Going viral

As I tweeted myself …. The Guardian’s “Comment is Free” section had an article as recently as Friday about the alleged fact that DSK’s reputation as a sexual predator wouldn’t stop French women from voting for him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/13/french-women-scandal-politics?CMP=twt_gu

Included such gems as:

bq. There was a fuss last year when a young French author, Tristane Banon, described her encounter with him. She explained that she had interviewed him for a book about public figures and their missteps, and claimed she had to fight him off physically. She said she hadn’t made a complaint at the time, because she didn’t want to be “the girl who had a problem with a politician”.

Long live deference

Sex scandals and attempted-rape scandals are in different conceptual boxes, aren’t they? Consensual sex scandals often don’t go much of anywhere, but the only attempted-rape scandals I can think of were Clinton’s, and they fell flat more, I think, because of incredulity about the facts (given that they were all fairly stale when they came out) then because the facts wouldn’t have been a big deal if widely accepted.

@Satan Mayo

Packwood and Ensign were both Republican Senators. Of course, if it happens in South Carolina, that’s a different story.

Reaching instinctively for an American comparison isn’t the best option when judging how these matters play out in France. American hypocrisy is far more towards the puritanical end of the scale. French hypocrites have traditionally nestled alongside the Italians down the permissive end.
I agree that police involvement, public arrests and criminal charges put this in a different category. But if anything from this story is likely to harm DSK, it’s the revelation that his hotel room cost $3000 a night. The other day, photos of him driving a Porsche were published in the press, to much sucking of teeth from Socialist Party sources.

Packwood and Ensign were both Republican Senators.

To LB’s point, the significant elements of the Packwood behavior were non-consensual (and it played out 1992-95). The Ensign case got relatively little mainstream press coverage for a long time considering that involved criminal acts (which revolve around payoffs and the like rather than the sex itself) of a sitting Senator.

How many of you want to take the other end of the bet that this will turn out exactly like the Duke Lacrosse case?

I’ll take dollars to donuts that it is indeed so.

Myles – I would, any time, but I don’t engage in bets with assholes. Imagine the victim was your sister/girlfriend/daughter and people didn’t believe her just because the perp was famous. I can only repeat: Asshole.

Even beyond that, everything we know so far points to guilt:
1. He has a history of unwanted sexual advances. I refer to the Tristane Banon issue – I don’t think being a cheater (or in an open marriage, whatever is the case) is related to being a rapist. I think being a harasser that doesn’t get called on it is.
2. The victim has no reason to lie whatsoever, didn’t wait to tell people, almost certainly wasn’t under the influence of any drugs, almost certainly didn’t have a prior relationship with the perp.
3. DSK left the scene very hastily, leaving behind his cell phone and baggage – considering that the cell of a high level diplomat/politician likely contains important contacts and information, that would not seem normal.

(to be clear – even if non of these were the case, a rape complaint would have to be taken very seriously)

Sure, he isn’t guilty until proven etc. – but as things are he looks damn guilty. Maybe guilty enough for even the French to start a serious conversation about sexual harassment and assault, but somehow I doubt it.

So who can the Socialists now nominate that is not a former IMF head. I don’t know much about the man, but for the putative Left party to chose a nominee involved with an organization so tainted and so associated with the imposition of right-wing economic policies. Why? Because he’s a good technocrat?

Driving a Porche? $3,000/night? Flying 1st class? Is there a problem here? These are nothing compared to what we accept here in the United States as standards for the wealthy. I used to work for Steve Jobs. Steve would wear beat-up pumas and drive an old Mercedes when the press was around, but his real life was much different. For one, Steve flew in a private jet.

And Steve hated hotels, so he never stayed in any. He had staff to buy houses anywhere in the world that he might travel. So he had houses throughout the world that he’d never seen. I’m told he would send out people as part of an advance party to set up the house before he arrived.

And Steve had a fleet of Porsches (140K convertables). On any given day, there were perhaps a half dozen in the company parking lot. He had a standing order to have several new ones delivered each month. He was known to drive to San Francisco and just abandon his cars in the street. He would just let them be towed away, never to be seen by him again. I never saw him with a Porche that was old enough to get a license plate — they all had temporary registration.

And I haven’t even started to describe how Steve hides billions in wealth offshore and untaxed, using a maze of offshore companies — or how he built his wealth on the innovations of others, but positions himself as the visionary.

If Steve Jobs ever decides to stand as the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, I’m sure all that will be gone into thoroughly. As for who else might now get the nomination, have a look. Sounds like you’re with Team Montebourg, Martin.

Art Goldhammer is good value too, despite his habit of expecting you to read French.

