By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Straus Khan

Lostplanet22 on 24 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
non-gravity said:

What they say on Dutch television is that in American courts the truth doesn't matter.

If he gets convicted it's because the media painted him as such and if he goes free it's because he's got the money to hire the best laywers there are.

Nah, if anything that's worse in France.  They're upset we even bothered to arrest him for it.  One of his defenders actually said "It's not like anybody died in there."

If he goes free, it's because it's easy to get away with rape... everywhere.  Though the expensive lawyers will help.

"Being found guilty in the media."  Most celebrities who are found guilty in the media actually still get off.

Look at OJ... you do need some above and beyond evidence for rich people... however at least we try and get justice.

Not really the part that he is arrested;..It was the image of someone like him in handcuffs that bothered people... It has the same feeling like arresting a dictator like Saddam..

And what for justice will it be?  Pay one million bucks and walk out of the country?

You don't think all accused criminals should get treated the same way?

That's the defining point of the US system.  At least trying to have equity no matter who you are.

I think all accussed criminals should get treated the same way.. Just pointing out that the arrest itself was not bothering people in France;.



 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 May 2011
Lostplanet22 said:
MrBubbles said:

 1) i can see france electing him even if he is convicted an in jail at the time

 2)europe talking shit about the american justice system? LOL  talk about corrupt mafia states.

3) how many of them have been shielding roman polanski now?  the guy who raped a little girl in the ass and beloved by europe.

  4) or we could talk about that farce of a trial for the american student in italy, where they have no evidence or reason to believe she really did it...but the prosecutor has a "gut feeling" so thats good enough for everyone. 

1) He is out of the running

2)  They do?

3) In fact only one,  France and Poland don't have an agreement with USA for deporting criminals and that sadly goes both ways.  Switzerland was in fact the only one shielding them considering they had an agreement with USA.

4) After so many cases of people being months...years;.And even 20-30 years in jail while finding out they were in fact innocent I don't see how you can make it an 'only happens in Europe' statement then again that is Italy.  In Italy you are guilty untill you can proof you are innocent.

That's... just awful.

Either way, all this is just showing how the "Europe is more liberal then US" talk is nonsense.



Ail on 24 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
non-gravity said:

What they say on Dutch television is that in American courts the truth doesn't matter.

If he gets convicted it's because the media painted him as such and if he goes free it's because he's got the money to hire the best laywers there are.

Nah, if anything that's worse in France.  They're upset we even bothered to arrest him for it.  One of his defenders actually said "It's not like anybody died in there."

If he goes free, it's because it's easy to get away with rape... everywhere.  Though the expensive lawyers will help.

"Being found guilty in the media."  Most celebrities who are found guilty in the media actually still get off.

Look at OJ... you do need some above and beyond evidence for rich people... however at least we try and get justice.

Not really the part that he is arrested;..It was the image of someone like him in handcuffs that bothered people... It has the same feeling like arresting a dictator like Saddam..

And what for justice will it be?  Pay one million bucks and walk out of the country?

You don't think all accused criminals should get treated the same way?

That's the defining point of the US system.  At least trying to have equity no matter who you are.

*cough* *cough*

If that was the case, the quality of the defense a defendant can mount would not depend on its networth....

If you can't afford a good team of advocates and have to use a public defender the chances you will win as a defendant go down very significantly.......

 

The defining point of the US system is that if you are accused of a crime, you better have a lot of money to defend yourself.........



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Kasz216 on 24 May 2011
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
non-gravity said:

What they say on Dutch television is that in American courts the truth doesn't matter.

If he gets convicted it's because the media painted him as such and if he goes free it's because he's got the money to hire the best laywers there are.

Nah, if anything that's worse in France.  They're upset we even bothered to arrest him for it.  One of his defenders actually said "It's not like anybody died in there."

If he goes free, it's because it's easy to get away with rape... everywhere.  Though the expensive lawyers will help.

"Being found guilty in the media."  Most celebrities who are found guilty in the media actually still get off.

Look at OJ... you do need some above and beyond evidence for rich people... however at least we try and get justice.

Not really the part that he is arrested;..It was the image of someone like him in handcuffs that bothered people... It has the same feeling like arresting a dictator like Saddam..

And what for justice will it be?  Pay one million bucks and walk out of the country?

You don't think all accused criminals should get treated the same way?

That's the defining point of the US system.  At least trying to have equity no matter who you are.

*cough* *cough*

If that was the case, the quality of the defense a defendant can mount would not depend on its networth....

