IMF chief and Sarkozy frontrunner opponent arrested

[Serafina]

Handcuffing him is ludicrously unnecessary anyway, it's not like he is a violent criminal who is a threat to everyone around him and has to be restrained.

[Dark Hellion]

Serafina, are you implying that sexual assault is not a violent crime?

[SCRawl]

Handcuffing him is ludicrously unnecessary anyway, it's not like he is a violent criminal who is a threat to everyone around him and has to be restrained.

My understanding is that it is SOP in New York to handcuff everyone who has been arrested. It doesn't matter if the arrested person is a 13-year-old girl or a 300-lb shaved ape, everyone gets the bracelets and is taken to central booking. (I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong here.)

[Broomstick]

That is correct - it is standard procedure in the US to handcuff someone who is arrested. It would be extraordinary not to be handcuffed, especially when the accusation is a felony. Failure to handcuff him would be seen as special treatment and favoritism. If ever you arrested in the US - being read the Miranda rights ("You have the right to remain silent..." etc.) is a good clue that's what's happening - that's a tip off the cuffs are to follow quite soon.

When the accused is in court in front of a jury it is now standard for defendants to be in formal clothes rather than prison garb, and for cuffs to be removed prior to the jury coming in to see the defendant. Exceptions would be someone already found guilty of another crime, or someone who is violent and needs to be restrained for the safety of others. The first does not apply in this case, and I can't imagine him falling into the second category in a public venue (even if he has been accused of being violent in private).

He is receiving special treatment to the extent that he has not been put into the general population of prisoners. That is partly in deference to him being prominent and newsworthy, which could make him a target, and also to his age (the cut-off varies, but people over 55 or 60 are frequently separated from younger prisoners for safety reasons). However, that is sort of not special because any man of his age would likely be segregated from the general population, and it's also common with people who, due to being publicly prominent, might become a target. He is also being provided with a bodyguard at times, which is unusual but not unprecedented. Clearly, while New York wants him securely held they also do not want any harm to come to him.

I know there is some noise about him being denied bail as well. I think that if the police had found him at the hotel, or having lunch with his daughter in New York, that he might well have been granted it, but they took him off an airplane bound for France only minutes before take off. Whether he was fleeing or not (and his version of the story is quite plausible) no judge is going to risk another Roman Polanski.

[Broomstick]

Handcuffing him is ludicrously unnecessary anyway, it's not like he is a violent criminal who is a threat to everyone around him and has to be restrained.

If he raped a woman who actively resisted him yes, in fact, that description would apply to him: a violent criminal.

[Terralthra]

Serafina, are you implying that sexual assault is not a violent crime?

It would be more accurate to say that not all sexual assault is violent. This particular alleged sexual assault was reported to be violent.

[Master of Ossus]

I sure hope that France's bullshit stance on violent sex offenders comes home to roost, this time. I'm sick of them turning a blind eye to horrible sex criminals, and I hope that this finally wakes the French up to how justice ought to work for these types of criminals.

[Serafina]

Serafina, are you implying that sexual assault is not a violent crime?

No, of course not!

But it is not a crime that indicates general violent behavior that would cause the perpetrator to attack police officers. That doesn't make him better than other violent criminals - his violence is just directed towards women (which makes it more heinous at least in my eyes).
A suspect should only be arrested with handcuffs if there is a reasonable chance that he will assault others or that he will try to escape the authorities once he is arrested - and the former was clearly not given here.
That's what i was trying to say, not that sexual assault does not constitute violence.

Handcuffing him is ludicrously unnecessary anyway, it's not like he is a violent criminal who is a threat to everyone around him and has to be restrained.

My understanding is that it is SOP in New York to handcuff everyone who has been arrested. It doesn't matter if the arrested person is a 13-year-old girl or a 300-lb shaved ape, everyone gets the bracelets and is taken to central booking. (I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong here.)

I would not protest if he was brought to the police station in cuffs - while that is NOT appropriate for every crime, it's better to be safe than sorry and since he was already trying to escape the authorities there is good reason to handcuff him.
But the idea that a 62-year old poses a danger to anyone in a courtroom is laughable, and handcuffing him there serves no other purpose than humiliation, which is wrong because it violates presumption of innocence.

[[R_H]]

But we have an advantage other the American, in that as far as I know we don't have public jury in criminal court : all is decided by the Judge(s), as Arbiter(s) of the Law. And they aren't elected either, but appointed. So, theoretically, the risk for us to commit trial error because the public opinion is against the accused is far below what they would be in the US.