TonyD used to have nothing against the wealthy, but since Strauss-Kahn has been accused of sexual assault, he really hates that bastard Steve Jobs.

If Steve Jobs ever decides to stand as the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, I’m sure all that will be gone into thoroughly. No, not quite. I think you are missing an important point. The wealthy are able to hide their wealth using a maze of offshore corporations. Some well-placed coworkers estimate that half of Steve’s many billions are completely hidden and untaxed– and it is all quite legal. Do you think that this only applies to the wealthy in the United States? Do you think that the wealthy in France tell their Big 4 accountants that they would rather expose their true wealth? No. I’ve known other executives at multi-nationals and this is standard practice among the wealthy.

So there is no real “vetting” of a candidate to see how much money he has, who has given him money, or his real values and interests. It is not possible to know if Strauss-Kahn has sold his soul to British Petroleum.

Until we figure out how to get the rich out of politics, I don’t know of any way that we can fix the worldwide political system.

I just don’t see why I should take this as presented, given things like Duke Lacrosse, and the general tendency of accusations to exceed material acts in cases of this kind.

I just don’t see why anyone here should take your view as worth squat, given that despite no access to any material evidence you chose to respond to someone confused about the media reports with, “That’s easy: he didn’t actually rape the woman.” [Yglesias’ blog.]

It’s true that you are not not obligated to take either side. It’s also true that you’re free to choose whatever the hell you want to believe, including the viewpoint that you have taken, which is apparently that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is definitively innocent because there exists elsewhere a high-profile case of a gang rape accusation falling apart. I will also note that the context from which that claim is quoted makes your stance all the more odious, because the individual to whom you were responding was trying to puzzle out the entirety of the claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not just specifically rape — so it’s reasonable to read your comment as using ‘rape’ as a proxy for ‘sexual assualt’ so that you are in effect saying that no sexual assault occurred.

It’s also reasonable to expect that if you choose to believe something odious and voice it loudly, you may well be met with mockery and shouting-down. And possibly eggs, to be honest. You’re getting alarmingly close to the line between “throwing this empty Diet Coke bottle at you would be a waste of a perfectly good bottle” and “ah what the hell, I was going to recycle the bottle anyway.”

Let me rephrase the question: does anyone here actually believe that the accusations as given will be proven beyond a standard of reasonable doubt?

That’s what we have a justice system for, after all. It’s all very well to speculate what DSK “actually” did (how many levels of meta do you want to go?), but in fact the case as presently constructed is not a solid or plausible one. The entire case seems to be based on hearsay.

For all intents and purposes, that is to say, from the perspective of the legal system, DSK is probably innocent. That’s the only thing that matters here, anyhow.

because the individual to whom you were responding was trying to puzzle out the entirety of the claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not just specifically rape—so it’s reasonable to read your comment as using ‘rape’ as a proxy for ‘sexual assualt’ so that you are in effect saying that no sexual assault occurred.

I’m completely at a loss to respond to such Jesuitical feats of logic that puts the burden of proof on me to somehow use the word “rape” in such a way as to actually not mean rape, but something else. Rape isn’t just “the word most people use for sexual assault,” rape is rape, an extremely grave crime. For the record, the interlocutor was expressing shock as “The accounts of the rape seem so absurdly blatant and horrific”; it’s pretty safe to assume that he was thinking of rape as in legal rape, which is why he thought them “so absurdly blatant and horrific.”

I’m not responding, because I am not going to get involved in a flame-war with someone who thinks that the Duke Lacrosse charges were merely unproven rather than completely, utterly bunk (!!!).

You’re welcome to share your outrages with others.

I rather suspect that Tony D should be taken as seriously as Myles. Maybe a little less so.

“roughing the chambermaid around”

If one can say this with a straight face, as a way to say rape charges are bunk because it’s just, one is beyond hope.

And… another successful derailing. Why on earth do you all rise to the bait? Surely there’s some more substantive discussion of this… well, hmm. Maybe that’s the problem.

It’s been suggested upthread that Soc. Party voters would be up in arms about the $3000 hotel room, first-class plane ticket, etc.— while (implicitly) Strauss-Kahn’s status as IMF director would not have caused similar problems for him with the electorate— and also that the IMF would be peeved about his extravagances (@13). This all seems odd and riddled with internal contradictions, which is of course typical of politics, but I’m not familiar with this particular case and how the fault lines run in France. Thus, I have to take as plausible the only conclusion to be drawn from these facts: namely, that Steve Jobs litters San Francisco with abandoned Porsches, which would seem to be an excellent target for a citywide scavenger hunt. Indeed, there should be more scavenger hunts in politics. Maybe one could be convened in time for U.S. elections 2012. What would you put on the target list?

This is my best effort at concern trolling. I know it’s a bit sad, but if I can divert even 15% of the Myles-responses…

(name of French party truncated in deference to the famous spam filter)

sbk – I’m generally very sympathetic to appeals to not feed the trolls but a) Kieran’s blog post doesn’t exactly raise a plethora of deep issues that need to be discussed (nothing wrong with that – it’s a fun post) and b) Myles type views about rape and sexual assault are frighteningly widespread and I think it’s a good idea to not let them pass.

While we’re at it: how good are “dollars to donuts” odds these days anyway? Back when the phrase was coined, I assume it implied something of Substantial Value versus a tasty comestible of negligible (monetary) worth, but things have shifted enough over the years so it strikes me this may be something much closer to an even proposition.

As for “exactly like the Duke lacrosse case,” if that implies that the New York state attorney or whatever he is called will actually issue a public statement condemning the local prosecutor and declaring the suspects not just “not guilty” but officially innocent – then, as a resident of Durham (and research associate of Duke), I want a piece of that action. At any odds.

While we’re at it: how good are “dollars to donuts” odds these days anyway? Back when the phrase was coined, I assume it implied something of Substantial Value versus a tasty comestible of negligible (monetary) worth, but things have shifted enough over the years so it strikes me this may be something much closer to an even proposition.

Krispy Kreme runs at about 3 bucks a dozen, and Tim Hortons runs at about $.70 a donut. So not an even proposition, yet.

Why on earth do you all rise to the bait?

Normally I don’t, but this was intolerably odious to the point of being painfully cringe-inducing to read, and responding to it dismissively gave me what you might call closure.

I am pleased that my decision to carefully and diplomatically categorize the Duke lacrosse case in a general category which included but was not in any way limited to ‘some truth to it’ cases has resulted in Myles dismissing me, because I was insufficiently emphatic for his taste.

Note that I was intentionally describing that case in a way that didn’t reflect on the guilt or innocence of the accused, intentionally, in part in deference to Myles (never again!): after all, if he has any legitimate point whatsoever here, it’s that we should be vigilantly careful about presuming the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, he demands that I not only acknowledge but specifically emphasize that the charges were, according to him, “completely, utterly bunk.”

That suggests he’s not looking for us to be cool-headed and wait for more information in this case, it suggests that he wants for us to presume innocence, as if our default assumption should be “she’s just making it up” until proven otherwise.

Myles (#29) – “The entire case seems to be based on hearsay.”

How can that be right? Isn’t hearsay “I know a fellow who says that this French banker chap tried to have his way with one of the staff at his hotel?”

In this case, we have someone making a direct complaint, with (as best as I can tell) direct corroborating physical evidence. Of course, a prosecutor will have to assess whether the complaint creates a compelling enough case to bring to trial, and a court will determine the outcome if it goes that far (since DSK is expected to plead “not guilty.”)

I have no idea what actually happened, and neither at this stage does anyone else apart from the two protagonists. But this ain’t hearsay, by any definition of the term I understand.

So Myles has proven himself to be:
He has no idea about law (this isn’t even close to hearsay) and the legal system (he cannot discern even the obvious differences between this and the said Duke LaCrosse fiasco).
He has no clue about human behavior (DSK’s behavior is not only plausible but frighteningly consistent).
He is lazy and/or poor at semantics, writing, and likely, communicating in general (using ‘exactly’ when he doesn’t mean it and that’s just one poor example).
He’s an extremely poor judge of the import of things (stretching, reaching, hoping for technicalities when a woman was obviously traumatized).

In sum, Myles is not only a classless ass, but assinine as well. And woe to us for the Internet, because without it and before it, Myles and people like him would just not be welcome and not mix with society, polite or otherwise.

@myles, perhaps you would never rape someone who didn’t speak English, but not everyone has such fine taste.

No-one ever gets raped in the DRC.

32 years old is probably middle aged to Myles.

_Myles and people like him would just not be welcome and not mix with society, polite or otherwise._

No, Myles would be a London taxi-driver:

“I had that Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the back of my cab once, and he seemed like a top bloke, mind you ….”

Yes, he did this in a way that he was very unlikely to get away with and yet he must be a highly disciplined person in most senses. Very compulsive behavior. The man snapped. Such instability sounds dangerous in a President, in addition to being morally repugnant.

May I politely inquire why DSK gets no presumption of innocence here as compared with the reaction to the charges against Julian Assange? Is it a political (or cultural) thing? I.e., even though (at least in France) DSK is a socialist he’s clearly regarded as right-wing on this blog, while Assange, who has consorted with neo-fascists like ‘Shamir’, is seen to be of the ‘left’?

I don’t think DSK did anything to the extent of trying to force himself on a hotel maid. Why? It would be utterly insane. Why would he so riskily try to compel a hotel maid when he can much more easily get a high-class escort? This is NYC, after all.

When you’re in your forties, it’s very often the case that satire and reality are hard to distinguish from one another. Nevertheless, I was up to now under the impression that Aarfy’s non-arrest in Catch-22 came into the former category.

Certainly some sex offenders are opportunists instead of deliberate planners. Indeed, in that case, it would “make sense” here.

Martin, I think my point holds about irrelevant considerations explaining people’s reactions. Lots of Dems who would have pilloried a Republican President doing the same things (even consensually) rallied to his defence. Ditto much of the supportive commentary on Assange, quite a bit of which is more that tinged with misogyny.

I inclined to give much credence to the “set up” theory.

I’m inclined to give it a little bit of credence, but no more (as Martin says, the precedent of Clinton shows that attempted frame-ups do happen). DSK’s history is a lot worse than Clinton’s was and the “presumption of innocence” is a procedural rule for putting people on trial, not a good way of getting your beliefs about the world.

Agreed, that presumption of innocence belongs in the courtroom, largely because, I believe, of a recognition that convicting an innocent person is much worse than letting a guilty one go free. I think in the US in our glee to incarcerate and execute, we have entirely lost sight of this, to the point where Scalia can treat innocence as entirely a procedural question as far as the law is concerned.

Also agreed that set-ups do happen, particularly when the political stakes are high, as here. But everything about the accusation that I see looks completely plausible.

“And that’s not mentioning the sheer misleading image of the word “hotel maid”; the typical NYC hotel maid is a middle-aged female worker who can barely speak English. ”

Also the Sofitel in Times Square is not your typical NYC hotel.

That’s what I meant by “background” Daniel, sorry…

Presumption of innocence notwithstanding, I think the only thing ‘shocking’ about this to our French and other European brethren is that DSK was actually arrested, not that the alleged activity may have occurred.
If you think about the many instances where the wheels of justice could well have ground to a hault – the victim, an immigrant, not wanting to proceed with charges, before and after recognizing who he was; the police, perhaps, knowing who he was, advising the woman not to press charges; the police allowing DSK to leave on the plane, etc. – it’s really quite surprising, and wonderfully so, in a very sad and disgusting way, that the woman decided to be courageous and the police did their job well and efficiently, by all accounts.

Chris @64, my suggestion of hypocrisy was hardly “trollish”. I drop in here infrequently and was struck by the differences between reactions here to Assange (outrage not at Assange, whose chauvinist reputation was well established, but at the Swedish women who accused him) and DSK (sniggering satisfaction). And I wondered why. That’s all. Sexually speaking, both Assange and DSK are sleazy characters, and the sleaze extends to Assange’s politics. So why the presumption of innocence/conspiracy in Assange’s case and not in DSK’s? You suggest “fan bases”. I’m wondering about the political/cultural dimension. In France, in my (socialist) circles, even Sarkozy is suspected, suspicions which I adamantly do not share. But there is still a smell of hypocrisy wafting through the comments here.

Z, I was being slightly flippant, as the context might show.
The serious point is that DSK as a public figure has two clay feet: sex and money.
Chris mentioned Roman Polanski. It’s not a generalisation to say that the French view on him is pretty much universally positive. You could in theory (if you were writing 1000 words for Slate, say) make the contrarian case that DSK’s most serious problem in the primary election was the money.

That said, if the charges are shown to be true (and surely if you’re running naked around corridors you’ll be picked up on the hotel CCTV), then he’s toast and it’ll be the sex that did it.

81: It is a couple of generalizations overlayed. For one, you extrapolate a view on X towards the view that everything X did was OK. Secondly you make out as if the cases are comparable (DSK did not rape, she was not a minor and it was not a case from the 60’s). Thirdly you suggest there being a European (or French) view on it being OK to abuse women as against a more perfect US one. The latter is probably wrong on both sides; unfortunately the evidence is that both of these views are on average equally deplorable still.

See summary of French Polanski reactions at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case#France

Myles, you seem to be making unwarranted assumptions about the nature of the case. We don’t know nearly enough to do much beyond blindly guess as to how strong or weak the evidence is, or what the likely outcome would be.

We have:
(i) unconfirmed news reports that DSK left his hotel in a hurry,
(ii) accusations by the alleged victim, and
(iii) unspecified physical evidence.

