[lbo-talk] Strauss Kahn

[Dissenting Wren]

I agree that you can't run a decent criminal justice system on presumption.  OTOH, the pragmatic decision not to prosecute in cases where dragging the complainant's name through the mud is likely to succeed makes it possible to rape with impunity if:
--you rape a woman who survives as an immigrant by hook or by crook
--you rape a woman who "improved" the truth to make her asylum application more likely to be approved (so very like police "testilying")
--you rape a prostitute
--you rape a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners
--you rape a woman who is kinky
--you rape a woman who dresses provocatively
--you rape a woman who likes to flirt
etc.

So, given this dilemma, what do you do?

________________________________
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Strauss Kahn

On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Wojtek S wrote:


>  I think the case would have had a very different outcome if the
> defendant were not some stinking rich/high status bastard - probably
> prosecutors would have offered some "plea bargaining" agreement in
> exchange for a more lenient sentence, as it is often the case.
> Prosecutors enjoy a wide range of discretion in these matters, no?

So you're saying that prosecutors should have plea-bargained a case that would have resulted in an exoneration had it gone to trial? That might have worked with a broke defendant with a shitty lawyer, but is that an admirable principle?

Look, I presume DSK did something nasty. But you can't run a decent criminal justice system on presumption.

Doug
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk