As we remember those who shed these mortal bonds and flew to the arms of God on 9.11.2001, I cannot improve upon the 23rd Psalm.
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul; He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Injustice served...
The case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a situation where just about everything that could go wrong did, leaving the public across the world with the impression that justice was not so much served as dropped on the floor and stomped on. [If you are unfamiliar with the story, google it. The media has already thoroughly covered the topic far more exhaustively than I would.] Since only the two people who were in that hotel suite know the truth, and they disagree so dramatically on what happened, there is very little room to compromise on the ending. The only thing that is clear is that someone lied, and someone is a victim, but we don't know who is which. It is an unsavory and dissatisfying conclusion to a sensational story, driven by a media that believes it has the right to pronounce sentence before all the facts are in.
How profoundly disappointing.
Problems with the outcome abound. Either a callous, self-centered rapist was allowed to go free, or a callous, self-serving money-grubber was allowed to get away with the total destruction of a man's international reputation. The trial by media, fueled by sensational details released by the prosecutor and embellished by an ever eager press, was over before the mug shot was snapped, the head of the IMF convicted more for his past misdeeds and his profligate lifestyle than for anything he did that morning. The reputation of the accuser has also taken a hit, partially from her own lies, and partially because the press went after her, as well.
No where in this situation was pure justice an evident consideration. This was always about evidence and proof, a he said-she said of grand proportions, an international scandal that brought down presidential aspirations and the dreams of a better life for a hotel maid from Guinea.
The French were scandalized by the picture of their presidential hopeful in handcuffs spread across the international news. That he is a roue and a cad seems incontrovertible. Even his best friends have been forced to admit that he cheats on his wife with a regularity and boldness that is somewhat breathtaking even in the morally relaxed France, to say nothing of here in the land of the Puritans. In fact, that seems to have been, in part, at least, his defense. Why, they posited, would a man who can cheat at will with any woman he chooses, take a woman by force? It makes no sense his friends proclaimed, even as another woman came forward with her own story of impropriety.
The prosecutor with the famous name [his father was Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter] and a career to protect brought forth the charges and forcefully defended the accuser, until more information came to light. We all know the wealthy and the powerful have a different system of justice applied to their cases. Perhaps it's unavoidable. But it seems, at least in this case, that the unequal treatment was turned against the man with the big reputation. He was a man who could determine the fate of a country on a whim, but couldn't stop the train wreck in which he had become entangled.
Had he been a poorer man, a less well known man, a less cosmopolitan man, would he have been treated differently? Would they have looked into the reputation of the accuser a little more fully before bringing charges? Would they have found out her lies and her enthusiasm for money before his picture was spread across the globe? I think the answer is obvious, and it says little for American justice that it could be so.
Did the accuser, an immigrant searching for a better life in a new locale, understand how thoroughly her story would be checked out? Did she know that her background would be examined by a press rabid for dirt and details, fueled by clicks rather than a desire for truth? I don't know for sure, but I suspect she had no idea of the scrutiny to which she would be subjected. Would that have changed her mind about reporting the incident? And will that level of scrutiny cause other women, genuine victims of the less famous, to refrain from reporting what they should?
There is another issue, too, which has barely been touched on, but which should matter to anyone concerned with true justice. In practical terms, how do we compensate a man for what was ultimately determined to be an indefensible accusation which ruined his reputation, cost him his job and his political supporters, and forced him to pay the costs for his own house arrest, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars? In the end, the prosecutor requested that the charges be dropped, not because the man was powerful or famous, but because the story of his accuser simply didn't stand the smell test. Is that justice served? For anyone?
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two opposing stories. A powerful, wealthy man, accustomed to getting what he wants, may well have made an assumption that a poor maid in a hotel room wouldn't say no, and acted on the impulse. And the maid, who may have originally said yes, possibly saw the brass ring and grabbed for it, not realizing that if she missed, she would fall off and get run over.
Two people, multiplied by the many lives touched by this scandal, will never be the same. Careers are over because of the fallout. The course of the IMF has been changed, whether for better or for worse remains to be seen, but certainly affecting countries across the globe. Although the long suffering, and one imagines fairly humiliated, wife has stood by her man thus far, I can only think that the marital bond will have been seriously strained by the events of the last few months. The prosecutor will be fighting for his job in the near future, and I can't imagine this episode will be helpful to him in retaining his position.
Two people, two stories, many careers, fabulous wealth, personal reputations, family ties, sex, and international intrigue - this story had just about everything. What it didn't have was a sense that justice was ever an intrinsic part of the process, much less the end goal. Trial by media is the latest fad, and it's one that I hope fades quickly. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't just be an ideal, it should be the reality in a country that prides itself on the fairness of its system of justice.
