Mr. Stein should get to know more statisticians, or perhaps a high school math teacher.
Former International Monetary Fund managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn faces charges of attempted rape and criminal sexual contact in the alleged attack on a maid who went into his room to clean it. In his letter of resignation from the IMF, Mr. Strauss-Kahn denies “with the greatest possible firmness all of the allegations that have been made against me.” The media’s response, especially the opinion pieces, provides a window into how the issue of sexual assault, survivors, and the people accused of perpetrating such crimes are treated by our society. On one hand, women like NYT’s Maureen Dowd praise the American judicial system “where even a maid can have dignity and be listened to when she accuses one of the most powerful men in the world of being a predator.”
Others, like French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, believe that “nothing in the world can justify a man being thus thrown to the dogs.” Absent in his article in the Daily Beast is any concern for the trauma that the woman is experiencing as a result of the alleged assault, or the ensuing media circus. But it’s Ben Stein who sets a new low in his American Spectator article. Mr. Stein callously throws out worn-out and intellectually anemic arguments in a trite defense of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s presumed innocence. Permit me a brief intellectual battle with Ford and Nixon’s former speechwriter.
♦◊♦
1) “If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn’t he ever get charged until now?”
Serial killers, con-artists, and all repeat offenders, be sure to ask for Mr. Stein’s representation at your first trial. I wonder how long habitual criminals need to get away with their crimes before Stein’s “well, they’ve never been caught before” line of defense becomes valid? If it wasn’t defending against such a violent crime, this question would be delightful in its nonsense. Mr. Stein’s statement also manages to be ignorant of the low rates of reporting these crimes (explaining why he might not have been charged until now), while reinforcing one of the main reasons people don’t report: survivors think they won’t be believed.
2) “Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?”
First of all, read this. Then watch this. Looks like, yep, some economists have been convicted of truly heinous sex crimes, including Paul Bernardo, who with his wife “drugged, raped, and tortured to death a number of schoolgirls in the late ’80s and early ’90s.”
Mr. Stein must be writing this with a Mad-Libs generator. Can anyone tell me any (insert profession here) who have been convicted of (insert crime here)? It works with almost every profession and crime! While Mr. Stein may know hundreds of economists to sample from, I’ll wager that the average reader could only name less than 10 economists. Considering studies estimate that around five percent of men (American, not French) have committed a violent sex crime, basic math dictates that most people would not know of an economist convicted of sex crimes. Of course, this estimation ignores that a) people generally don’t know the criminal history of said economists, b) conviction rates for these kinds of violent sex crimes are low, c) prosecutors have a high bar for taking reported sexual assaults to trial, and d) sexual assaults are rarely reported to police to begin with. Mr. Stein should get to know more statisticians, or perhaps a high school math teacher.
3) “He’s a short, fat, old man … How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?”
It’s probably impossible for Mr. Stein, a wealthy Hollywood actor, lawyer, news pundit, and author, to put himself in the place of a poor, immigrant, single mother and evaluate how someone in “that situation” (a violent sexual assault) might be intimidated, so I won’t bother asking him to. Personally, I would feel intimidated just being in a $3,000-a-night hotel room, let alone being in there to clean and suddenly having a man run naked at me, shut the door to the hallway that I left open, and physically force me to perform sex acts. I’ll wager that if Mr. Stein was in the exact same situation, he’d feel intimidated too. And when Mr. Strauss-Kahn was finished with his assault, and Mr. Stein was let out of the room and safe, I bet he would consider reporting.
Thinking more about Mr. Stein’s description of Mr. Strauss as “short-fat-old” and if the sex was consensual actually makes me lean even more towards the conclusion that it was not. Does Mr. Stein presume that a maid in her 30’s is excited when she enters a hotel room to clean it and finds out that a short, fat, old man that she’s never met wants to have sex immediately?
4) “How do we know that this woman’s word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?”
In these kinds of cases, a woman’s word typically isn’t good enough to bring charges. Most prosecutors won’t take a pure “she said, he said” case. If you were a prosecutor, would you charge Mr. Strauss-Kahn in such a high-profile case, with your professional reputation on the line, for a crime that is incredibly difficult to get a conviction for, if you didn’t have confidence in that the survivor wasn’t just telling the truth, but that you had additional evidence to corroborate her story?
5) “In what possible way is the price of the hotel room relevant except in every way: this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about.”
No, it’s about rape. History teaches us that all too often the “haves” believe they have the right to act with impunity and take advantage of “have-nots” in whatever way they want. This is a case about rape and power, and that’s what it’s all about.
6) “Diane Sawyer [said] that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is in Riker’s … ‘because one woman stood her ground …’ That assumes she’s telling the truth and he’s guilty … it’s unfortunate for ABC to simply assume that an accusation is the same as a conviction.”
First, ABC did not report that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty or was convicted. The phrase “stood her ground” is generally accepted to mean standing up for one’s rights or stick by an opinion, and historically is about a person’s refusal to move backwards when challenged in a fight. In this case, the phrase likely refers to all of the forces that would influence someone in her position to not report such a crime. She could jeopardize her employment, endure the painful experience of having to re-tell her story over and over, refute claims against her story, and attacks on her personal character by the defense.
Secondly, the second half of Ms. Sawyer’s “unfortunate” sentence is “and said he attacked her.” Ms. Sawyer did not state “because he attacked her.” Mr. Stein might argue that the report didn’t do enough to emphasize that he is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, the media have a responsibility to report fairly, but that doesn’t mean they are required to conform to the standards of the legal system.
