Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

[aliceliddell]

There is no case to answer because Ms Diallo is an 'unreliable witness'. No medical or forensic evidence is relevant. When raped women are 'witnesses' in the legal system, their credibility is the topic of contention, not the evidence. The issue of consent is largely ignored. Criminal law requires 'presumption of innocence' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Is it this combination that results in an inadequate legal response to sexual violence or other factors? Can this be changed?

The medical/forensic evidence would have been relevant had it supported Ms Diallo's version of events. According to the prosecution it didn't. Now this is the same prosecution which was ready to arrest Strauss Kahn in a blaze of publicity. For them to have such a turn around on such a high profile case suggests there really is a problem with the evidence.

For that reason, I would not want to use this particular case as a basis for anything.

Or at least not at present - if her civil case is successful, then the whole picture changes. But it has not yet even begun, so - useful though the headlines may be as a rallying cry - I think it is premature to base anything on this individual case.

Agree with all Scaevola said. I think you have to choose your battles and this isn't one of them :(

I'm not at all comfortable with the fact that she had been recorded discussing the case with a jailed friend and appeared to refer to Mr Strauss-Kahn's wealth, which his supporters said pointed to a financial motive in her pursuit of the case. But it seems the prosecution were unhappy with this fact, one of several issues they were unhappy with and they know a lot more about the case than anyone here...

I agree with Scaevola that it is dangerous to use individual cases and presume injustices. However, I agree with you that there is an inherrent difficulty with rape cases.

It is usually the case that only people who will know the truth of the issue are the two people involved. Therefore, whilst forensics will often be able to determine whether sexual activity took place or not, the issue of consent boils down to one person's word against the other.

As you rightly point out, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If this is the case, how does one prove the case of rape? You ask if we can change this situation, but it would be interesting to see what you think we can change it to.

I have posted this question before and not received any responses, so I'm not sure if anyone has a suggestion to improving the situation.

The situation in a civil case where the decision is made on the balance of probability seems more useful in sexual violence cases. But in this example her civil action has been used to undermine her criminal case through suggestions of monetary gain. This 'problem' with the evidence seems to be a matter of opinion because her lawyer is still talking about it. Irrespective of this case, do you think the law on sexual violence is inherently weighted in favour of the accused? If so, how should it be changed?

Alice, rather depressingly, within the wider context of institutional sexism, I don't think decisions within the criminal justice system regarding sexual violence can genuinely be reformed in a way to remove the "weighting" for the accused (and where the victim is simply a witness to the crime.)

It is and will remain a low risk, high reward activity.

1. Yes. 2. It shouldn't - the weighting (as you put it) should always be on the side of the (potentially) innocent. i.e. It is up to the prosecution to prove the charge and not up to defendants to prove themselves innocent.

X posted. Jenny - any link to previous discussion? Or did you get literally no responses? No, I don't have a clear idea of what change is required, just a firm view that the current situation does not, maybe can not work. Anyone got any international examples?

Sorry - it was in AIBU a while ago and the posters that came back were more interested in derailment. In the end I had the thread deleted because a few people PMd me to express concern that the levity might be distressing to those who had suffered abuse.

So anyway, yes, I agree it's a problem, but no, I don't think there is anything that can be done about it without undermining the basics of our legal system.

Sadly, I agree. Therefore, rape will remain an "occupational hazard" of being female.

Challenging rape myths so that juries are not walking into the court room with pre-conceived nonsense in their heads is the main way to go, I think. Cases get dropped because of the lack of a realistic chance of conviction. That's because prosecutors know how Joe or Joanna Bloggs approach sexual offences cases.

I still believe her.

I really wish this case had gone to criminal trial. It seems to me that the inherent power imbalance of the undisputed encounter has just not been considered at all and that there should be some charge that could have related to that at the very least. There seems to be no pressure on him to provide an explanation of why a 62 year old powerful, high status man would go ahead with a rough sexual encounter (which I believe is supported by the forensic evidence) with someone he had just met where he likely had the power to get her sacked or disciplined: all the pressure is on her to explain what happened over and over and be 100% consistent in a very upsetting situation.

I agree with jennyv that it is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt and I don't have any suggestions on this but it is still important that the cases actually go to court as there will never be a chance to prove them otherwise. (not saying I don't understand why some victims choose not to go forwards but that's not the situation here).

I wish her luck in her civil case.

AyeRobot -

Most people have pre-conceived nonsense in their heads?

You, on the other hand, are able to determine the truth of the DSK case - finding for Diallo's claims.

How, despite your belief in the prevelance of rape myths, have you managed to remain so much more impartial than the rest of us?

I nearly cried when I woke up this morning and heard about this (in France, so all the smug rent a quotes were even more freaking annoying than they are in the UK). I wrote a long rant on my blog about it.

