DSK, can we believe this?

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Christine Animal"]

Two New York City Police Officers Acquitted of Rape

 

http://www.20minutes.fr/article/732108/dsk-acquittement-proces-viol-pourrait-interesser-defense

 

[/quote]

It would also be pertinent in my opinion to compare and contrast a verdict by a Jury in Common Law System of Justice such as the United States of America where a potential sentence of more than 6 months will allow the option of a Jury Trial; for a guilty verdict there must be a unanimous verdict of ALL 12 members of the Jury. If one jury member is not convinced of the guilt then the verdict is not guilty. The unanimous jury verdict of course enshrines the common law principle of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In my opinion it is hard to argue that a majority verdict, used in some jurisdictions where the "SUBJECTS" basic rights have been eroded as in England, fulfills the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.

In order to avoid being accused of "rubbishing" the Jury System in a French Cour d'Assises, I shall refrain from outlining the basic parameters of such a Criminal Procedure in France.

 

[Clair]

[quote user="pachapapa"]... for a guilty verdict there must be a unanimous verdict of ALL 12 members of the Jury. If one jury member is not convinced of the guilt then the verdict is not guilty... [/quote]

Quite. Unanimous is the key word.

The jury is selected from prospective jurors, who are grilled by the defence and the prosecution, each side seeking to form a group of 12 people who are likely to be more receptive to their respective argument.

The French jury system relies on a majority verdict, the jury being composed of 3 magistrates and 9 randomly-selected citizens, picked from the electoral roll in each department.

In Scotland for instance, the accused can be found guilty by a verdict of "proven", or not guilty by a verdict of "not guilty" or a verdict of "not proven", the latter being used when the jury has not been convinced of the innocence of the suspect but where not enough evidence has been brought forward by the prosecution.

The "not proven" verdict does not exonerate the accused quite as much as a "not guilty" verdict.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="pachapapa"]In my opinion it is hard to argue that a majority verdict, used in some jurisdictions where the "SUBJECTS" basic rights have been eroded as in England, fulfills the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.

In order to avoid being accused of "rubbishing" the Jury System in a French Cour d'Assises, I shall refrain from outlining the basic parameters of such a Criminal Procedure in France.

[/quote]While I agree that it is better if the jury bring in a unanamious verdict I feel that 1 dissenting juror should not be sufficient to bring in a Not Guilty verdict. This makes it too easy for a gang member to be acquitted by leaning on a jury member. How many of us would be strong enough to ignore threats to our family members. A better solution might be to order a retrial in this event or to allow a majority verdict at the discretion of the judge.

[cooperlola]

When I sat on a jury in the UK we were hung 9 to 3.  The judge said he would have allowed a 10-2 majority and made us deliberate for hours to try to achieve that.  As it was it was a mis-trial.

[woolybanana]

You wouldn't change your mind, then?[6]

[cooperlola]

Nope.[:)]

[pachapapa]

It is worth noting that in the United States of America  a defendant would have the option of a jury trial if the sentence may be 6 months or greater.

Whilst in France one will stand trial in the Assize Court if the sentence may be 10 YEARS or greater.

The right, accordingly, to a Trial by Jury in France is very limited.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="pachapapa"]In my opinion it is hard to argue that a majority verdict, used in some jurisdictions where the "SUBJECTS" basic rights have been eroded as in England, fulfills the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.

In order to avoid being accused of "rubbishing" the Jury System in a French Cour d'Assises, I shall refrain from outlining the basic parameters of such a Criminal Procedure in France.

[/quote]While I agree that it is better if the jury bring in a unanamious verdict I feel that 1 dissenting juror should not be sufficient to bring in a Not Guilty verdict. This makes it too easy for a gang member to be acquitted by leaning on a jury member. How many of us would be strong enough to ignore threats to our family members. A better solution might be to order a retrial in this event or to allow a majority verdict at the discretion of the judge.

[/quote]

In the context of the current thread and the location of the DSK Trial, in my opinion the nobbling of a Jury Member is extremely remote.

The link gives details of the system which is rather robust.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/jury_handbook/juryplan_feb_2009.pdf

P.S A witness or even a victim probably more liable to pressure than jurors.

[Salty Sam]

Within the US, there is the "Grand Jury".

The Grand Jury is the group that determines if there is enough evidence against the accused person to warrant a trial. In the federal court system, this group ranges from 12 to 23 people that live in the court district where the trial would be held. The grand jury reviews the evidence against the accused. It talks to witnesses and asks questions. A majority vote is taken by its members after reviewing the facts. If the majority agrees that the evidence is strong enough, the accused is indicted, and held for trial.

[quote]It would also be pertinent in my opinion to compare and contrast a verdict by a Jury in Common Law System of Justice such as the United States of America where a potential sentence of more than 6 months will allow the option of a Jury Trial; for a guilty verdict there must be a unanimous verdict of ALL 12 members of the Jury. If one jury member is not convinced of the guilt then the verdict is not guilty. The unanimous jury verdict of course enshrines the common law principle of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]

However, where there is no unanimous verdict i.e. a 'hung jury', the prosecutors do have the right to reprosecute the case. 

