her hobbies, her Internet posts--everything. Did she like to wear sexy clothes and shoes? Was she walking alone at night? Did she live alone? Did she enjoy sex? Did she ever engage in prostitution, work as a stripper, drink alcohol, use drugs? She must have been asking for it! A woman who likes sex/alcohol/marijuana/designer shoes must be a slut, and everyone knows you can't rape a slut. Therefore, if sex took place, it must have been consensual, and she's just whining. The question is not "Is the accused guilty?" but rather "Is the defendant guilty?"

Which is why "rape shield" laws were passed. The problem is that the issues with regards to witness credibility in this case are things that are not covered by that law, but rather are the same credibility issues that are raised about any witness of any gender in any criminal case.

These are the instructions given to jurors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for criminal trials with respect to credibility of witnesses. It applies to all criminal matters that come before that court.

General Credibility wrote:

There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony. You bring to this process all of your varied experiences. In life, you frequently decide the truthfulness and accuracy of statements made to you by other people. The same factors used to make those decisions, should be used in this case when evaluating the testimony.

Inconsistent Statements wrote:

You may consider whether a witness made statements at this trial that are inconsistent with each other. You may also consider whether a witness made previous statements that are inconsistent with his or her testimony at trial.

You may consider whether a witness testified to a fact here at trial that the witness omitted to state, at a prior time, when it would have been reasonable and logical for the witness to have stated the fact. In determining whether it would have been reasonable and logical for the witness to have stated the omitted fact, you may consider whether the witness' attention was called to the matter and whether the witness was specifically asked about it.

Now we have a witness/victim who has given three statements at three different times, two of which were sworn statements. None of these statements are consistent with each other. There is evidence, provided by the witness' employer, that directly contradicts her statements under oath. There are other matters that are not connected to this case that bring up the witness' general reliability as a honest and accurate recounter of events (the discrepancies in her asylum application, the issues with her bank records, etc.). These matters would be relevant regardless of what the defendant was on trial for because they call into question the evidence against him, and all of it must be turned over to the defense as it is exculpatory. Some of the physical evidence is consistent (but not conclusive) with rape, and the rest is either circumstantial, inconclusive, or potentially contaminated (again, depending upon which of the witness' prior statements you believe is accurate).

Now, do I believe he committed a crime? Yes. Could I go into a courtroom and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it? Not with the evidence that is admissible in court.

Spotts1701 wrote:

All that the DNA proves is that they had sex. It doesn't prove rape.

Spotts1701 wrote:

It wouldn't matter if he were on trial for rape, robbery, assault, fraud, or any other type of crime. It wouldn't matter if the witness was male, female, or a Time Lord who just popped in from Gallifrey. The issues would be the same - the witness' credibility has been damaged by actions they took and inconsistent statements they made (including a statement they made under oath and under penalty of perjury). It is just because of this particular set of circumstances that you argue we should ignore principles of the law that are designed to be objective and neutral, as well as provide the defendant his Constitutional right to a fair trial - a trial cannot possibly be fair if the witness' veracity and honesty is off-limits to the other side.

Actually it does matter, because of the statement you posted above. Crimes like robbery or even assault are crimes no matter what the circumstances, so the issue is proving that the person committed the act. Sex is not a crime, so the issue usually is not whether the act occurred, but whether it was consensual, which, far more often than not, can't be proved by anything other than the victim's credibility. Even a drug-trafficking money launderer can be robbed, and evidence can prove it--but if the drug-trafficking money launderer is raped, it's all but impossible to prove.

Lady Anne wrote:

This, sadly, is the truth. For most crimes, the victim is not held culpable (or not as much, anyway). Did the murder victim ask to be killed? Probably not, and even if they did do something to really piss off the killer, the question is not whether they deserved to be murdered, but rather whether the accused actually committed the murder in question. Some people might say that the mugging victim was asking for it by carrying something someone else might see as valuable, but the question asked at a trial is whether the mugger actually committed the crime, not whether they were really, really tempted by the other person's property.

With rape, however, the question that almost invariably comes up is "Was she asking for it?" The victim's background is dissected--her sexual history, her occupation, her attire, her hobbies, her Internet posts--everything. Did she like to wear sexy clothes and shoes? Was she walking alone at night? Did she live alone? Did she enjoy sex? Did she ever engage in prostitution, work as a stripper, drink alcohol, use drugs? She must have been asking for it! A woman who likes sex/alcohol/marijuana/designer shoes must be a slut, and everyone knows you can't rape a slut. Therefore, if sex took place, it must have been consensual, and she's just whining. The question is not "Is the accused guilty?" but rather "Is the defendant guilty?"

This, exactly. The question is not whether the suspect committed the crime, but whether the victim asked for it. That doesn't apply anywhere except for rape cases.


I'm not saying that "innocent until proven guilty" should be thrown out the window, but I am saying that it presents serious issues in rape cases. No, I don't have a solution, yet, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it.