But DSK is currently being judged in the US, for a crime supposedly committed in the US, so at this point I'd say he is fucked.

So why the CSA law then? If someone is charged with a felony, and especially a heinous one, I don't see how showing them in handcuffs would make them lose more dignity. Plus the fine is quite low.

[Zed]

You don't see how showing a public official in handcuffs makes them lose more dignity than an accusation of a crime (which might or might not be true)?

[Broomstick]

But the idea that a 62-year old poses a danger to anyone in a courtroom is laughable, and handcuffing him there serves no other purpose than humiliation, which is wrong because it violates presumption of innocence.

I understand your argument, and I think you even make a decent argument, but as things currently stand that is not how things are done in the US.

If he had been released on bail, that is, considered trustworthy enough to return on his own, he probably would not be in cuffs. At his point, though, he's definitely considered a flight risk so they stay on.

When the former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagoevich, was arrested he, too, was put in cuffs even though nothing he was charged with was in any way violent. As he was released on bail, when he returned for trial he was not in cuffs. DSK is being treated no differently than anyone else would be in the US, for better or worse. If his story of getting on a planned flight is true, if he is an innocent man, then yes, I'm sure this is on one level very unfair. However, to the authorities it appears as if he was fleeing, and thus he will not be trusted to come back on his own if released on bail, and the cuffs stay on because they make escaping into a crowd much more difficult.

I get the impression that some in France think American sexual prudery is involved here. It's not about sex. No one gives a damn what two consenting adults do in a New York hotel room whether they, personally, think it's icky or not. It's about the possibility a man raped a woman, and it's taken as a serious crime even when the accused perpetrator is a billionaire with international standing and power and the alleged victim is a single mother immigrant from Africa trying to make ends meet working as a hotel maid.

[[R_H]]

You don't see how showing a public official in handcuffs makes them lose more dignity than an accusation of a crime (which might or might not be true)?

Depending on the severity and nature of the crime, I wouldn't. In DSK's case, not really (due to the other allegations of sexual misconduct and corruption).

[Zed]

This isn't about whether you, as an individual, will have a different perception. It's about whether the public will have a different perception.

I get the impression that some in France think American sexual prudery is involved here. It's not about sex. No one gives a damn what two consenting adults do in a New York hotel room whether they, personally, think it's icky or not.

Oh? If it turned out that Barack Obama had a consensual affair with a staffer, no Americans would care? It's true - some in France think that American sexual prudery is involved, and they shouldn't think that, because this is about allegations of (attempted) rape. But don't act as though that American prudery doesn't exist.

[Broomstick]

You mean, like Monica Lewinsky sucking Bill Clinton's dick in the oval office? The people who were most up in arms were his political enemies. Most Americans really didn't give a damn, or pretty much just thought it was tasteless, tacky, and between him, Hillary, and Monica. No one got arrested over that. It certainly didn't hurt his political career, those who loathed him for it were already people who'd never vote for him or were his opponents.

And, while a superior fucking around with a subordinate typically violates workplace rules regarding the proper relationship of staff, mainly to prevent undue favoritism and harassment, it's not rape and not a crime.

If a hotel maid wants to fuck a hotel guest and everyone is of age and consenting Americans really don't care. Various individuals might be disapproving, but it's not a crime and no one will get arrested. It's not the fact sex took place, it's the fact that a woman may have been forced to suck the dick of a rich, powerful man who thought he could get away with victimizing the hotel help. It's not about sex, it's about rape.

Granted we don't have all the facts here, but apparently it's more than just he-said she-said. The prosecution is talking about having forensic evidence and DNA. Apparently, the woman was in quite a state afterwards, details lacking, but the police seem to have no doubt she was involved in some sort of visible struggle or assault. Given how often it is still the case police don't take rape seriously, and the disadvantages an immigrant who is likely (given her African origins) brown or black has in regards to rich, powerful, white men, the fact the police acted so swiftly and decisively makes me think there is evidence that is not public knowledge here. Perhaps there were physical injuries we aren't aware of. I suggest those thinking prudery is at work here take a step back and consider that the police are focusing more on the possibility of physical assault than making judgements regarding sexual habits. The police get to meet people who have the kinkiest fetishes and perversions, but they don't arrest people for what's legal, which is everything outside of prostitution and rape.

Really, there are quite a few parallels between DSK and Clinton - both notorious womanizers, both having a history of fucking staffers, both having prior accusations along the lines of sexual harassment... but Monica Lewinsky was a willing and consenting participant. This hotel maid was not. That's the key difference, and what separates an inappropriate office tryst from the crime of rape.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Handcuffing him is ludicrously unnecessary anyway, it's not like he is a violent criminal who is a threat to everyone around him and has to be restrained.