I’ll save most of my thoughts on how we can uphold our commitment to “innocent until proven guilty” while simultaneously believing survivors of sexual assault for a separate article. In a few words, guilt is the determination of a judicial system, not a personal belief. No citizen (or non-citizen!) has “the right” to demand that other people suspend their beliefs. I have every right to look at the evidence available and make a personal conclusion. Right now, from everything we know about this case, additional claims of sexual assault against him, the high frequency of sexual assault in our society, the incredibly low rates of reporting, and how rapists target their victims to reduce the likelihood of being accused, Mr. Strauss-Kahn sounds like a guilty man to me.
This article is reprinted at MenSpeakUp.org.
(Photo via Haonavy)
What amaze me, is the comment about Strauss kahn “being guilty” even if he is declared innocent in court.
People stating this kind of comment are without a shadow of a doubt the same that would be indignant by concerns over the american justice system.
I see so many people that already judged DSK guilty and would see any future acquittal as the manifestation of the alleged perpetrator’s political and financial power, that I begin to wonder if this case isn’t the demonstration of america’s penal system failure.
” the high frequency of sexual assault in our society, the incredibly low rates of reporting, and how rapists target their victims to reduce the likelihood of being accused, Mr. Strauss-Kahn sounds like a guilty man to me.”
What about the high rate of false accusations for rape? Isn’t that an important factor. Its been heavily documented in legal review articles that the false accusation rate for rape is much much higher for rape than other crimes.
@ Jacobtk: I don’t think you understand the difference between a legal standard and my personal opinion. The presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution (the government) prove that he is responsible for the crime he is charged with beyond a reasonable doubt. @Catullus: I think DSK is guilty, saying I “decided” makes it sound like my opinion has some sort of legal weight. But, as it stands today, he is innocent. In addition to the high legal standard that the prosecution is held to, another protection of DSK’s presumption of innocence is that based on my professional background, I… Read more »
Don’t worry Avakian, I doubt you’ll be inconvenienced by anyone thinking your opinion has any legal weight. By the by, if you reflexively “believe a survivor,” perhaps the word ‘decide’ is the apt one to describe what you think of DSK’s guilt or lack thereof.
One reason why this article is wrong: In the United States, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the only point Ben Stein was making and he is correct.
Did you even read Stein’s statements? That was not the only point he was making… he was making seriously flawed ‘points’ all over the place…
Like that he thinks economists cannot be criminals because only criminals are criminals. Wrap your head around that classist trope.
Or that his former hotel staff are crazy therefore this woman must be crazy. What??? He knows jack shit about this woman and is just basically smearing her and all hotel workers.
There was recent lampooning of stein on salon. Stein’s arguments are so feeble that i believe him to be a professional troll, deliberately provocative. Hes bad at it too, but h gets his publication’s publicity and clicks
The same thing applies to people like Ben Stein, yet here he is being told to suspend his belief, or accurately disbelief. Cases like this one tend to bring out the worse in people. On one hand, people will assume the accuser is lying no matter what. On the other, people will assume the accuser is telling the truth no matter what. There have been a number of high-profile rape cases where the accuser was actually a victim and a number where the accuser lied their pants off. In all of those cases the accusations sounded believable, plausible, and allegedly… Read more »
Look even if Strauss ís declared not guilty it is almost certain he did what he is accused of doing. When a reputable police force says to a reputable prosecutor they got the guy is because they are sure he did it. It is a different matter Esther they will be able to prove it in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. Sure as hell no reasonable woman will treat him otherwise. Specially when another woman in France says he almost raped her. So if he is not convicted it is obvious women have to treat him as a… Read more »
A reputable police force? There’s no such thing as a reputable police force. And a prosecutor even less so. Just look at Mary Kellett, and the dick that withheld DNA evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case. The police and DAs exist to send men to prison, regardless of their innocence. The claim of an interviewer that he assaulted her is one of the most blatant lies in the history of the world. What kind of idiot, or psychopath unable to control his own impulses would sexually assault the woman that came INTERVIEW him. You know, the woman that CONTROLS THE… Read more »
“…in a culture where if you yell rape you get pretty much a free ride…”
Uh, on what planet does this culture exist?
Certainly it can be both. You are confusing people’s personal beliefs with a conviction in a court of law. One can personally believe that DSK committed a crime and simultaneously believe that DSK should be freed if the government cannot prove that crime.
If you, personally with your own eyes, witnessed DSK commit attempted rape, does that mean DSK is guilty? No, because he still has that presumption of innocence under the law, and what you saw is merely evidence.
Entirely correct and succintly stated, mythago. I hope you’ll write that article Seth Avakian alludes to in the first sentence of his final paragraph. I have a feeling he’ll never get around to it, seeing that’s he’s decided DSK is gulity and all that. Besides, you have the expertise that comes with being an attorney.
Certainly it can be both. You are confusing people’s personal beliefs with a conviction in a court of law. One can personally believe that DSK committed a crime and simultaneously believe that DSK should be freed if the government cannot prove that crime. That was not Avakian’s contention. His contention was whether a person could uphold the notion that someone is innocent until proven guilty while simultaneously believing that a person claiming rape was indeed victimized. One cannot simultaneously believe no crime happened and a crime did happen. Certainly you can believe that a person should have their day in… Read more »
There is subjective victimhood and the legal fabrication over what constitutes ‘rape.’ The common law says ‘rape’ is vaginal penetration without consent. This is a legal ‘imaginary line’… Would forcing someone to perform oral being any less of a violation? Would forced anal penetration be any less of a violation? Would it be less of a violation if the victim was a man? No. Under the common law all other offenses are relegated to ‘sex offenses’ which may or may not carry lighter sentences. Obviously the common law is severely out of touch with reality and dates back to a… Read more »