One cannot read the published accounts of the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn without concluding that he is probably guilty. But what if he isn't? The coverage, the photos, the op-eds have ruined his reputation, forced him to resign his high IMF position and apparently ended his bid for the presidency of France.
No matter the ultimate outcome, his life will never be the same; the cloud will always be there. Of course, if he is found guilty there is little sympathy for him or his ruined reputation. The crime charged engenders such emotion and anger that this is probably the wrong case to make the point, but shouldn't we re-examine the practice of publicizing criminal charges and the so-called "perp walk"?
When I was a teenager, my father wrote a letter to the town's weekly newspaper criticizing it for publishing an article about a local resident who had been charged with writing a bad check in another state. The article was the talk of the town -- a small one in which news spread rapidly. I knew the children of the man accused. They were devastated and embarrassed. As it turned out, he was not the person involved but rather someone with a similar name. The charges were dropped, but the story never forgotten. People would still say "wasn't he the one involved with some check fraud?"
The perfect example is what happened to the Duke students who were charged with rape. Those charges have been totally dismissed, but those boys (now men) will always be remembered for what they were accused of. Before anyone becomes incensed, I, in no way, mean to question the integrity or the veracity of the accuser here, but rather the practice of disclosing or leaking charges, detailing evidence and parading the accused.
In view of the First Amendment, I can envision no practical or legal way of forbidding the media from publicizing such charges except self-restraint, which is hardly likely in this competitive, sensation- hungry media world. But there is no reason for this information to come from law enforcement sources. I have always been of the view that unless the announcement is to allay the public fears and assure them that some serial rapist or murderer has been arrested or there is some other legitimate purpose in disclosing the identity of the person charged, there is no reason for the prosecution to announce (or leak) charges or indictments, detail the evidence, or express its views about guilt. Such conduct poisons the jury pool, adversely affects the rights of the accused, and if innocent, forever stigmatizes the person named. Using the word "alleged" hardly takes the sting away. It merely protects against libel.
The reality is that in most instances the charges are pursued to conviction and the harm from any pre-trial publicity is deserved, but in those rare cases in which the accused is innocent or acquitted, the harm can never be undone. So prosecutors and editors before they go public with charges against someone should ask themselves: What if he is innocent?
Friday deadline for Strauss-Kahn trial decision - The Times of India
Strauss-Kahn trial could hinge on timeline, DNA
Strauss-Kahn released pending trial - US news - Crime & courts ...
Grand jury to hear from alleged victim before Strauss-Kahn trial ...
How about the ones that were innocent but actually convicted by ("a system that has proved to be hopelessly flawed and perhaps even criminal in its application of law enforcement, prosecution and punishment.") (Craig Watkins)
http://craigwatkins.org/blog/2011/01/
www.injusticeeverywhere.com
You said .... "The perfect example is what happened to the Duke students who were charged with rape. Those charges have been totally dismissed, but those boys (now men) will always be remembered for what they were accused of. Before anyone becomes incensed, I, in no way, mean to question the integrity or the veracity of the accuser here,"
EXCUSE ME? You 'in no way' question the 'integrity or veracity of the accuser'?? You have got to be kidding me.
First of all the Duke "boys" were clearly falsely accused so a more appropriate label would be 'false accuser'. Actually there are many appropriate labels, few of them involve integrity or veracity. The most current is 'murderer'.
You obviously knew about the case (Duke) ... why in the world would you speak so ignorantly about the woman at the center of the case?
We live in an open society, and rightly so. Hiding this would have involved a huge conspiracy of silence and who would it have served, really? Someone would have leaked it sooner rather than later. I'm fine with the police and prosecutors keeping evidence confidential (except from the defense) until the trial and punishing leakers within the investigation, but let's get real. When the head of the IMF doesn't show up for work because he's been locked up for raping a hotel maid, SOMEONE is going to call the National Enquirer or the Star or some blogger buddy and the news will be flying around the globe in minutes.
As far as I understand it, in a sexual crime the victim is protected from the media by law. The press is not free to publish their names. Why not the accused then? Or do you lose all of your civil rights as soon as you're accused of a crime and not once you're found guilty?
what may be an issue is defination of what amounts to consent. In France consent to sex may be different than in America.
DSK has not only DNA against him but, the testimonies of madames of new york, hotel staff, and other unbecoming behavior.
Judge what you say is wishful thinking than looking at the facts so far.....
Much respect for your record and integrity. Keep up the good fight!
It's all too easy to get wrapped up in the allure of a high profile case. I bring up Mike Nifong every chance I can as a cautionary tale and an unfortunate representation of too many colleagues.
His DNA is all over the victim's clothes.
Still, DNA was found on her shirt? I am not a lawyer but I doubt that this alone can prove any sort of criminal activity beyond any reasonable doubt. If I were a juror, I would be extremely skeptical.
FYI, I am not a fan of conspiracy theories - I'm simply stating the facts. I'm in no position to defend or accuse him - I wasn't in the room.
In the 80s we ran the equivalent of Salem witch trials from coast-to-coast with columnists like Anna Quinlan cheering on females prosecutors jailing hundreds of innocent daycare workers based on the work of some quack therapists from California.
On those rare occasions when feminists and right-wing Christians agree, all hell breaks loose.
It still makes me shudder.
One never knows when hysteria will spread to a whole nation...and we end up in another McCarthy era, Germany, Cultural revolution...Germany.
In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
Limitation of scope of strict liability.E+W+S+N.I.
(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, programme included in a cable programme service or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.
(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
(3)The strict liability rule applies to a publication only if the proceedings in question are active within the meaning of this section at the time of the publication.
(4)Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.
In this section “programme service” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
The character who is the TV reporter is informing his audience of some new evidence that had been uncoivered regarding Mitchell's (I think) involvement. The reporter ends his segment with words to this effect:
"Although we can not be certain, all indications are that Mitchell is...
GUILTY!!! GUILTY GUILTY!!!"
Your right about the Duke students. Their lives were ruined on false allegations and the accusers just walked away with no penalty.
As I recall, the prosecutor was fired and school officials were sued.