samedi 21 mai 2011

Orange Juice ou 2-2=1

L'affaire DSK à New York est l'occasion pour les Français d'apprendre combien les procédures inquisitoire et accusatoire diffèrent l'une de l'autre.

Il y a quinze ans O.J Simpson était accusé du meurtre de sa femme ainsi que de l'amant de celle-ci. Pour ce que j'en sais (*1) il n'a pas passé une journée derrière les barreaux, avait les moyens de s'offrir les services des plus chers des avocats américains et n'a pas eu droit au perp walk élégamment fourni à D.S.K (*2).


Simpson s'en est tiré je crois parce qu'il avait été établi qu'un des policiers qui avait travaillé sur l'enquête était raciste ce qui n'a absolument rien à voir avec le meurtre dont il était accusé (*3).

Ce qui semble déjà incompréhensible aux yeux des Européens le devient plus encore quand ce même Simpson, innocenté d'un double meurtre, a cependant été condamné à des dommages et intérêts.

Logiquement cela revient à dire que 2-2=1, il est coupable et il n'est pas coupable.

Je lis nombre de commentaires dans le NYT ou le Wapo d'Américains se disant fiers d'appartenir à un pays où le grands sont traités comme les petits. Yeah, sure... 

Une petite différence tout de même : Avoir quelques millions de dollars en poche n'est pas forcément un désavantage. 

Il ne s'agit pas de suggérer qu'un système est plus vertueux que l'autre, plus juste ou plus "humain", le système judiciaire inquisitoire français est aussi effrayant que le système accusatoire américain. 

Là où les Américains ont raison c'est qu'aucun big shot français ne risque de se retrouver derrière les barreaux, la justice française est aux ordres.

Les Européens en revanche peuvent faire valoir que l'argent est un facteur inexistant dans leurs systèmes respectifs.  

L'impunité française pour les gros clients correspond en fait au pouvoir de l'argent aux États-Unis.

Quel que soit le système, accusatoire/inquisitoire qui régit les relations entre les citoyens et leur justice, les petits sont toujours perdants, en France comme aux États-Unis.


(*1, *2, *3 En fait Simpson a passé 15 mois en prison après sa course poursuite avec la police, il a été soumis au perp walk et la défense a tenté de faire valoir qu'un policier chargé de l'enquête était raciste afin de semer le trouble dans l'esprit des jurés. All information courtesy Rocket)

26 commentaires:

Ned Ludd a dit…

Je ne savais pas que sa femme, Anne Sinclair, est super-riche. Je pensais qu'il avait de l'argent.

Flocon a dit…

Je l'ignorais également comme presque tout le monde en France.

Peut-être n'étais-tu pas encore arrivée ici quand elle était journaliste. Elle a posé pour le buste officiel de Marianne dans les années 90.

Je l'ai vue avec DSK en juillet 1994 quand je prenais un verre à la Rotonde (Montparnasse). J'étais en terrasse quand ils sont sortis avec une troisième personne discuter un long moment sur le trottoir.

I wrote a comment (Alain) in the NTY on an article titled "Backing her husband".

Anijo a dit…

Hey France, You Are Right About the Perp Walk

Flocon a dit…

Intéressant article en effet. Les commentaires vont dans le sens de l'auteur.

Ce qui me rappelle que l'Amerloque reprimanded me because I used to adress some bloggers with Hey (Greg, or whoever...)

"Hay is for horses" l'Amerloque would say then.

Those were the days my friends...

Anijo a dit…

Simpson s'en est tiré parce qu'il avait été établi qu'un des policiers qui avait travaillé sur l'enquête était raciste ce qui n'a absolument rien à voir avec le meurtre dont il était accusé.

link

Despite public criticism of the jury’s quick exoneration of Simpson, they maintain "we did a hell of a job" of enduring the months of sequestration and weighing the evidence in the case. They report that they voted for acquittal based on several reasonable doubts: problems with the eyewitness testimony of limousine driver Allan Parks; concerns that Detective Mark Fuhrman planted evidence; and concerns that some of the evidence was contaminated. The jurors contend that they understood the DNA evidence more than people thought, but that they had to acquit because even one doubt would have required it (140–141, 157–158).

The jurors’ memoir also contains elements of the fool-as-victim syndrome, with foreman Armanda Cooley stating that the jury was not prepared for the level of criticism it would receive in the trial’s aftermath. "The way I see it," Cooley says, "I’m the one on trial now. We all are. O.J.’s running around having a ball and here we are. We’re the ones on trial. The people that have you on trial don’t even know you. They just know of a position that you held. It’s just not fair judgment. It puts you in an impossible situation." She notes that the jury was shocked at the notion that Simpson was acquitted based on race, adding that "it proved to me that they felt that we had no intelligence whatsoever"

Anijo a dit…

Ce qui semble déjà incompréhensible aux yeux des Européens le devient plus encore quand ce même Simpson, innocenté d'un double meurtre, a cependant été condamné à des dommages et intérêts.