The first could also be explained by DSK being late for a flight – that he was in a hurry sounds like consciousness of guilt when the mind is prepared by reading the accusations first, but think about how often we have all “been in a hurry” when trying to make a flight.

The second is suggestive, but without knowing more, who knows whether they are true or false.

The third is barely even suggestive, since we don’t know what it is.

Therefore at present the available information is insufficient to support a reasonable belief in either DSK’s guilt or his innocence.

Would Mitterrand be a better example for French voters’ sang froid about sex?
Or Chirac maybe?
Or perhaps DSK, up until this weekend.
Am I again confusing elite with general opinion?

the “presumption of innocence” is a procedural rule for putting people on trial, not a good way of getting your beliefs about the world

Well yes, but trial by court is surely a far better way for us rubberneckers to determine the truth here, than trial by media.

Martin B – re: convicting an innocent person is much worse than letting a guilty one go free

Assuming that an offence is known to have occurred, this is undoubtedly the case, since convicting an innocent person entails letting a guilty one go free. This may sound like a trick; it’s not. The presumption of innocence is uncontroversial – it’s the criminal standard of proof that does all the work, and to which metaphors like the 10:1 ratio are generally addressed.

The PoI is just a matter of the default outcome, and might better be called the presumption for acquittal – if no evidence of guilt is produced, the verdict must be acquittal, and by extension, until an adequate (TBA) weight of evidence is amassed, that default stands. In other words, the prosecution must have a case, and a good enough case.

This is intuitively pretty crashingly obvious, but as a matter of formalism you could put it like this: the only alternative (in a system with binary verdicts) is a presumption of conviction, which among other things amounts to giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone other than the person who happens to find themself in the dock. And in the absence of any relevant evidence, the principle of indifference would count everyone as equally likely to have committed the crime, so the odds of the accused being the guilty party are minute, and the odds of the guilty party being at large are huge. But this is probably less convincing than sticking with intuition, ho hum.

(BTW, I have to say relevant evidence, because in the absence of any evidence at all, we have no clue about anything; it’s unimaginable and to say the least, distinctly unuseful. Any attempt to formalise this stuff for use by human beings is prettly unreal anyway. There’s no reason to think that in an actual court with an actual jury, evidence is weighed in anything like a Bayesian (or for that matter Wigmorean) way. It’s just an abstract idealisation.

In fact I don’t suppose there’s very much reason to think that the combination of burden and standard of proof are really observed in any very meaningful or direct way by juries, or even could be – the rlevant maxims are more like vague aspirational slogans. The ubiquitous ‘reasonable’ more or less guarantees that, for a start.

There are all kinds of much more specific and much more important rules of evidence (broadly so called), either implemented as directions given by the judge or as procedural or exclusionary rules. (In English law, at least, excusion of evidence is basically determined in the end analysis by its ‘probable’ effect on the jury, not on procedural rights. This seems right – if cops are held to account properly in other ways, which they aren’t, in part but not only for standard watchman-watching reasons…)

—

dsquared, re: Assange, not sure about ‘suggest conspiracy’ – conspiracy here presumably meaning a honeytrap in which at least one accuser (presumably Arden, who seems to have taken the lead, to say the least) was complicit, but suggest? How strongly? Sounds like less than balance of probabilities, but more than, er, I dunno. Doesdnlt seem to be any other salient cut-off point. Not that it’s quantifiable – in theory we could perhaps try to devise figures by von-N/M methods given fixed utility values for small amounts of money or something, but, well.

FWLIW I’d have thought Arden very probably knows at least one US spook (though she may not realise it) just by hanging around with the Cuban opposition, which taken in isolation puts her ahead of the general population when it comes to being suspected of US-originated spookery. This is of course feeble evidence, though: ‘ahead of the general population’ here is like a 50% increase in chances of getting a rare cancer.

And of course her manifest desire for early publicity, changing her story and attempt to destroy evidence (evidence she would probably regard as prejudicial) can easily be explained by other very plausible motivations – though I think these would need to include a ‘get Assange’ motivation other than the complaint itself.

—-

re: Why would he… ‘kinell. Apart from the abovementioned general poor judgement (quite common among plausibly-accused persons), and the rush of blood to the head (yes)? there is actually a relevant principle of rational action here, which I admit to liking partly because of the old pleasing air of paradox: The greater the risk, the less likely it seems to be, and the less risky it becomes. See ‘Intelligence and the Problem of Strategic Surprise’ by theorist of strategic deception, Michael I Handel. This is not an uncommon tactic among psychopaths and similarly unconstrained tacticians (cf ‘big lie’, Godwin permitting).