To those who say she referred to his wealth on the phone to her friend in prison : she also referred to the attack as being an attack. There is nothing in her conversation to say the attack didn't happen, just that she knew she was wealthy and may cash in on it. And, sorry, I don't blame her.

This is so wrong on so many levels, and could be a massive setback for women, particularly in France, who will not dare to say anything (still not dare to sa anything) because as soon as someone complains about a man in a position of power they get told she is lying or trying to get money out of him, or that she was asking for it.

Women here were starting to come forward about the scary things they have done, but this will just prove the smug sodding rent-a-quotes right. I'm so angry , just so fucking angry.

Not saying he is innocent or guilty, but it shouldhave gone to trial based on the forensic evidence, not on nasty ways of blackening her name. Agh

jenny - some of us have innoculated ourselves against some of the worst excesses of sexism by becoming feminists

I am not on a jury so I don't need to be impartial.

I just believe her. Why wouldn't I? I also believe two of my friends who were raped but the CPS decided not to pursue their cases. Should I fence sit as far as they are concerned too?

DSK originally denied any sort of sexual encounter with Ms Diallo. If anyone is already a proven liar, it is him.

sunshine yes yes yes - and on so many other things in his life. I'm so angry and not just because my mother in law sai all along that she was lying

It is a total step back in time for women. I can't believe it. I'm so upset. I really should calm down, but I can't.

With you all the way, Cheria

Sunshineandbrooks, that is indeed a very good point.

Ayerobot, I am asking whether your assertion that 'everyone else' is prejudiced whlist you are able to view the case on its own merits is a fair position to take. Or, as you say you do not need to be impartial, are you saying that you are prejudiced too, but the other way?

Alice, some feminism has some pretty extreme sexism in it so, whilst I take your point in theory, I'm not sure it's a safe rule of thumb.

The thing which got me from the beginning was women, one i particular but I heard it a LOT when he was arrested (in France):

1. She was ugly so DSK would never have gone for her
2. It is impossible to orally rape someone

I have argued with this woman in tears trying to get her to see my point of view on both these and other points, and on Sunday (when they started saying charges would be dropped) I got a smug email saying she was right all along. It is so upsetting.

And as for the sodding politicians who now think he should rejoin the presidential campaign, don't get me started on them.

I belive her too and feel sick to my stomach on her behalf. Tristane Banon will be much harder to smear so more power to her in bringing her case against DSK in France. He sounds like a really dangerous character. Not that it will be much consolation to this poor woman

Yes Sunshine. In his original statement, he denied any sexual contact - saying he was having dinner with his daughter at the time of the incident. It was only when forensic evidence most definitely showed he was engaged in some kind of sexual activity with the witness that he stated, "any sexual activity was consensual." It was a way of not stating categorically that sexual activity took place, but "if it did" he insisted it was not forced.

This may seem a bit far out, but the fact is, prosecutions for sexual assaults are as rare as hen's teeth. Like AyeRobot, I do not believe that the paucity of convictions does not mean either that sexual assaults are very rare or that women who report that they have been raped/assaulted are automatically liars.

However, are we all colluding in some great fantasy that if a woman (or man or child for that matter) is sexually assaulted that they stand anything but a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the perpetrator be held accountable for their actions in law? Are we not adding major insult to injury here?

First, the person is raped and has to deal with the physical, emotional and social trauma arising from that - something that will be different for each person and each context. Then if they report it to the authorities, they have to "relive" the assault over and over again in statements, medical tests and if it gets that far, the court process. All the time, they will be challenged and pushed in ways to undermine them and portray them as liars. The culmination will probably be either the case never gets to court or if it does, the accused is acquitted. In either case, the final assumption is that if there was no conviction, the man is innocent and the victim - sorry, "witness" is a liar, full stop.

I can see that some will say that unless men believe there could be some sanction, some punishment for rape, there will be no disincentive to them. But, let's be honest, I don't think there is much disincentive at the moment. You've got a much higher risk of being caught and punished for driving a few miles over the speed limit than forcing someone to have sex against their will.

With you too Cheria

As one possible suggestion as to how some the problems may be mitigated, what would be the effects of banning the reporting of rape be?

In this, high profile case, it seems that the legions of 'I told you so' commentators would have been denied that position.

They are already trying to smear Tristane Banon. I heard her being referred to on the radio this morning as an opportunist. FFS, much much nearer the time of her alleged assault she actually talked about it on TV (they beeped his name out when it was boradcast). How is this opportunism now? AND, why the fuck didn't anyone pick up on it at the time? The other people in the studio laughed and joked about it; The police could have been informed but wouldn't have done anything anyway. Believe me she will be painted out to be either a liar or asking for it too.

Sometimes I hate France.