It has to do with Burden of proof.

burden of proof
The duty of establishing the truth of the matter; the duty of proving a fact that is in dispute. In most instances the burden of proof, like the burden of going forward, shifts from one side to the other during the course of a trial as the case progresses and evidence is introduced by each side.

preponderance of evidence
The degree of proof reequired in most civil actions. It means that the greater weight and value of the credible evidence, taken as a whole. belongs to one side in a lawsuit rather to the other side. In other words, the party whose evidence is more convincing has a "preponderance of evidence" on its side and must, as a matter of law, prevail in the lawsuit because it has met its burden of proof.

beyond a reasonable doubt
The degree of proof required to convict a person of a crime

Anijo a dit…

Ce qui me rappelle que l'Amerloque reprimanded me because I used to adress some bloggers with Hey (Greg, or whoever...)

Some people consider 'hey' to be rude, others don't. Considering Amerloque's age, it's natural that he did not approve. These days, kids say 'hey dude'... That would certainly offend Amerloque!lol

Flocon a dit…

I confess, this post isn't worth remembering (I much prefer the latest L'aura).

Je n'avais pas même regardé sur Wiki au sujet de Simpson et je l'ai fait après ton lien. Bon, l'article anglais est plus long qu'un jour sans pain..(a day that comes to no end).

What is your personal feeling about him Anijo? Guilty or not guilty of the murder he was accused of?

Mais en jetant un œil à l'article en français j'apprends qu'il a été condamné à 33 ans fin 2008. So is he still behind the bars?

Needless to say next to no one in France (and probably the rest of the world for that matter) knows about that.

Anijo a dit…

What is your personal feeling about him Anijo? Guilty or not guilty of the murder he was accused of?

Mais en jetant un œil à l'article en français j'apprends qu'il a été condamné à 33 ans fin 2008. So is he still behind the bars?


I personally think he was guilty. But I was not on the jury and didn't listen to all of the exhausting testimony and analyze all of the evidence, so I can't say if I would have convicted if I was on the jury. A member of the jury doesn't convict if they 'feel' that someone is guilty. They only convict if the person's guilt has been proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Je n'ai aucune idée s'il est toujours 'behind bars'...

Flocon a dit…

One of your comments went down the spambox, go figure. Les mystères de l'Internet...

Beyond a raisonnable doubt squares with l'intime conviction in French criminal trials.

Have to go now...

Rocket a dit…

Il y a quinze ans O.J Simpson était accusé du meurtre de sa femme ainsi que de l'amant de celle-ci. Pour ce que j'en sais il n'a pas passé une journée derrière les barreaux, avait les moyens de s'offrir les services des plus chers des avocats américains et n'a pas eu droit au perp walk élégamment fourni à D.S.K.

My comments will most certainly never hit the light of day on your blog but at least I know that you will read it. That's all that counts

"Pour ce que j'en sais il n'a pas passé une journée derrière les barreaux"

He did 15 months remanded in jail before his trial. He was considered a flight risk considering his Bronco episode with low speed police chase.

"n'a pas eu droit au perp walk élégamment fourni à D.S.K."

Oh si mon ami. When he was arrested in front of his house he was cuffed in front of the cameras and did his perp walk.

DSK had the treatment accorded to any other individual accused of rape. Just happened to be a well known figure. Tyrone from the hood doesn't get the camera coverage.

"Simpson s'en est tiré je crois parce qu'il avait été établi qu'un des policiers qui avait travaillé sur l'enquête était raciste ce qui n'a absolument rien à voir avec le meurtre dont il était accusé."

Oops wrong again. The high powered lawyers created a doubt in some jurors mind as to his guilt.

"If the glove don't fit you must acquit"

You need a unanimous conviction by the Jury in the US. That's to say 12/12. In france you need 8/12.Just create doubt in one juror's mind. That's what will happen with DSK and that's why he'll eventually walk. He'll pay damages though and his people are already flashing millions.

concerning OJ Today

"Je n'ai aucune idée s'il est toujours 'behind bars'..."

Mais oui monsieur.

The moral of the story. Vous melangez encore les pinceaux.

Flocon a dit…

Rocket,

"My comments will most certainly never hit the light of day on your blog".

Il ne faut pas être négatif comme cela a priori "mon ami", see.

You will have noticed how I answered to Anijo that this post wasn't worth remembering, particulièrement parce que je suis très mal informé du sujet.

Merci donc pour les informations manquantes, j'ignorais qu'il eût passé 15 mois derrière les barreaux et qu'il a eu droit à son perp walk.

Merci également pour la précision sur les 12 jurés sur 12, l'unanimité donc, précieuse information qui permet de mieux comprendre comme se passent les procès criminels aux U.S.

Peut-être O.J Simpson a t-il fait 15 mois de prison parce que tout simplement sa fuite 'Bronco episode with low speed police chase' était en elle-même un délit qui devait nécessairement le conduire en prison.

In which case the 15 months he spent behind the bars had nothing to do with the murder he was accused of and all to do with the police chase episode. C'est ce que je comprends de votre commentaire.

Bon, O.J Simpson is still behind the bars, I simply had no idea and now you tell me, merci.

Voilà un des nombreux intérêts des blogs : on s'informe et on corrige ses erreurs if need be.

Je mentionne donc les corrections que vous apportez sur le billet lui-même.