I’d also (inconsistently?) say there’s a tendency for those used to getting away with things like this to become increasingly reckless – especially since the getting away with it is part of the attraction of such power games.

I was being a bit deliberately provocative, but I do mean most of what I say.

Look, generally speaking, I find it very difficult to take cases like this as given. “Aggravated sexual assault,” unless I’m mistaken, isn’t just “slapped the maid on the derrière” (which is a crime, but aggravated sexual assault it’s not). It’s gotta be something entirely more serious.

And frankly, I find so implausible the prospect of something like DSK doing anything more than the latter, that I think the charges are generally unwarranted. Unless DSK doesn’t want a career anymore, all rationality points away from it.

On the other hand, the accuser has massive material incentive to nail DSK legally no matter what. This is not to make snide insinuations; this is to simply observe the balance of incentives as given. He’s got plenty of money and lots to lose; he can be persuaded to part with lots of money to make stuff like this go away.

So, what do we have here? A very hazy situation. I’m going to presume innocence until serious evidences point toward otherwise. I think I’ll wait and see if DSK comes up with credible alibi.

Let’s not forget the Sarkozy angle, too. This sort of thing would be too wild and Bond-esque for anyone, but we are talking about Sarkozy here, who’s basically reckless to a fault. He could do anything, up to and including knocking his chief plausible opponent from a race.

I gather you are most of an idiot.

No, I’m merely asserting my perfectly legitimate right to call bullshit on the charges.

Myles: you are genuinely someone who makes valid points from time to time, although could use a little more situational awareness. Often, I stick up in your favour. This isn’t one of those times.

You are solely being a cunt. You said something stupid earlier, and then a couple of people were unnecessarily offensive to you. Then the debate civilised itself. But read you at 4:07 again. That isn’t a thing to say. You don’t “call bullshit” on rape charges, unless you actually think balance-of-probabilities that the alleged victim is lying. And you don’t say that without evidence.

There are ways to refer on rape charges where you don’t have a balance-of-probabilities view on what happened. They are difficult, and they all risk causing offence, but they are necessary terms, and being enormously careful about the way that you phrase anything is important. “Call bullshit” is as close to that model as – well, fill the blanks.

Myles @95: And frankly, I find so implausible the prospect of something like DSK doing anything more than the latter, that I think the charges are generally unwarranted. Unless DSK doesn’t want a career anymore, all rationality points away from it.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that because it is very unlikely that a man in a high-profile position would attempt forcible rape, the charges against DSK are equally unlikely to be true.

Your reasoning is faulty because we have more information than that DSK is in a high-profile position. We also know that there was an accusation and that New York City found probable cause to arrest and prosecute DSK.

Persons in high-profile, well-compensated positions who engage in felonious criminal behavior are almost always acting irrationally and against their interests. Nonetheless, sometimes they do. So, statistically, the probability distribution we’re after is that for the innocence or guilt of high-profile men accused of attempted rape and arrested for it. If we had that, then perhaps we could give a rough estimate of whether DSK is guilty or not, even without much knowledge of the particular facts in this case.

But we don’t know that distribution. And neither you, nor anyone here, has sufficient information about the particular facts to reasonably support a belief in DSK’s guilt or innocence.

Therefore the only proper conclusion here is that we do not know.

Myles, have you considered that the woman has a career to lose too, that is probably as important to her as Strauss-kahn’s to him? Unless Strauss-Kahn is quickly convicted, she will lose her job and will have serious trouble finding a similar job. Even if he is convicted she might still be ditched by her employer. Higher management of hotels don’t like police after their paying guests.

That’s quite a gamble, if she wasn’t actually assaulted. The police do not always react this decide. If DSK had been on the plane, half of the forensic evidence would be gone and the case would have an extradition struggle against an extremely well-connected guy. Even now, there is a battalion of expensive lawyers working the case.

Unless DSK doesn’t want a career anymore, all rationality points away from it.

A respectable point, slightly weakened by the fact that DSK already put his penchant before his career at least once (and arguable twice, if you find credible the allegations of Tristane Banon, as I do).

Please, somebody take his spade away.

the only alternative (in a system with binary verdicts) is a presumption of conviction

Coin toss.

In the Assange case you had the victim waiting several days before going to the police and then not with a sexual assault complaint, you had a wavering prosecution that first withdrew the case and then took it up again, you had a much more complicated situation in which the victim had had consensual sex with Assange and later withdrew her consent, you had the possible issue of jealousy, you had the fact that part of the accusations were based on the very progressive Swedish sexual assault laws and might not have been criminal in the US etc.

In short, the DSK case corresponds directly to what we think of as “rape” (or attempted rape). The Assange case doesn’t.

