Sarkozy's first 100 days

[Logan]

To include those two named examples and compare their crimes with Chirac’s misdemeanours is completely erroneous. Pinochet committed mass murder for political ends. Papon was a pen pushing functionaire who wanted to please his Nazi masters and became instrumentally responsible for thousands of deaths. Chirac is not as far as I know a murdering dictator or fascist sympathiser.

Any decision to mount a prosecution has to be in the best interests of justice and the country as a whole. I don’t believe that having the former President of the Republic before the courts for illegal political fund raising and fraud committed some time ago will serve those interests. The French people are actually quite fond of the old buffer on a personal level. He has served his country with arguable distinction for a very long time. He did some good things and also sat on his hands. I accept fraud is a serious offence but he did not do it to enrich himself. There is a mitigating difference.

[5-element]

[quote user="Logan"]

To include those two named examples and compare their crimes with Chirac’s misdemeanours is completely erroneous.

Any decision to mount a prosecution has to be in the best interests of justice and the country as a whole. I don’t believe that having the former President of the Republic before the courts for illegal political fund raising and fraud committed some time ago will serve those interests. The French people are actually quite fond of the old buffer on a personal level.  I accept fraud is a serious offence but he did not do it to enrich himself. There is a mitigating difference.

[/quote]

I picked those examples so that the point about double standards could not be missed.

But, as long as they are "old enough", "important enough", or the crime they committed is "not that bad", then they can be just waved through. I think you would find that this is precisely the kind of thing that quite a few of "the French people" as you say, cannot forgive or forget.

I would have thought, on the contrary, that if you are in a post of some responsibility, then your conduct should be exemplary. Fraud is fraud is fraud is fraud. Unless you also absolve (which would surprise me) people who defraud the state to obtain benefits they are not entitled to, or illegal immigrants who have false ID and obtain medical care. One could arguably put the point that this category of people is in greater need than either Chirac or Juppe ever were...Ah! But they do it "to enrich themselves", so a couple of hundred euros for someone who is on the bread line is more fraudulent than someone who does it for millions...and for what? Power? Justice? Family? Principles? To help friends in need?

I thought that laws are there for everybody.... no exception.

[Logan]

So are we discussing retribution and punishment here or human political expediency?

I agree with everything you have said in your post. The law applies to everyone or the law becomes an ass (meaning a large donkey like creature, smaller than a horse) and quite often is. However sometimes grey areas appear in life for whatever reason. As a consequence black and white solutions suddenly seem inappropriate. That’s what makes the law, politics, state and justice seem human and more acceptable to most of us. I suggest fair minded people know where the line is. That line also applies to flexibility, equity and justice. We expect elected officials to have the same degree of savvy and lightness of touch when it’s needed. We expect our elected governments to act with humanity and balance.

Almost every politician in recent history has been guilty of raising political party funds by dubious means. Helmut Cole, Tony Blair to name but two. Unfortunately Chirac went too far. I don’t seek to justify their behaviour. I simply offer the suggestion that humanity is capable of greater things than black or white. When people act with good intention that needs to be acknowledged.

I am very happy it’s not my decision to make.

 

 

[Logan]

Perhaps there is more to the behaviour of Chirac than we originally suspected. Turning over old stones is becoming a national pastime.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1845282.ece

[suein56]

From the article the part I found particularly interesting was:

<<The emergence of a Japanese “dossier” means there could be a race between judges to subpoena Chirac on June 17, a month after his departure from the Elys饠Palace.

Eva Joly, a former judge and anticorruption crusader, predicted that Chirac would find a way of avoiding the indignity of going on trial.

“If he could become a senator, for instance, he would get back his immunity from prosecution,” she said.

Another solution would be to stay in Morocco.>>

Sue