IMF head/French politician arrested in NYC

[Dr Mordrid]

City jails like The Tombs are for those awaiting arraignment or misdomeanor cases. If you're charged with a felony and are denied bail you go to a county prison, in this case Rikers Island.

The case goes to the NYC Citizen's Grand Jury on Friday, where evidence will be presented and indictments are issued. If indicted, and prosecutors are saying they've got tons of DNA and blood evidence, a new arraignment would be held. If the CGJ indicts (likely) and because the US has no extradition treaty with France and he's rich enough to get out passport or not, the Criminal Court judge would likely not issue bail; back to Rikers.

Brian;

Is it sparse? Yup, it should be. He's living on the dime of people a lot poorer than he is. This is a prison, not a country club.

I'm shocked at the "hospitality" that NY offers a VIP.

Why on God's Green Earth should this guy get better digs than Joe Sixpack? Because he's a rich? Powerful? A Euro-Aristocrat with an overblown sense of entitlement? Puuhhhlease! Don't even get me started down that road!!

As for visiting lawyers, they get taken to separate rooms to see them. Visitors similar, but only a limited number of visits/month. If he were in the general population there are community rooms, but being a celebrity prisoner that would be too dangerous.

Electronic tethers are typically used for those accused of non-violent crimes, not stuff like this.

[VJ]

Why on God's Green Earth should this guy get better digs than Joe Sixpack? Because he's a rich? Powerful? A Euro-Aristocrat with an overblown sense of entitlement? Puuhhhlease!

With this, I agree...

[Brian Ellis]

I agree they should all be treated equally. However, neither Joe nor Dominique should be sent to any jail unless convicted by a valid court of law. They are INNOCENT and should be treated as such which means they should benefit from at least a minimal comfort and full communications facilities consistent with secure detention and the prevention of crime. This is a fundamental right of man. Their detention must never be punitive before conviction. I would suggest the IACHR would have something to say otherwise Oops! I forgot that the USA does not accept the rulings of that court. It obviously considers itself above human rights, despite being a co-founder with the Bill of Rights, which is no longer in tune with modern thinking.

The US is a signatory to the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and has signed but not ratified the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. It is a member of Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women (1948). It does not accept the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights.[191][192]

The US has not ratified any of the other regional human rights treaties of the Organization of American States,[9] which include:

Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990)
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (1985)
Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (1994)
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994)
Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities

The U.S. has not ratified the following international human rights treaties:[9]

First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
Optional Protocol to CEDAW
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families

The US has signed but not ratified the following treaties:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (signed but not ratified)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (signed but not ratified)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (signed but not ratified)

Non-binding documents voted against:

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007.

The U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was drafted for prosecuting individuals above the authority of national courts in the event of accusations of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression. Nations that have accepted the Rome Statute can defer to the jurisdiction of the ICC or must surrender their jurisdiction when ordered.

The US rejected the Rome Statute after its attempts to include the nation of origin as a party in international proceedings failed, and after certain requests were not met, including recognition of gender issues, "rigorous" qualifications for judges, viable definitions of crimes, protection of national security information that might be sought by the court, and jurisdiction of the UN Security Council to halt court proceedings in special cases.[184] Since the passage of the statute, the US has actively encouraged nations around the world to sign "bilateral immunity agreements" prohibiting the surrender of US personnel before the ICC[185] and actively attempted to undermine the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Human Rights Watch criticized the United States for removing itself from the Statute

(Wikipedia)

This reminds me of something that happened in Switzerland in the 1960s. The police in the Canton of Vaud detained suspects in inhuman conditions, with no contact with the outside world. They just seemed to disappear off the face of the earth, in some cases for months. This rather extreme violation of HR was denounced by an innocent man after acquittal by a criminal court. It went right up to the Federal Court which, after consultation with the ECHR, rendered a powerful verdict against the actions of the Vaudois police and which laid down the rules for humane preventive detention.

[Dr Mordrid]

I would suggest the IACHR would have something to say otherwise Oops! I forgot that the USA does not accept the rulings of that court

A rich aristocrat has to sit in jail because we can't trust European "justice" to make sure he shows for trial and it's our fault?

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.

Where were your objections during the Amanda Knox case it Italy, the evidence for which was largely discredited even before her conviction? Where was her tether? Bail? Presumption?

[Evildead666]

Don't bring the Amanda Knox thing into it, two very different cases.
It has no place in this discussion.

Boo hoo ? WTF childish comment is that ?

And its "a Rich aristocrat who has to sit in jail, because we are really pissed off about the Polanski affair, and if we let him go, we couldn't force him back."

I'm extremely surprised someone didn't tack on terrorism charges as well. I suppose there's still time yet.

[Brian Ellis]

I would remind you that there is a bilateral France/US extradition treaty.

If DSK went to France and he did not voluntarily leave to face justice in the USA, the latter could request extradition. If, as in this case, the defendant is a French citizen, this would be granted under three conditions:
1. there is a prima facie case against him (there appears to be in this case)
2. dual criminality exists (this would apply to some of the charges, such as attempted rape)
3. the punishment, if found guilty, would not be significantly harsher than in France (this clause is primarily considered in capital cases or where torture may be expected. It is often negotiated, e.g., in this case extradition may be granted on condition the sentences will be concurrent and not consecutive, to bring them in line with French Law.)

If extradition fails because of condition 3. above, France would have the obligation to try the defendant under French law and jurisprudence.