This is just totally, totally wrong.

Here are the allegations:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

Source:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

The Judge then adds:

“The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4.”

He then says later:

“The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.”

which is obvious. Not only does “no” mean “no”, but so does “zzz”.

The idea that Sweden is this radical feminist country with man-hating rape laws was a myth cooked up by Assange and his allies. I mean, they were going around saying that “sex without a condom is rape in Sweden!!!111one”. This was clear propaganda in order to distract from a very serious allegation. When someone plays dirty tricks like that, you do have to wonder if they are actually guilty. Because he’s been acting that way.

(What I meant to say is that someone who’s unfamiliar with the legal system might think it not very serious to embellish accounts to the police. Which, to be blunt, I suspect the maid here might have done, especially if she’s done a round-robin with her (equally unfamiliar) workmates beforehand. The core the story, that DSK committed improprieties, is plausible, the specific manifestation it has taken is just not.)

Now is the time to reveal your membership of le Parti Socialiste.

Alex – I think you misread my post, completely. Please read it again. I’m not defending Assange in any way, even less so his defenders.
I’m not sure which one of my claims about the Assange case you regard as totally false – I take the part about the sex assault laws from Jessica Valenti
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006996.html how (like me btw.) believes the Swedish laws are better laws and should be adopted in the US – specifically, I would doubt that you could make a case based on point 2. of the charges in the US.
My claim that the DSK case corresponds much more closely to our imagination about rape is, of course, a judgment call. Let’s be perfectly clear that I’m _not_ saying that what Assange allegedly did _is_ any less of a crime, I’m saying it _looks_ much less like the ideal type of said crime: I’m trying to explain a difference in reaction, not justify it (in fact, as you’ll note re-reading my post, I’m criticizing it).

It is interesting that many raise the argument that it would be irrational for DSK to have done it. I mean: it is sex! Not quite the most rational part of human behaviour.

Which, to be blunt, I suspect the maid here might have done, especially if she’s done a round-robin with her (equally unfamiliar) workmates beforehand.

Out of curiosity Myles, how much time have you spent around chamber-maids to be so confident about this generalisation? Or was this on the curriculum of the fancy private school you like to boast about?

So for you’ve managed casual snobbery and sexism. If you try a little harder you can probably get some casual racism in there as well. Might as well go for the trifecta.

Myles: BHL is guaranteed to be wrong on everything he takes a position on. This might actually make me rethink this.

This slam at BHL warmed my heart. In fact, it might actually make me rethink my position on Myles.

Geo: Myles probably only thinks that about BHL because he wears the wrong sort of shoes.

Geo: Myles probably only thinks that about BHL because he wears the wrong sort of shoes.

Very droll, although I might yet pledge undying regard for BHL if someone can find a picture of him wearing Tod’s (most comfortable shoes in the world).

One further thought: DSK’s treatment of Tristane Banon was far from consensual, but was treated in a very different manner to the current case, including by Banon herself. Those involved applied a shared conceptual framework to what happened, and acted accordingly.

“what does such behavior suggest about this person’s stance towards the disenfranchised and underprivileged of the world?”

I think it’s important to be clear about this: Absolutely nothing. Kahn can be a 21st century saint to the poor and still be a rapist. Just as the claim “he’s such a good person, he can’t have done this” a la BHL is ridiculous as a defense, the idea that “he’s a rapist, thus he must be a mean-spirited person in every other instance” is nonsense. Perfect villains only exist in operas and bad movies.

‘Something happened, and it was something that the Manhattan DA considered actionable’. Is that all you need? No smoke without fire? What’s the point of legal process then?

@David Hobby (#44). I know where Duke is. About seven minutes from my house. Thus I was able to find it when I taught there, and still can, when I sing regularly in the Duke Chapel Choir.

I replaced “North Carolina” with “New York” in my previous comment because I assume that NC officials would not have anything germane to say about the Kahn case, but NY officials might – if Myles is to be taken at his word. (And to be fair, if said NY officials were in fact issue a statement comparable to that issued here about the lacrosse case, I would concede Myles won his “bet.” I’m not holding my breath.)

Let me know if I’m going too fast for you.

To be clear, I am now less sure whether he’s guilty or not. But there’s simply no basis for anyone to rush to judgment.

If past history has showed anything, it is that in cases like this, withhold judgment until we are absolutely, absolutely everything is clear. Which is most certainly not the state the matter is at the moment. The only appropriate, and fully justified course, is to presume innocence until proven otherwise.

