A month ago I wrote a piece about the outrageous double standard the media applies to sexual assault cases when a media circus erupted over an accusation by a hotel maid that she was sexually assualted by Dominque Strauss -Kahn, head of the IMF and leading candidate to be the next president of France.
At the time any fair reading of the "facts" as told by the maid and as presented in the media showed that the accusations were preposterous and most likely a fabrication and while I said so, my main point was that the media should show the same restraint with those accused of sexual assault until there is hard proof otherwise, as they do to accusers in giving anonymity.
Now its being reported by news outlets including a right hand column front page story in the New York Times, that the case has collapsed because prosecutors now say the hotel maid was lying. A law enforcement official has told The Associated Press that the accuser in the sex assault case against Strauss Kahn lied about circumstances surrounding the alleged attack and prosecutors are going into court today to ask for a greatly reduced bail in advance of dropping all felony charges.
This comes as no surprise to anyone with a shred of common sense, logic or even a minimum sense of real justice, something that, as we saw recently with Anthony Weiner, is totally absent in the news media.
When Strauss Kahn was first arrested and paraded in front of the media, I wrote about the insane double standard in the media when it comes to sex crimes, allowing an accuser to remain anonymous while plastering the name and picture of the accused all over the news media.
I made the point that based on the "facts" alleged by the maid and released by prosecutors, it was virtually impossible to believe anything could have taken place as the maid described. Not just based on logic and common sense but physically what she described could not have happened.
Now that the case again Strauss -Kahn has collapsed because prosecutors have concluded the maid lied about her alleged rape, ( which is not to say they wont try and charge Strauss-Kahn with something to save face) I thought it might be telling to reprint the comments received here at the time, if for no other reason than to prove the original point of why the media should show the same restraint and safeguards they do with an accuser (it doesnt take Einstein to figure out that "accuser" does not = "victim") and give anonymity to an accused at least until there is some kind of evidence of guilt.
The comments reprinted below shows the wisdom of the Founders of this country in creating a justice system based on two principles -- that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail and that a defendant is to be presumed innocent. Unfortunately as the sampling below shows, there are many people, both liberal and conservsative who dont really believe in either.
Anonymous said:
."...Gender equality? ( referring to my point that the accused deserve the same treatment as an accuser --defining an accuser as something different from a "victim" until there is proof that a crime took place). What rock are you living under?
I would rather you address the thousands of women who are raped every year than get bent out of shape over the minuscule number of males who have been falsely accused."
James Ala wrote:
"...Rape is a crime Sir. Police booking of a reported crime are a matter of public record. Matters of public record are fodder for news organizations. The man was remanded to Riker's Island, don't you think the general public has a right to know why the head of the IMF traded a $3k a night five star hotel suite for the accommodations provided by "The Tombs?
Yes this is scandal, and scandal is Mana from heaven for the Corporate Media. Welcome to the twenty-four hour news cycle, welcome to one of less attractive features of the post-modern world. Buck up Mr Rubin, the man is swimming in cash and will be well defended if this goes to trial. I'm certainly not going to loose much sleep over his present predicament. He is rich, powerful, male and Caucasian. His accuser is working class, female and African. He really does not need either your help or sympathy Mr. Rubin."
Obviously Ala did what many others do -- he refused to think or look at facts or even worse, he, like too many, let the media do their thinking for them. He even jumped to the erroneous conclusion that a crime had even been committed when there was no evidence that it had.And the class and race prejudice displayed is also shared by others -- mostly white by the way trying to show how "unprejudiced" they are -- black working mother has to be telling the truth -- prominent white guy must be guilty)
Anonymous said:
"Oh Boo F**KING Hoo. If the media hadn't been complicit in keeping this scumbag's secrets for all these years, he wouldn't be at Rikers now. This POS has been assaulting women for years - and getting away with it because of the delicate sensibilities of enablers like you. Your contention that men are the victims in cases like this is ridiculous. EDUCATE YOURSELF."
My guess is that even the prosecutors saying the maid was lying and that Strauss-Kahn is innocent wont change this person's mind. My contention that Strauss Kahn, because he was innocent was a victim, both of this woman's lies and the media's treatment of him, was right. But there will always be people like this who when it comes to being educated believe its always others that need the education.
Dan said...
"It seems that he's guilty. He knew that he was a powerful figure and thought he's untouchable".
Anonymous said:
"If you are going to seriously propose that this is a false accusation, you need to identify some motive...There are a lot of practical questions that don't make much sense if you assume this is a false accusation."
At the time I actually provided rock solid motivations for a false accusation and the opposite of what this reader said was true -- there were a lot of practical questions that made no sense if you believed the accusation was true. In fact all the logic and practical questions pointed to a false accusation.
James Ala had more to say in another comment:
"...Moving right along, I find it beyond disturbing that at no time do you consider the power dynamics of the situation. Strauss-Kahn is a man who possess wealth and power. His accuser has neither. His accuser is already being smeared, by the likes of you and others."
More class prejudice as opposed to facts. And again, not a shred of logic and not a shred of proof. That everything the accuser had to say defied logic and common sense meant nothing to this commentor. Just if you're rich and successful you're wrong and guilty and if your not your word comes from on high.
It is precisely the kind of thinking of people like this, so self righteous in their belief that they know whats true and know whats best even when the facts prove them wrong, that is why we have and need the safeguards in our justice system created by the Founders.
Hopefully the news media will finally learn something and institute some voluntary safeguards of their own. They don't have to wait until a jury finds someone guilty but they could wait until actual facts have been developed that point to a likelihood of guilt in a sexual assault before irrevocably smearing someone and turning their life upside down without a shred of proof.
Posts