FYI, the US Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs (OIA) has a permanent attorney and staff attached in Paris to deal with extradition matters with a current backlog of about 60 cases (both directions), one of the lowest in Europe because of rapid handling.

The myth that France will never extradite its own citizens is because of the Ira Einhorn affair where France blocked the extradition a) because he would face capital punishment and the USA would not back down from this and b) the USA boo-booed by a clumsy appeal to Jacques Chirac. The Polanski affair was justified. After plea bargaining, he was finally charged with Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor. At the time of the offence, the age of consent in France was 12 and, because the girl was 13, this was not criminal and the clause of dual criminality (2 on the list above) could not be evoked. This automatically disculped him from extradition and from trial by a French court.

I seriously suggest that the DSK affair, which has serious international repercussions, has been extremely clumsily handled by the NYPD and the State police and the subsequent judiciary. It may seem banal but the publication of photos/videos of the guy in handcuffs has raised the ire of many Europeans who find it is offensive and inhumane. An international affair should take into account international sensibilities and sensitivities. I have spoken with a number of people here and they have been unanimous that it could have been better handled, although the government has not, of course, expressed a view.

[Dr Mordrid]

Your Polanski example is precisely why judges, Congress and the pepple here don't trust France & other countries (Mexuco for starters) to do the right thing, making our "treatie" with them worthless, so why sign more since enforcement will be one-sided?

first, he had pled guilty and skipped to evade sentencing so trial wasn't even an issue. He'd confessed!

second, that France had an age of consent of 12 is, I'm sorry, TOTALLY F***ED UP!! 12 is a CHILD. Seems France condoned pedophilia. Now it's 15, so props for improving things a little, but still

third, the crime occurred in California where the age was much higher and that local law should trump. Next time you get stopped for doing 35 in a 25 try telling the cop that the limit is 35 where you live, then tear up the ticket & see where it gets you

fourth, he used alcohol & drugs to chemically restrain her, nullifies consent. No different than ropes or handcuffs.

fifth, unlawful flight is in itself a felony - no different than a jailbreak.

[VJ]

The Polanski example is indeed a bad one... (good example on the speed limit ) As Brian pointed out, the facts are different here and France should extradite DSK if he is guilty and if France is asked to do so, so the situation here is different. Of course, there are other countries DSK could flee too, so I think it is understandable that he is held in the US (the circumstances though... hmmm...).

Back on the DSK case: now DSK is pleading consent... but just yesterday he stated he was not in the hotel...

edit: funny: jailbreak is not a felony here in Belgium... But of course breaking stuff or holding people hostage to do so is. And helping people to break out also is... but just the fact of escaping is not!

[Brian Ellis]

You haven't understood the concept of dual criminality. For extradition between any two countries to take place, the offences MUST be criminal in both jurisdictions. It is totally irrelevant whether he confessed or not, whether he drugged the girl or not, whether he skipped the country or not or whether the girl was under age in CA. He was charged with one single offence of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor under CA law. As she was not considered a minor in France at that time, it is cut and dried, dual criminality does not exist. You can argue all the other things until you are blue in the face, if dual criminality on the one and only charge does not exist under the France-USA bilateral agreement then you can go and whistle. If the US wanted a different result, they should have asked France before signing to up the age of consent. In any case, in those days, I'm damn sure that the age of consent in the USA was not 16 in every State, so the US possibly could not have asked France to raise it.

[Dr Mordrid]

I competely understand the concept. I think it's either (a) stupid or (b) a calculated system designed to get your countrymen out of trouble when they misbehave overseas.

Pick one.

As to US consent laws; they do vary by state, but that's no excuse since the one he violated was in California - his home here at the time. As to his flight, that alone is a felony.

Excuses, excuses...

[VJ]

The concept is bilateral, so it also counts for an American that misbehaves oversees...
For sure there must be some reason this condition was included, but I agree in this case it is stupid.

[Dr Mordrid]

Yes it is, and using it to let a slime like Polanski evade a sex crime agains a child is a guaranteed way to turn Americans against the French authorities. That whole set if crimes (rape, sex abuse, pedophelia etc) are hot-button issues here.

[VJ]

Here (Belgium) also ... After some terrible scandals (perhaps the name Dutroux rings a bell) and just recently several higher clerus, it is a hot issue here as well.

[Umfriend]

You seem to be more upset than Geimer herself.

[Brian Ellis]

Yes it is, and using it to let a slime like Polanski evade a sex crime agains a child is a guaranteed way to turn Americans against the French authorities. That whole set if crimes (rape, sex abuse, pedophelia etc) are hot-button issues here.

You also have to put it in the context of the time. I bet 95% of the US population then would never have even heard of paedophilia, let alone know what it was. Such things were, as often as not, brushed under the carpet. What you say is true NOW but not THEN. In any case, he could be extradited ONLY on what he was actually charged with; there was no way he could be extradited on anything else. If you want to blame anyone for Polanski not being extradited, you should have thrown the book at him and charged him with all his crimes and not plea-bargaining with him down to the most doubtful one; this was why he got off Scot-free, thanks to the State Attorney's office.

Getting back to DSK, I learnt yesterday that the conditions of the offered $1M bail were tight house arrest at his daughter's house (apparently she lives somewhere near there in NYC). He tried several times to phone the IMF but this was refused; I would consider this a reasonable request under the circumstances, in fact the right of a presumed innocent man. It look as if someone high up has it in for him. The fact that he is now under a suicide watch is an indication of the inhumane way he has been treated.