The events of Saturday, May 14, 2011 will remain shrouded in mystery, perhaps even to the two people who participated in the whole debacle. Wealthy rapist, or falsely accused? Assault victim, or gold digger? Accuser and accused - which was which, we shall never know.
But justice was denied. Of that, we can be assured.
How profoundly disappointing.
Problems with the outcome abound. Either a callous, self-centered rapist was allowed to go free, or a callous, self-serving money-grubber was allowed to get away with the total destruction of a man's international reputation. The trial by media, fueled by sensational details released by the prosecutor and embellished by an ever eager press, was over before the mug shot was snapped, the head of the IMF convicted more for his past misdeeds and his profligate lifestyle than for anything he did that morning. The reputation of the accuser has also taken a hit, partially from her own lies, and partially because the press went after her, as well.
No where in this situation was pure justice an evident consideration. This was always about evidence and proof, a he said-she said of grand proportions, an international scandal that brought down presidential aspirations and the dreams of a better life for a hotel maid from Guinea.
The French were scandalized by the picture of their presidential hopeful in handcuffs spread across the international news. That he is a roue and a cad seems incontrovertible. Even his best friends have been forced to admit that he cheats on his wife with a regularity and boldness that is somewhat breathtaking even in the morally relaxed France, to say nothing of here in the land of the Puritans. In fact, that seems to have been, in part, at least, his defense. Why, they posited, would a man who can cheat at will with any woman he chooses, take a woman by force? It makes no sense his friends proclaimed, even as another woman came forward with her own story of impropriety.
The prosecutor with the famous name [his father was Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter] and a career to protect brought forth the charges and forcefully defended the accuser, until more information came to light. We all know the wealthy and the powerful have a different system of justice applied to their cases. Perhaps it's unavoidable. But it seems, at least in this case, that the unequal treatment was turned against the man with the big reputation. He was a man who could determine the fate of a country on a whim, but couldn't stop the train wreck in which he had become entangled.
Had he been a poorer man, a less well known man, a less cosmopolitan man, would he have been treated differently? Would they have looked into the reputation of the accuser a little more fully before bringing charges? Would they have found out her lies and her enthusiasm for money before his picture was spread across the globe? I think the answer is obvious, and it says little for American justice that it could be so.
Did the accuser, an immigrant searching for a better life in a new locale, understand how thoroughly her story would be checked out? Did she know that her background would be examined by a press rabid for dirt and details, fueled by clicks rather than a desire for truth? I don't know for sure, but I suspect she had no idea of the scrutiny to which she would be subjected. Would that have changed her mind about reporting the incident? And will that level of scrutiny cause other women, genuine victims of the less famous, to refrain from reporting what they should?
There is another issue, too, which has barely been touched on, but which should matter to anyone concerned with true justice. In practical terms, how do we compensate a man for what was ultimately determined to be an indefensible accusation which ruined his reputation, cost him his job and his political supporters, and forced him to pay the costs for his own house arrest, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars? In the end, the prosecutor requested that the charges be dropped, not because the man was powerful or famous, but because the story of his accuser simply didn't stand the smell test. Is that justice served? For anyone?
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two opposing stories. A powerful, wealthy man, accustomed to getting what he wants, may well have made an assumption that a poor maid in a hotel room wouldn't say no, and acted on the impulse. And the maid, who may have originally said yes, possibly saw the brass ring and grabbed for it, not realizing that if she missed, she would fall off and get run over.
Two people, multiplied by the many lives touched by this scandal, will never be the same. Careers are over because of the fallout. The course of the IMF has been changed, whether for better or for worse remains to be seen, but certainly affecting countries across the globe. Although the long suffering, and one imagines fairly humiliated, wife has stood by her man thus far, I can only think that the marital bond will have been seriously strained by the events of the last few months. The prosecutor will be fighting for his job in the near future, and I can't imagine this episode will be helpful to him in retaining his position.
Two people, two stories, many careers, fabulous wealth, personal reputations, family ties, sex, and international intrigue - this story had just about everything. What it didn't have was a sense that justice was ever an intrinsic part of the process, much less the end goal. Trial by media is the latest fad, and it's one that I hope fades quickly. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't just be an ideal, it should be the reality in a country that prides itself on the fairness of its system of justice.
The events of Saturday, May 14, 2011 will remain shrouded in mystery, perhaps even to the two people who participated in the whole debacle. Wealthy rapist, or falsely accused? Assault victim, or gold digger? Accuser and accused - which was which, we shall never know.
But justice was denied. Of that, we can be assured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)