Hi Frank, I have been meaning to ask you about this case. Since it brings two elements that you will have a lot of insight on. One, the tendency to jump to conclusions as per perceived notions of propriety. While some have criticised this, it has been defended by Dowd in NYT where she says that just because the lady is question has not been truthful, it does not take away from the seriousness of the crime, and the crime, she asserts, was committed based on evidence. The second, is the sense of celebration in France after the case fell apart and the criticism of the American media in having demonized DSK. I read an article which spoke about BHL defending DSK and how anti-Americanism will be fulled by this episode. Your views pls?
Well, Vikram, charges were made and had to be answered to. I don't see how NYC authorities could have done other than take DSK off the plane in order to face the charge, since, while the U.S. and France do have an extradition treaty, the treaty does not obligate either to surrender any of its citizens to the other. That, of course, set off the media frenzy and allegations were reported of similar behavior by DSK previously. Dowd's point is characteric of her feeble reasoning powers. The crime qua crime has no bearing on whether or not he is guilty. If the only witness to the crime is the victim and that witness proves generally unreliable, then you have a problem prosecuting the case, especially if, as I gather must be the case, the other evidence is inconclusive. As for the French, some seem to think that members of their privileged class deserve special treatment. The U.S., at its best, doesn't do special treatment. Ask John Edwards, former Vice-Presidential candidate now under indictment. If the French don't like that, I for one can live with that.
Hi Frank, I have been meaning to ask you about this case. Since it brings two elements that you will have a lot of insight on. One, the tendency to jump to conclusions as per perceived notions of propriety. While some have criticised this, it has been defended by Dowd in NYT where she says that just because the lady is question has not been truthful, it does not take away from the seriousness of the crime, and the crime, she asserts, was committed based on evidence. The second, is the sense of celebration in France after the case fell apart and the criticism of the American media in having demonized DSK. I read an article which spoke about BHL defending DSK and how anti-Americanism will be fulled by this episode. Your views pls?
ReplyDeleteWell, Vikram, charges were made and had to be answered to. I don't see how NYC authorities could have done other than take DSK off the plane in order to face the charge, since, while the U.S. and France do have an extradition treaty, the treaty does not obligate either to surrender any of its citizens to the other. That, of course, set off the media frenzy and allegations were reported of similar behavior by DSK previously.
ReplyDeleteDowd's point is characteric of her feeble reasoning powers. The crime qua crime has no bearing on whether or not he is guilty. If the only witness to the crime is the victim and that witness proves generally unreliable, then you have a problem prosecuting the case, especially if, as I gather must be the case, the other evidence is inconclusive.
As for the French, some seem to think that members of their privileged class deserve special treatment. The U.S., at its best, doesn't do special treatment. Ask John Edwards, former Vice-Presidential candidate now under indictment. If the French don't like that, I for one can live with that.