“Look: the only thing we can do is wait. And absolutely withhold judgment until everything clears ”

After a rash of comments in which Myles has traduced the complainant, called her a liar and a fraud, implied she is ignorant and greedy, looking for money, old, ugly and non-English speaking on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, not even that available online in newspapers and linked to by other commenters. Oh except that she’s had the temerity to accuse a rich powerful man of a crime. Can’t have the bitches doing that, eh, what?

Priceless. Myles, if you didn’t exist, the patriarchy would have had to invent you.

Oi, why am I in moderation? I haven’t said anything nearly as offensive as Myles.

Myles, just please shut the hell up. How many different and contradictory opinions can one person possibly have?! I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about presuming innocence and withholding judgment, especially if that puts you to mute, but when you so enthusiastically first fire your gun with ‘…this will turn out exactly like the Duke Lacrosse case…’ that is so very far from withholding judgment (and bring it up again just a couple comments ago though you claim to be less sure about his guilt).
You fired repeatedly, and now your chamber’s empty.

So, withhold, Myles. For the love of god, withhold.

If we did accidentally invent him, we’re sorry. We’re so, so sorry.

Oh bugger off. Nothing is quite as tedious as soi-disant cleverness.

Oh bugger off. Nothing is quite as tedious as soi-disant cleverness.

Which must make Myles the most tedious man on the internet. I keep hoping a little bit of self-awareness might creep in, but so far no luck. Maybe when he reaches puberty.

Second, I am having difficulty comprehending how it is that some commenters feel there is no evidence available – the evidence to date includes: (a) an official report of a sexual assault; (b) a timely response by the NYPD/Port Authority, which c) resulted in removal of an individual from an international flight minutes before departure; (d) transport of this individual to SVU, followed by several hours during which the individual refused to speak in absence of counsel; (e) a decision by the Manhattan DA to arraign said party at some point (perhaps today), and the individual (as per counsel) to enter a plea of “not guilty”.

Because surely no innocent man would have pleaded “not guilty”.
Also, what Alex said above at 126: if god forbid I were ever to be wrongly arrested for anything in the US, you can bet I’d be asking for a lawyer as quickly as possible.
This is not to argue for DSK’s innocence, of course.

CT lowering itself to the level of the Daily Mail – awesome!

Well, luckily I’m not a regular. That said, novakant is wrong. There’s nothing wrong with public discussion of a public figure.

Statement by Osez le feminisme re French media coverage and reactions is worth a read

http://www.osezlefeminisme.fr/article/le-traitement-de-l-affaire-dsk-entretient-la-confusion-des-esprits

There’s nothing wrong with public discussion of a public figure.

Sure, but presupposing someone’s guilt and engaging in schadenfreude because I don’t like his politics, character or whathaveyou – as the initial post did – strikes me as wrong.

I am sure that comparable stories of conflicting loyalties and more harm through publicity than good from justice lawsuits are not unheard of in the English-speaking world as well.

This is actually the psychological premise of Patty Berglund, in Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom.

Meanwhile, DSK is going for Freud’s broken kettle defense: first of all he was having lunch with his daughter at the time of the alleged crime, and, besides, it was consensual.

But this man has no morals.

It’s over 24 hours since a turd cleared the room.
The thread had been going nowhere much, and messily, since pretty much the start so it’s no great loss. But with nothing better to do I thought I’d spend a minute or two putting up a less abrupt ending.

Martin Wolf reckons DSK is irreplaceable: “Mr Strauss-Kahn proved to be a bold decision-maker, an effective politician and a competent economist. This combination is very rare.” His list of plausible successors begins and ends with Christine Lagarde. Looking around Europe, it’s hard to disagree. But if you want a second-rank candidate to fill out a shortlist, then Papakonstantinou’s credentials are pretty solid. As relevant experience goes, ten years as senior economist at the OECD is not nothing. And although noone would confuse him with a statesman, he now has a serious political career. He’d need support from the Americans, for whom he might stress his solidly Anglo-Saxon time as a postgraduate. And he’d need to reassure free-marketeers that he’s the right kind of socialist, for which his leading role on the Lisbon Agenda would come in handy. You could I think convince yourself that there was a case for considering him, in the absence of other strong claimants.
That is, until you remember his nationality and his current job. A line of reasoning leads you along, until you bang into a brick wall that should have been obvious from the start. It’s not the world’s greatest joke, but myself and Mike Giggler found it kind of funny. Dbk didn’t, and that’s okay. In general, though, if you’re going to tell someone they’re not amusing, it’s a good idea not to come across as a pompous tit.

So, we end the thread happily, sharing the warmth of some friendly advice.

Waiting for a post that says “In case you were wondering who the go-to sources on l’affaire rapture are…” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/21/apocalypse-not-now-rapture-fails-materialise.