Ben Stein (You know, the guy with the big glasses and deadpan, monotone voice that tells you how to get the red out with Visine? Okay, he did graduate from Yale Law School, so I have to give him a little credit for that....) he came up with all sorts of perceived problems with Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest and treatment. Allow me to respond...point by point:
If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn’t he ever get charged until now?
If a man commits a burglary and does not get caught, is he still a burglar? Hell, if a person commits a crime and does not get caught, or it is not reported, has a crime still occurred? Just as the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn should be judged by that with which he is charged, so should he NOT be excused because he has not done it in the past, or at least been caught in the past. That is an issue to be dealt with at a sentencing hearing. A cynic once told me that there is only one crime in the entire world; that crime is "getting caught." The thoughts of Mr. Stein seem to accept that as true.
The reverse of the above is the logic that many people use for justifying the conviction of a person where evidence is weak or non-existent, "Oh, he just got caught this time. He has done it before, he just didn't get caught." One is as unfair and as unjust as the other. Just because he has no past record, does not mean he either did or did not do the crime with which he is charged.
In the United States, we judge people based on the evidence against them. Except under certain circumstances, we do not use the fact that someone committed a crime before to be used to prove he did it this time, especially when the sole purpose is to inflame a jury toward an unjust verdict. We do allow the prior record to come in where it belongs, in the sentencing phase of a trial.
We have trials by jury in this country and that is what Mr. Strauss-Kahn will get, a trial and an opportunity to determine if the government has proof beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Please note, I did not say prove he didn't do it, or prove he is not guilty. That is not how the system in this country works. Right now, there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and he is the one that committed it. A judge ruled to hold him on this standard.
Mr. Stein espouses the idea that because Mr. Strauss-Kahn is of such stellar character that he should be treated differently. While I have a certain amount of sympathy for this argument, it just seems unfair. I also believe that, if the system is good enough for the "dirtbags" of society, then it is good enough for the elite. Mr. Strauss-Kahn, being who he is, and having the support of the world elite, unfortunately has to endure exactly what the "dirtbag" does in a government of laws, not men.
I cannot help but wonder if this will be an impetus for change in the system. As long as you don't "have a dog in the hunt" or it is "not your ox being gored," then the system is acceptable because it does not affect you. It is only when people of power, stature or money become "victims" of the system that change occurs. I would ask Mr. Stein to ask for change in the system, for everybody, if he does not think it is treating Mr. Strauss-Khan appropriately.
This is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about.
Then it follows that many cases that are brought against lower socio-economic groups and minorities are a case of hatred by the haves of the have-nots. I do not believe this to be true, but I do believe that the haves tend to stand by and watch as the have-nots go to prison in wholesale lots for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that they cannot afford the kind of legal talent that say, O.J. Simpson could.
So far, he’s innocent, and he’s being treated shamefully. If he’s found guilty, there will be plenty of time to criticize him.
Every single person in this country is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!! I do not see anyone screaming and jumping up and down when some unknown person charged with a crime goes to Riker's Island to await trial. Why is Mr. Strauss-Kahn the exception; because he is a member of the powerful, moneyed elite in the world? In this country, we are supposed to treat people equally, certainly, based on their unique circumstances, but Mr. Strauss-Kahn is getting the same treatment as anyone else charged with a very serious crime, and a judge, presumably a disinterested third party, has ruled in the case. I will acknowledge that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is paying, to a degree, for the sins of Roman Polanski and how the French government dealt with his situation, more on that later.
Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?
Precisely what does that have to do with the charges against Strauss-Kahn? As a class of people, are economists less likely to commit crimes? Are economists intrinsically better than everyone else? You are asking the question, "Why would he do this?" The answer may be, "Because he could." but again, this is a matter to be determined in a courtroom, before a jury.
Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.
I am flabbergasted!! The blatant over-generalization and ignorance of how our criminal justice system operates is mind boggling!! The first question that must be asked and answered is, "Did he do it?" This is a factual determination. A cold, hard, unemotional analysis of the facts to determine that a crime has been committed and that Strauss-Kahn committed the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. Then we get to the unique character of the defendant and determine his punishment. Of course, our elected officials, based on the desire to be "tough on crime" and the dissatisfaction with the treatment of defendants by judges, in that they are not hard enough in their sentences, have eliminated a lot of the discretion the judge has in deciding how to punish a defendant. Mr. Strauss-Kahn, may be a "victim" of this lack of sentencing discretion.
