Here, DSK would have had no ‘perp walk’

ID Dominique Strauss-Khan get justice? Was he the victim of a system that convicts before charges can even be answered? Or is he a lucky boy, who can thank his powerful position for beating a rap that he deserved?

How would he have fared in this country?

The Irish criminal justice system is much-maligned in the court of public opinion.

A large swathe of the citizenry believes it is merely a game for lawyers in which criminals either get off, or — if convicted — never receive appropriate sentences.

The latest manifestation of this verdict on the system was the results of research compiled by the Department of Justice and published in the Irish Examiner on August 17.

“People from across the country have told the Government they do not have confidence in the criminal justice system, and say criminals are not being held to account quickly or punished sufficiently,” the report stated.

This deficit of confidence is also prevalent in Britain, which has a similar criminal justice system to ours. So how does the system on this side of the Atlantic compare to the one in America?

DSK — as Strauss-Kahn is known — was one of the most powerful figures in the world when he was taken off a plane at JFK and arrested on May 14. A former French government minister, he was head of the International Monetary Fund, and widely tipped to be a candidate for the presidency in upcoming French elections. He was scheduled to meet Angela Merkel the day after his arrest.

DSK had earlier checked out of the exclusive Sofitel Hotel in New York’s Times Square district. A hotel maid, who was attending to his room before he checked out, claimed that he had sexually assaulted her.

Nafissatou Diallo, a 33-year-old Ghanian, said DSK emerged from his bathroom naked and assaulted her. He, it would later emerge, claimed they had consensual sex.

DSK was locked up for six days. He was forced to do the “perp walk”, attending his court hearing handcuffed and accompanied by officers.

He appeared in a dishevelled manner.

Soon after, he resigned as head of the IMF. His political ambitions died on the spot.

He was released on bail of $6 million (€4.1m), which effectively amounted to house arrest.

Was it necessary to arrest him on the plane? At that point, the police had nothing more than a complaint made against him. He worked out of New York. The chance that he was a genuine flight risk was very low.

The manner of his arrest suggested that he was fleeing, with the word “guilty” plastered to his forehead.

Prosecutors in most US states are elected officials. This leaves them accountable to the whims of the public. Nabbing a high-profile suspect every so often serves to reassure the voters that everybody is equal before the law. Whether justice is served by acting in this manner is another matter.

In this country, the DPP is a wholly independent office. This confers great power on the director. Like anybody, his judgement may be fallible at times, but at least he is not subject to the passing whims of outside bodies like politicians, the media or the public.

Even before DSK was released on bail, the PR battle was enjoined. Both sides leaked frequently to the media about the strength of their respective cases, and the “facts” as they claimed them to be.

Diallo was interviewed on national TV and gave her side of the story.

According to observers Stateside, her plight has evoked great sympathy.

None of this would have happened here. Once charges have been laid, it is an offence to publish or broadcast anything that might prejudice a trial. This includes material from the background of a defendant, or a complainant.

The idea is that any prospective jury should not be swayed by anything they saw or heard about the principals of a case outside the confines of a trial. In this way, there is a better chance that guilt or innocence will be decided based on the facts of a case alone.

On July 1, word began to seep out that the prosecutor was considering dropping the charges. The problem was Diallo’s credibility. She had lied to get into the country, and since the incident she had had a phone conversation with her boyfriend in prison, referring to the possibility of getting her hands on DSK’s money.

The prosecutor decided that her credibility would be shot to bits by DSK’s high-priced lawyers.

In this country, the best legal counsel is equally accessible to both defence and prosecution, ensuring that there is no great imbalance in representation.

Unlike in the States, the DPP in this country, generally, does not, with a few exceptions, give reasons for not proceeding with a prosecution.

This is designed to ensure that a suspect who is innocent in the eyes of the law is not convicted in the court of public opinion.

If a prosecution didn’t go ahead, for instance, because of a faulty warrant, then everybody would assume that the suspect was guilty, and he would be subjected to that label. That must surely be unfair when the suspect never had the chance to defend himself in open court.

The DSK criminal case was wrapped up in three months. If a trial was required, it would have taken place before the end of the year.

In this jurisdiction, defendants and victims might have to wait for years for a day in court.

In a recent instance, in which four gardaí were acquitted of assault and other charges, the case arrived in court after three-and-a-half years, during which time all were suspended.

In 2009, the swindler Bernie Madoff was locked up for life just six months after he first revealed to the world the extent of his crimes. The Madoff case highlighted another difference between the two systems. White-collar crime Stateside is dealt with in a manner that is deficient on this side of the Atlantic.

There are pros and cons in both systems.

In the USA, money is the surest way of beating any rap, whether it is violent or white-collar crime.

Their system also ensures there is a greater chance of a miscarriage of justice, particularly due to the quality of counsel available to the poorest.

Despite the perceptions in this country of the guilty walking free, 95% of all suspects charged with a crime end up with a conviction. Prison sentences in the US tend to be longer, but there is no evidence that this approach has impacted on the level of crime.

Stateside, at least, they have a system that deals with cases expeditiously, which is something that badly requires addressing in this country. One other difference worth noting is that over there, judges and lawyers are not required to tog out in the pantomime gear, something which continues to bedevil the court system in this country.