Thursday, May 19, 2011
Strauss-Kahn released on bail & tagged
IMO: Obviously, if the fellow has committed a serious crime as alleged, he should be treated appropriately and possibly jailed, but so far we do not know if he has and it is an injustice to either party, to treat the matter lightly as the press seem to do or to preempt trial results as the US Government so often unjustly does, often using doubtful rulings - by Judge Hamburger and Judge Learned Hand for example. It does seem from accounts that the alleged victim could wind up with throat cancer as a result, even though that's moderately unlikely. But my earlier comments also stand. How different was US behaviour in this case to the continued UK use of super-injunctions. The shameful case of Sir Fred Goodwin's gag on the press exposes the craziness of anonymous injunctions. A lot of people had, apparently, true grievances against Fred and indeed without looking very hard, I noticed quite a few really serious and probably real grievances and IMO his behaviour could have even brought reprimands within a dodgy offshore hedge fund! But in the present case the evidence against Strauss-Kahn seems to be from one individual and as yet seems untested in court. Indeed it is unrelated to his importance as a financial advisor. Of course, they do things differently in the USA. Only in the USA. From the "New Yorker" I see the recent comment on the Drake case “It’s outrageous,The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.” and that is after Obama was elected by sponsoring the case for transparency and stating his admiration for whistle-blowers. So is Obama 'just another Dinkins' ? Too early to say yet, but we certainly hope for improvement. All these people make mistakes .
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]