He is one of the most recognizable people on the planet. Did he really have to be put in Riker’s Island?
First, I would not have recognized this guy if he slapped me in the face. Second, who cares? He was put in Riker's Island because he was on a plane headed out of the country and he was determined to be a flight risk by a judge. Do we really think that he would have come back voluntarily to face charges had he managed to get to France? As my reference, I use the French handling of Roman Polanski (see below). We are now certain that he will show up for all court hearings and trial, because they will bring him over, just like every other person remanded into pre-trial custody.
At some point, probably sooner rather than later, Mr. Strauss-Kahn will be brought before a Judge for a reconsideration of his bail. I am sure that he will be released, minus his passport, with some sort of restrictions on his activities, house arrest, an ankle bracelet tracking device or something akin to this. Due consideration should be given to his unique circumstances, as the purpose of bail is to insure his appearance in court (a little tough to do when he flees to a foreign country) and to protect society from being further victimized.
A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He’s got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.
This is what trials are for, to determine whether he is guilty or not guilty. The determination of bond is only partly determined by the strength of the case against the defendant. It is also based on whether he is a threat to the community and whether he is a flight risk. Given all of the factors, he was determined to be a person that would flee the jurisdiction and bond was set accordingly.
The presumption underlying the question is that he is not only presumed innocent, but, in fact, that he is wrongly charged. How, based on the facts, and our criminal justice system, can such a presumption be made? The logical alternative thinking to this commet is, "He's a rich and famous and politically-connected guy. He cannot possibly be guilty." I would argue, again, this is why we have trials.
I keep going back to the fact that the man was seated on an airplane that was preparing to fly out of the country. I am not prone to presume, as Mr. Stein is apparently willing to do, that this is merely the act of an innocent man in his normal course of business, which it might very well be. I have to accept that it could also be the actions of a man that believes he may or may not have gotten away with the crime and is now fleeing the jurisdiction, knowing that he will likely not return, and when he does return, it will likely be with a diplomatic passport, or as the President of France.
Following Mr. Stein's logic, I think it important to note that Roman Polanski managed to remain in France for how many decades without going to prison on sex charges against a minor to which he had already plead guilty. Mr. Polanski's case shows the unwillingness of the French to extradite their citizens that have been convicted of crimes, much less those merely facing charges. Mr. Polanski was only a filmmaker, albeit a very talented one, not a candidate for the presidency of the country.
I defy anyone to tell me that a defendant with all sorts of ties to the community that was alleged to have committed the exact same crime would not be in the same situation as Strauss-Kahn, and Ben Stein would not be saying boo about it.
Was Riker’s Island really the place to put him on the allegations of one human being? Hadn’t he earned slightly better treatment than that?
No ! He has not earned better treatment. He is a man, charged with a serious crime, and exactly how many people of lesser social, political and economic standing are in prison today based on the word of one person? Again, this is what trials are for. If, in the long run, Mr. Strauss-Kahn is found not guilty, this could be the basis for reforms in the criminal justice system to give everyone a fair shake.
Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes?
Again, who cares? I am not sure it is possible to be more unjust. Presuming, arguendo, that no other person in his particular situation has ever been charged and convicted, exactly what does that have to do with the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn? It is not proof of anything. Multi-millionaires have committed murder; Claus Von Bulow, James Sullivan on Palm Beach, to name a couple. Do we somehow think that people with altruistic careers and callings do not commit crimes? Hell, Catholic Priests have been discovered molesting children for decades. Mr. Strauss-Kahn will be judged on the facts of the case against him, and not based on what anyone else has or has not done in the past.
People accuse other people of crimes all of the time. What do we know about the complainant besides that she is a hotel maid?
Again ~SIGH~, this is the reason we have trials. Ya know, sometimes, quite often as a matter of fact, crimes occur with only one witness, the victim. Do we presume that this woman is some sort of whore because she has accused a powerful and well-known man with a crime? The temerity of such a woman!! [Please note dripping sarcasm]. The argument is specious as it assumes that a whore cannot be raped or molested. Hell, we even have laws in this country that prevent the background of a woman accuser from being introduced in court to impeach her credibility, based on this fact. How dare you, Mr. Stein, presume anything about this woman without proof? You should be ashamed!
No comments:
Post a Comment