If you can't afford a good team of advocates and have to use the the assign defense counsel the chances you will win as a defendant go down very significantly.......

 

The defining point of the US system is that if you are accused of a crime, you better have a lot of money to defend yourself.........


Like I said "try".  Corporations tend to get away with a lot of shit, as do rich people, but I don't really see a better option out there.

I'd like it if there was a cap you could spend on legal defense, but relying soley on public defenders would be a bad move.


Public defenders are pretty awful, it'd be better off if instead of a public defender, the government gives you money to hire your own lawyer.



sapphi_snake on 25 May 2011
Kasz216 said:


Like I said "try".  Corporations tend to get away with a lot of shit, as do rich people, but I don't really see a better option out there.

I'd like it if there was a cap you could spend on legal defense, but relying soley on public defenders would be a bad move.


Public defenders are pretty awful, it'd be better off if instead of a public defender, the government gives you money to hire your own lawyer.

OR they make public defenders mandatory, in civil cases too. That way everyone will have crappy lawyers (well, actually the good on es will be obligated to work for less).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 25 May 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:


Like I said "try".  Corporations tend to get away with a lot of shit, as do rich people, but I don't really see a better option out there.

I'd like it if there was a cap you could spend on legal defense, but relying soley on public defenders would be a bad move.


Public defenders are pretty awful, it'd be better off if instead of a public defender, the government gives you money to hire your own lawyer.

OR they make public defenders mandatory, in civil cases too. That way everyone will have crappy lawyers (well, actually the good on es will be obligated to work for less).

Wouldn't work.  The civil defenders are chosen by the courts.  So the courts would no doubt just go and choose the best lawyers for their friends... and crappy lawyers for their enemys.

There friends being big companies and powerful people... because Judges often move into regular politics to run for govonerships and senator spots.  The current govoner of the State i live in was a Judge who gave up a lifetime apointment to run for mayor with money from the Oil Lobby.


Give vouchers, and let people pick their own lawyers... and since they won't get paid more anyway, Lawyers will just gravitate to cases where they believe the people asking for their help, and the bad lawyers who don't care will be run out of the buisness because nobody will go to them.

You could even keep the current system, but set a spending cap, with the rule that you can exceed the cap... but you must declare that you are exceeding it immediatly and the government will provide the extra amount to the other side... but if you lose after increase spending... you have to pay what the government fronted the poorer side as well.



sapphi_snake on 26 May 2011
Kasz216 said:

Wouldn't work.  The civil defenders are chosen by the courts.  So the courts would no doubt just go and choose the best lawyers for their friends... and crappy lawyers for their enemys.

There friends being big companies and powerful people... because Judges often move into regular politics to run for govonerships and senator spots.  The current govoner of the State i live in was a Judge who gave up a lifetime apointment to run for mayor with money from the Oil Lobby.


Give vouchers, and let people pick their own lawyers... and since they won't get paid more anyway, Lawyers will just gravitate to cases where they believe the people asking for their help, and the bad lawyers who don't care will be run out of the buisness because nobody will go to them.

You could even keep the current system, but set a spending cap, with the rule that you can exceed the cap... but you must declare that you are exceeding it immediatly and the government will provide the extra amount to the other side... but if you lose after increase spending... you have to pay what the government fronted the poorer side as well.

That could work. Another solution would be randomly assigning civil defenders, rather than having judges pick them. It would also be nice if judges were's elected, but rather got their position through some sort of exam or something.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 on 26 May 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Wouldn't work.  The civil defenders are chosen by the courts.  So the courts would no doubt just go and choose the best lawyers for their friends... and crappy lawyers for their enemys.

There friends being big companies and powerful people... because Judges often move into regular politics to run for govonerships and senator spots.  The current govoner of the State i live in was a Judge who gave up a lifetime apointment to run for mayor with money from the Oil Lobby.


Give vouchers, and let people pick their own lawyers... and since they won't get paid more anyway, Lawyers will just gravitate to cases where they believe the people asking for their help, and the bad lawyers who don't care will be run out of the buisness because nobody will go to them.

You could even keep the current system, but set a spending cap, with the rule that you can exceed the cap... but you must declare that you are exceeding it immediatly and the government will provide the extra amount to the other side... but if you lose after increase spending... you have to pay what the government fronted the poorer side as well.

That could work. Another solution would be randomly assigning civil defenders, rather than having judges pick them. It would also be nice if judges were's elected, but rather got their position through some sort of exam or something.

Eh, then politicians would just change the exams to fit their point of view.