It's done this way because US law enforcement training is based off not what usually happens but what catches people by surprise and ends up costing lives and/or getting people hurt, and most of the time it is the suspect that gets hurt when officers fail to handcuff.

Also, handcuffs not only make it difficult for someone to fight but they also make it difficult for someone to run. It's a physical and psychological deterrent. Now that this gentlemen is handcuffed he is easier to control and if he decides to make a bad choice he'll be easier to subdue safely.

The bottom line is people are unpredictable when something significant happens in their lives, and being arrested for rape is very significant and very emotional.

EDIT - I forgot one other point. In every police/citizen encounter there is ALWAYS a firearm involved. That firearm belongs to the officer and when officers make assumptions like assuming that a 60 year old female rapist who only shows violence against women isn't capable of hurting others...when they're wrong people die. So, let's just handcuff and everyone is safe.

[Broomstick]

Always at least one firearm involved.... there could easily be more than one.

I was taught early that if one is stopped by a police officer on duty, no matter how mundane the reason, one speaks in a calm voice, remains polite, keeps one's hands in view, and if asked to show something to the officer say what you're about to do: "Yes, officer, my ID is in my wallet in my back pocket/purse/jacket pocket/etc." This reassures the officer that you are not some crazy, rabid person who may be armed and dangerous. In my state over the past few years we've had more cops shot during routine traffic stops than even during interventions of domestic disputes. This gets back to weapons being more available in the US than in many other places. Police procedure has to take that into account.

Cuffing people is deemed safer than risking that police officers, suspects and/or bystanders get hurt. It's not fun and nothing to be proud of, but I strongly suspect it's not seem as quite the level of humiliation in the US as it might be in Europe.

[PeZook]

You generally have an order of magnitude higher rate of police officers shot on duty than any other country, so I'm not surprised they cuff everyone they arrest. Though generally speaking, it's like that almost everywhere. Over here, violent assault also gets the suspect handcuffs when in court, and possibly counterterrorists for escort.

So it's nothing strange. I mean yeah, he's 62, so it was less warranted, but even a 62 year old could cause trouble if he really wanted to.

It's hard to mesh those things with presumption of innocence, though, especially when a jury is involved.

[Serafina]

Again, i can understand why he was handcuffed during arrest. It would be nice if it was unnecessary, but as things are it's perfectly understandable.
I still see no reason why he should be handcuffed in court.

[Zed]

I'd like to note that even if handcuffs are necessary, due to the danger of public opinion being inflamed against a figure, it should still not be legal to display him in handcuffs in the media.

[Broomstick]

At this point, there is no jury involved. Everyone who comes before a judge for a bail hearing is in cuffs, so in that respect he is no different than anyone else. There's no jury yet, he's not yet on trial, it is entirely possible that not one person in a courtroom seeing him today will be in the same courtroom when this case goes to trial. When it comes to the formal trial cuffs will be removed before anyone in that courtroom sees him. Defendants are escorted yes, but normally in a case like this they'd walk in uncuffed and in formal clothes. Juries do not see normally ever see a defendant in restraints.

He's deemed a flight risk. Really, it's that simple. It appears as if he was fleeing the country, thus, until a judge determines he is no longer a flight risk he's going to be held under tight control. If it were a matter of him knowing the police wanted him and he turned himself in the court system might be more inclined to trust that he wouldn't flee on his own, but that's not the way it happened. It looked like he was running. That will be the assumption until proven otherwise. I'm sorry, but that likely means he will remain in custody until his trial. That's not certain, and since it's been reported that he has so far been extremely cooperative with the police after some time the judge might relent, but it is a real possibility.

I'd like to note that even if handcuffs are necessary, due to the danger of public opinion being inflamed against a figure, it should still not be legal to display him in handcuffs in the media.

French law does not apply in the United States.

Frankly, I'm surprised his mugshot hasn't been published as well.

And really - if showing people in handcuffs is so heinous why no outcry until DSK is in them? Where was the outrage for everyone else forced to make a perp walk? Why should he be treated differently than anyone else?

[PeZook]

I actually think Zed has a point here: it's obviously not illegal to do that in the US or, you know, we wouldn't have that photo, but that's actually a reasonable middle ground between the need for security of the justice system and the tired and old happenstance of the court of public opinion giving out death sentences before the trial has even began.