Not forgetting in the case of a hung jury, the Judge may declare a 'mistrial' and return the accused to custody or extend bail conditions.

Anyway, OJ Simpson walked free but if found guilty, DSK may get away with a similar punishment to Boy George - raking up leaves and litter!

 

Post edited by the moderators in accordance with the forum code of conduct.

 

[pachapapa]

Post content removed by the moderators in accordance with the forum code of conduct.

[Quillan]

I see Legarde (Christine) is favorite to be the next Chairperson of the IMF. Was she not also tipped to take over from DSK, would this be a 'conflict of interest'?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/8543964/Why-Christine-Lagarde-should-never-be-head-of-the-IMF.html

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Salty Sam"]

within the US, there is the "Grand Jury".

[/quote]Which DSK has already been before and been indicted by:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8524805/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-former-IMF-head-formally-indicted.html

(over a week ago now.)

[Clarkkent]

What people seem to be forgetting in this interesting discussion on comparative legal systems is that there is not a single jusirdiction in the USA - each state has its own, most being based on English common law, but Louisiana uses Napoleonic law. The federal legal system is based on common law.

DSK committed his alleged offence in New York City, so will be tried under New York State law. Previous comments about practices in federal courts are not appropriate.

[Christine Animal]

Georges Tron resigns

 

or how to get rid of someone (again) by accusing them of sexual abuse.

 

[Patf]

What annoys me most about these high-profile cases is that the trial will probably be dragged out for ages, costing millions, and lining the pockets of the lawyers.

When the only important thing is, who is telling the truth? And what punishment will be given to the liar?

Instead it becomes a cause célèbre, and even the wrongdoer is given a sort of celebrity status.

[Gardener]

[quote user="Christine Animal"]

Georges Tron resigns

 

or how to get rid of someone (again) by accusing them of sexual abuse.

 

[/quote]

No no no, he didn't have to resign. Yes he may eventually have been sacked, but he didn't have to jump.

[Christine Animal]

http://actu.orange.fr/france/tron-demissionne-du-gouvernement-dans-un-contexte-marque-par-l-affaire-dsk_141668.html

Whether he "had" to or not, it is a consequence of the accusations.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Christine Animal"]

Georges Tron resigns

or how to get rid of someone (again) by accusing them of sexual abuse.

[/quote]

More detail on the French version http://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRPAE74S08A20110529

 

[Clair]

Very interesting article in The New Yorker.

Thanks for the tip

(you know who you are, and I'm not sure if you want to be named here... [:)])

I note that D. de Villepin is quoted as saying what I wrote way back on this thread...

Hmmm... Why does he seem to think only the Socialists knew? [8-)]

[Gardener]

[quote user="Christine Animal"]

http://actu.orange.fr/france/tron-demissionne-du-gouvernement-dans-un-contexte-marque-par-l-affaire-dsk_141668.html

Whether he "had" to or not, it is a consequence of the accusations.

 

[/quote]

Accepted, but it still remains that he had a choice.

[Frenchie]

And I bet he won't be the only one . 

Clair, not only the socialists knew DSK was a séducteur, ( I didn't say a rapist!) , everybody knew ..

By séducteur, I mean a man who loves women , who takes every opportunity to try and seduce them.

Un dragueur, quoi !

No need to be a political man to be a séducteur..

But of course, men of power seem to attract women more. . .

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Frenchie"]

But of course, men of power seem to attract women more. . .

[/quote]Well they certainly think they do.  My own experience (survey of one, OK, I admit it!) has been that the higher up the professional ladder a guy gets, the more he gets used to people doing as he asks and the more he confuses the workplace with the bedroom.

[Russethouse]

Isn't DSK old enough to realise that men who are still trying to seduce women at his age (62 ?) are often figures of fun (and sometimes pity) among their contemporaries ?

[Frenchie]

Well, we'll agree to disagree.

It has nothing to do with age. 

When they ask political or businessmen or singers  " does fame help with women  ? "  almost all answer " yes".

I'm not saying ALL women are attracted by famous men, but I'm 100% sure it attracts many women into their beds.

Or maybe that's a French thing again ! [:P]

[Clair]

[quote user="Frenchie"]Clair, not only the socialists knew DSK was a séducteur, ( I didn't say a rapist!) , everybody knew ..[/quote]

I don't think that being a séducteur is what D. de Villepin was alluding to.

I believe he is pointing the finger at the Socialists and saying they

knew his behaviour was beyond that of a séducteur and chose to ignore

it.

My question was why does he think only the Socialists knew about it...

[quote user="Frenchie"]By séducteur, I mean a man who loves women , who takes every opportunity to try and seduce them.[/quote]

[8-)] You may call him a séducteur while I call for a psychologist...

[quote user="Frenchie"]But of course, men of power seem to attract women more. . . [/quote]

Count me out...