Had I read the Wiki English page about his trial, I would have had things right at first but, honestly, it was too long a read.

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,

You provided here a mature, generous and high-level response to Rocket.

Bravo.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

It's when people are polite and deferential to me that I'm at my best ;-)

Anijo a dit…

In which case the 15 months he spent behind the bars had nothing to do with the murder he was accused of and all to do with the police chase episode.

I thought Rocket would respond to this, but since he didn't, I will. The 15 months had to do with the murder and the police chase. He was placed in jail because he was arrested for murder and because he was considered a flight risk. DSK was placed in jail because he was considered a flight risk and if he returned to France, he would never be prosecuted (remember Polanski?)

Anonyme a dit…

http://tinyurl.com/5qgctr

-Jan
CDN

Anijo a dit…

LOL Jan!

So many good laughs this morning...

Flocon a dit…

Merci pour les détails re Simpson.

"If he returned to France, he would never be prosecuted (remember Polanski?)"

Just for the sake of exactitude, Polanski was under arrest when he landed in Switzerland where the U.S asked the Swiss authorities to have him delivered to it.

It may surprise you but France has nothing to do with the criminal case of Polanski.

See here

Polanski has dual citizenship, French and Polish, and it seems that only France was accused to protect him which simply wasn't the case.

France like the U.S and many, many other countries simply don't extradite their nationals and of course the U.S knows that which is the reason why it didn't ask France to return Polanski to California.

"Des demandes d'extraditions sont adressées aux pays avec lesquels les États-Unis ont signé une convention d'extradition : en mai 1978 au Royaume-Uni, en décembre 1986 au Canada, en 1988 en Allemagne, au Brésil, au Danemark et en Suède, en octobre 2005 en Thaïlande et en 2007 en Israël. Cependant toutes ces tentatives ont été vaines"

Why doesn't the U.S blame the U.K, Germany, Canada etc?

More information on this page of Wiki dedicated to the case.

As usual France received all the blame for something she wasn't responsible for. One may regret and even condemn the reaction of some part of the French cultural establishment, it remains she had nothing to do with the Polanski case.

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,
Thanks for the correction re Polanski.

Still, you understand why DSK would be considered a flight risk and was thus placed in jail. However, unlike OJ, he gets to spend not 15 months in jail, but the remainder of the time before trial he gets to spend living in luxury.

Flocon a dit…

Salut Jan,

I had to look up who this William Shatner was.

As expected I totaly miss the point here since I don't even know if you posted this video as a hint to our gracious visitor who came the other day (Rocket) or why the cover of the Elton John's song has something specifically funny in it.

I'm out of the picture but it's always nice of you to make a sign.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

"the remainder of the time before trial he gets to spend living in luxury."

For the sake of information again, his wife has tried to rent other more modest appartments in N Y but her proposals were refused by the owners or the neighbourhood who didn't want DSK to stay in their precinct.

It may sound bizarre but in the end he was put in a situation where he had no other choice but to hire a luxury house since he must reside in N Y.

(Some) New Yorkers and the American rules (New Yorker law) are somehow responsible for this state of affair which draws the same indignant reaction here in France.

(I don't have personaly counted how many French are indignant about the luxury house though)

Anijo a dit…

It may sound bizarre but in the end he was put in a situation where he had no other choice but to hire a luxury house since he must reside in N Y.

So how do you explain OJ not being offered the opportunity to hire a luxury house to reside in?

Anijo a dit…

Well, you were indignant about OJ supposedly not spending anytime in jail, and not being subjected to a perk walk unlike DSK who was subjected to both. So now we see that both of them were subjected to the perp walk, and that OJ Simpson spent more time in jail before the trial than DSK has, and OJ was not able to arrange spending said time in luxury accommodations. Which brings us back to something you said: Une petite différence tout de même : Avoir quelques millions de dollars en poche n'est pas forcément un désavantage.

And this brings us back full circle to your conclusion:
Quel que soit le système, accusatoire/inquisitoire qui régit les relations entre les citoyens et leur justice, les petits sont toujours perdants, en France comme aux États-Unis.

Flocon a dit…

Huh?

I understand it's 4 pm in NM and the sabre is still out of the sheath.

Why on earth should I explain how and why the American judiciary system and its servants (civil servants) apply the American law to such and such person the way it's done?

I provide a bit of information and now I'm requested to answer such question???

I'm more concerned by the fact that ZapPow hasn't come today which has never happened before as far as I remember (which means more than three years).

Flocon a dit…

Please remember what I wrote in the beginning : This post isn't worth remembering and I wrote it with "pour ce que j'en sais" and "je crois".

Rocket brought in the necessary information which permitted the post to be corrected.

For what I understand there was a police chase in the case of Simpson which in itself is a felony and an evidence he was (stupidely) trying to escape the police.

AFAK DSK hasn't committed any felony or offense whatsoever.

Anonyme a dit…

>>something specifically funny in it

[2:41-2:45] « A rocket, man »:
http://tinyurl.com/3zs33m9

>>nice of you to make a sign.

« Et voici la couleur »
http://tinyurl.com/44y4ra4

-Jan
CDN