[Zed]

I'd like to note that even if handcuffs are necessary, due to the danger of public opinion being inflamed against a figure, it should still not be legal to display him in handcuffs in the media.

French law does not apply in the United States.

I didn't make the claim that French law should apply - I made the claim that it should be illegal, wherever.

And really - if showing people in handcuffs is so heinous why no outcry until DSK is in them? Where was the outrage for everyone else forced to make a perp walk? Why should he be treated differently than anyone else?

He's a public figure. Public perception has a greater influence on presidential candidates than it has on some random Joe.

[PeZook]

I wouldn't have anything against the media not being allowed to show random Joes in handcuffs, either. Hell, in Poland the media are already required to blot out a suspect's face and other identifying features until the verdict.

[Broomstick]

In the US legal proceedings are considered public - faces and names are concealed to protect minors, or victims of crime, or in other circumstances where a person's safety may be threatened. None of that applies to DSK, therefore, the legal proceedings are public information.

I did read this morning that DSK's lawyers are going to try again for bail, proposing what is essentially house arrest and electronic surveillance as conditions. Personally, I'd consider it, as it would undoubtedly be healthier for a man in his 60's to be living with, say, his daughter than in Riker's Island, but it's not my decision to make. The key is whether or not he can be kept in the US until trial.

I am sorry to say that the French refusing to extradite Roman Polanski - a man convicted of sexual assault in the US, not merely accused - is coming back to haunt DSK. Given that the French have refused to extradite a convicted sex offender for decades what on Earth would make anyone think the US authorities would risk another French citizen fleeing to France, forever out of their reach? It's not just DSK hopping a commercial jet that's a worry, he clearly has the means to charter a private jet with the capability of crossing the Atlantic, something the average person doesn't.

Is the Polanski issue impacting DSK fair? Well, no, it's not, but the French government chose to ignore a convicted criminal in their midst and the chickens are coming home to roost. Some charismatic, popular celebrity was shielded from justice by friends in high places and now we have another French big shot accused of a rape - the US assumption is that if he makes it France the French will simply laugh at the US and tell them to fuck off. Meanwhile, the French are howling because someone took a photograph of rich white guy being arrested. Oh, really? They're bitching about a picture but it's perfectly OK to let a man convicted of drugging and raping a minor walk around free?

Well, obviously there is some cultural clashing going on....

[Rabid]

I sure hope that France's bullshit stance on violent sex offenders comes home to roost, this time. I'm sick of them turning a blind eye to horrible sex criminals, and I hope that this finally wakes the French up to how justice ought to work for these types of criminals.

Please, do not confuse those two cases. In the case of Roman Polanski, you have to understand that in France you cannot be put on trial for Crimes (rape, murder, etc...) that were committed more than 20 years ago. THIS was the cause of the "outrage" of some of my fellow citizens : not merely the fact that he was (illegally) taken away to be judged for his crime (in a country that doesn't have extradition treaties signed with the US - Switzerland in this case, if my memory serves me right), but that it was done more than twenty years after the fact, even when the VICTIM told the JUGE that it was unnecessary, that the case should be "dropped". THIS, and nothing else, was the cause of the outrage (the circumstances of the arrest and the Judge going against the will of the victim).

So why the CSA law then? If someone is charged with a felony, and especially a heinous one, I don't see how showing them in handcuffs would make them lose more dignity. Plus the fine is quite low.

He has been ACCUSED of having raped someone, possibly with additional violence. He has NOT YET been found guilty of it.

Thus, from the French point of view, he has still to be treated by the medias as innocent. This mean, between other things, that he shouldn't be shown handcuffed or restrained.

If the fine is low, it is probably because the CSA understand that, anyway, the photos of him handcuffed are already everywhere in the medias (TV, Journals, on the Web, ...), and it would be futile to try to fight it. This is why it is just basically demanding for him to be treated with dignity by the medias, and not using all of its power (which is a lot) to enforce its decision : it would be a useless waste of time, resources and credibility.
The point remain that normally it wouldn't allow anybody else to be shown in a "degrading" position before the result of the trial. Hell, even someone being shown guilty would be protected : we have already evolved far beyond the point of publicly lynching people here, you know ?

Justice is Justice, not Vengeance. There is no emotions to be involved its process - only the respect of the Law, its Letter and its Spirit.


Disclaimer : I think the guy is a bastard, and I think he is probably guilty. However, what I think as a person shouldn't have any bearing on the Judiciary process. As everybody else, he has by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US has signed and agreed to follow as a founder of the United Nations, the inalienable right to be offered a fair trial (Articles 7, 10 and 11-1).