IMF head/leading candidate for French prez arrested for rape

Post Reply New Topic

The French are outraged at how we've been treating a man of Strauss-Kahn's stature as we do any other criminal. Such an important man should be treated with dignity! All the while, the French media has publicized the victim's name and personal details.

Apparently they're speculating that the victim has HIV/AIDS now tho.

Sexual predators should have the book thrown at them, no matter how important they think they are. Go America!

I guess people who aren't among the elite will perpetuate the priveleges of the elites in hope that they will someday join?

Who knows, it could be an evil conspiracy by Sarkozy to have him tempted and caught so he wouldn't run in the next presidentials.

At the very least, i'm not voting for LePen. -.- Family of xenophobes. <.<

I suspect that American prison food isn't any better than American school cafeteria food. Especially for a Frenchman to be subjected to such indignity would violate our constitutional protection against cruel punishment.

Bumping this, in view of recent developments.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le2085062/

It seems that it is the usual rapist defense once there is a whole set of evidence that the sexual act did happen. The lawyers then suggest the rapist to go and say that the sex was consensual and try to undermine the credibility of the alleged victim.

So, this may just mean that Strauss has good lawyers (which anybody with money can get).

It is not going to be decided until there's trial, and it seems the prosecutors (unlike what the article says) will continue with it and the trial won't "collapse".


A.K.A. a US nutjob thinks the prosecution should drop the case.

Edit: Oh http://www.amazon.com/Law-Attraction-No ... 1439193843 . So it is just a book called Law of Attraction which has NOTHING to do with the secret. So actually this Leotta is a real expert voice.

Unless, of course, the alleged rapist is actually telling the truth. You might not want to believe him, but the presumption of innocence is in his favour.



So the man who is wealthy enough to hire good lawyers is, ipso facto more likely to be guilty? I don't deny the appalling link between wealth and acquittal, but I think that has far more to do with poor people being denied access to competent counsel than it does with wealthy people being able to avoid conviction.

In the end, speculation is not enough to convict. Proof beyond reasonable doubt remains the standard, and given the judge's recent decision to release DSK from house arrest without bail, it does not look the prosecution is demonstration much capacity to meet that test with a triable case.



No, quite incorrect. The only result that does not result in a decision is a mistrial, which leaves open the possibility of retrying the matter. A failure to prosecute results in just as final a "decision" as a plea of nolo contendre. He is innocent of any charge, and continues to be innocent of any charge until a court of competent jurisdiction convicts him.


A.K.A. a US nutjob thinks the prosecution should drop the case.

Edit: Oh http://www.amazon.com/Law-Attraction-No ... 1439193843 . So it is just a book called Law of Attraction which has NOTHING to do with the secret. So actually this Leotta is a real expert voice.[/quote]

Glad you put the edit in. It looks to me like she knows whereof she speaks.

He's being accused of an earlier rape in France as well. It's pretty clear this guy is a sexual predator but if you're rich and powerful, you are never held accountable.

They're actually talking about this scumbag still thinking about making a presidential run. Now, my respect for the French wasn't particularly high before but electing a serial rapist as president would just be icing on the cake.

Has he been convicted of rape? Being accused of something doe not make one guilty.

ruveyn

However, the earlier case could come from a victim that does not have credibility issues. Which means that there will be a trial if not for the maid case for the old one.

He says, she says. Without an independent witness how do we know the sexual act was not voluntary?

ruveyn

Normally it revolves about trying to find evidence of aggression and the such. If not then it becomes about the credibility of the parts. The maid supposedly has lied before, but Strauss is the head of the IMF, a job position that requires you to be adept at lying. So , to me right now either case seems equally likely, 50% he is a rapist, 50% the maid is lying.

That's the reason we have trials and juries and stuff, you know.

I am not a judge nor in the grand jury so I don't have to presume his innocence.

All I am saying is that the current situation does not proove him guilty nor innocence. But it should mean something that the prosecution still plans to continue with the case. Few prosecutions would go with potential media circus cases unless they knew they have a good chance of winning, because losing such cases is an spectacle and a humiliation. So, I have the feeling that they haven't run out all their evidence and arguments.

You are free to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

But consider your statement:



When you use language like, "rapist defence," and "lawyers then suggest the rapist to go and say [sic]," you create the implication that the accused is, in fact, a rapist. If you truly believe your statement that the current situation does not prove him guilty or innocent, then it behooves you to back that statement up by ensuring that your statements don't carry prejudicial statements or implications.

I claimed that the usual rapist defense is to attack the credibility on the victim. Because that's what rapists do in cases in which there is evidence that the sexual act actually happened. And I said that this situation looked like that, because the situation looks like that. And yes, like you say it could also be that he is indeed innocent, but that is already 'assumed' so I didn't need to mention that. I was offering an alternate interpretation.

What I meant is that there is nothing about the alleged victim suddenly getting credibility issues really tells me that Strauss is innocent. Or as the article would like it to say when it uses words like "collapsed". It could as easily mean that he just has good lawyers (and he does).

Reasonable doubt. Right there, plain and simple. It is not enough to prove that the accused is guilty. One must give overwhelming proof that no sane or reasonable person can possibly doubt. Anything short of absolutely overwhelming proof is grounds for acquittal.

ruveyn