• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Planigale said:
I never claimed every person charged with murder should not be subject to pre-trial detention. So your post is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You said people charged with murder are given bail. My post is entirely relevant.

Maxwell is charged with trafficking, perjury, facilitation etc. but not rape or sexual assault. No violent crime.
Click to expand...
Maxwell is charged with trafficking, yes. Indeed, the trafficking she's suspected of was for the purposes of rape and sexual assault. I'm not sure why you keep minimizing this, but minimizing it you are:

Given that not every person charged with a crime as serious as murder is subject to pre-trial detention certainly the crimes Maxwell is charged with do not per se justify pre-trial detention.
Click to expand...
The purpose of denying bail is to prevent the accused from attempting to flee before the trial. Not to prevent them from committing more crimes while they wait for the trial to begin.

I do not think there is a realistic argument that she is a danger to the public in that there are no allegations she has committed any crimes in the last 15+ years. So the sole argument is the flight risk. One that rests on non-evidence based claims by the prosecution, that goes against the historic evidence that Maxwell does not have limitless financial resources, and a belief that James Bond represents real life.
Click to expand...
I think there is very much a realistic argument that she is a danger to the public. You made the argument yourself, even:

Planigale said:
France would not have extradited her, and the traditional French view of the sort of activities she is accused of would have been a gallic shrug of shoulder and comment on anglo-saxon prudity.
Click to expand...
But then you seem to think that trafficking minors for the purposes of rape and sexual assault isn't really a danger to the public at all. Even if she fled to France, and resumed such activities, it wouldn't be a danger to the public according to you. Since in your opinion only an anglo-saxon prude would actually object to such a thing.

Out of one side of your mouth you say you think she's probably guilty. Out of the other side of your mouth you say that she's not guilty of anything you think should be a crime.

Why are you so tolerant of trafficking minors for the purpose of rape and sexual assault?
 
Planigale said:
So can I get a consensus from the opposition? Mathew Best says legal authorities do not assume guilt and you say they do.
Click to expand...
I do not in fact say that.

I accept that pre-trial detention seems to be more acceptable in the US than in the civilised world.
Click to expand...
It is both hilarious and depressing that you are more offended about pre-trial detention than you are about trafficking minors for the purposes of rape and sexual assault.

That something happens routinely is not an argument for it being moral.
Click to expand...
It does, however, raise questions about why you've singled out Ghislaine Maxwell for this debate. It's been happening routinely your entire adult life. Is this really the first time you've noticed it and stopped to question the practice? Or is it the idea of detaining a child sex trafficker specifically that grinds your gears?
 
Planigale said:
To be clear I am not a US resident. So I may make assumptions about the legal system based on English law that is not relevant to the US; apologies if I have done so. In the UK about 1/6 of those incarcerated are pre trial as opposed to over half in New York.
Click to expand...

To be clear: The UK justice system does in fact detain people before trial, even though they are not yet proven guilty of anything. Maybe your time would be better spent writing to your PM.
 
So I think we all acknowledge that

a. a bail hearing is a right, but the granting of bail is a privelege

b. There are times when it is appropriate that bail is not granted​


So the debate is, in this case, does the risk of flight outweigh the privilege of granting bail? In the opinions of Planigale and Samson it does not, while in the opinions of pretty much everyone else in the discussion, including myself, it does.

In my case, I believe the risk of flight is extreme, and I back that up with

a. Her well known network of powerful people who are in a position to help.

b. Her extensive overseas financial resources

c. Her well known long track record of evading legal authorities.

d. The fact that she went into hiding when she realised the FBI was looking for her.

e. The fact that she remained in hiding when the FBI obtained a warrant for her arrest.

f. The fact that she was in hiding when they arrested her and tried to run when they arrived at her home.

g. The fact that she took physical steps to remain undetectable.
​
All of the above points to an extreme flight risk IMO. If Planigale and Samson are going to argue that none of the above warrants regarding the suspect as a flight risk, then one wonders what it would take to satisfy them that someone was an actual flight risk?
.
.
.
.
 
arthwollipot said:
Hmm. I wonder if there's a reason why some countries are reluctant to extradite people who have committed serious crimes to America.
Click to expand...

According to Planigale, France would be reluctant because the French don't actually consider trafficking minors for rape to be a serious crime. It's not clear whether she herself shares this "French" view. Her willingness to accept the risk that Maxwell will flee to France and receive no more than a gallic shrug as punishment suggests that she does, though.
 
arthwollipot said:
Hmm. I wonder if there's a reason why some countries are reluctant to extradite people who have committed serious crimes to America.
Click to expand...

Some countries will not extradite their own citizens anywhere for any reason, without regard to the nature of a particular crime.
 
Planigale said:
So the evidence that this is false? Given that the legal assumption is innocence until proven guilty?
Click to expand...

To repeat, "presumption of innocence" applies to the judge and jury at trial. The prosecution must prove guilt to them beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not apply to the police who arrest and charge someone and are sure they've got the right guy, nor to the prosecutors who think they have sufficient evidence for a conviction. A judge considering bail does not have to presume that a defendant is no more guilty than a random guy on a bus.
 
Planigale said:
....
Any person is a flight risk. I think the prosecution are exaggerating the risk to obtain leverage for a plea deal.
....
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on this? Do you recognize that she is wealthy, has extensive international connections and holds citizenship in two foreign countries? Hardly the typical shoplifter. And any plea deal would have to include a lengthy prison sentence. At her age she may as well roll the dice.
 
It looks to me that we're circling right around to the first page of this thread, almost a year ago. After the way the Carlos Ghosn slipped out of Japan and fled to Lebanon, out of the reach of international justice, no professional justice system treating cases of accused who are super-rich, connected and hold multiple citizenships would consider much by way of flexibility pre-trial.
 
smartcooky said:
So I think we all acknowledge that

a. a bail hearing is a right, but the granting of bail is a privelege

b. There are times when it is appropriate that bail is not granted​


So the debate is, in this case, does the risk of flight outweigh the privilege of granting bail? In the opinions of Planigale and Samson it does not, while in the opinions of pretty much everyone else in the discussion, including myself, it does.

In my case, I believe the risk of flight is extreme, and I back that up with

a. Her well known network of powerful people who are in a position to help.

b. Her extensive overseas financial resources

c. Her well known long track record of evading legal authorities.

d. The fact that she went into hiding when she realised the FBI was looking for her.

e. The fact that she remained in hiding when the FBI obtained a warrant for her arrest.

f. The fact that she was in hiding when they arrested her and tried to run when they arrived at her home.

g. The fact that she took physical steps to remain undetectable.
​
All of the above points to an extreme flight risk IMO. If Planigale and Samson are going to argue that none of the above warrants regarding the suspect as a flight risk, then one wonders what it would take to satisfy them that someone was an actual flight risk?
.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the list of arguments in favor of granting bail are. I haven't really seen any. I hope the list isn't

a. She's a rich white lady, for chrissakes!
 
Planigale said:
So the evidence that this is false? Given that the legal assumption is innocence until proven guilty?
Click to expand...

The legal assumption in a court of law for the triers of fact is indeed the presumption of innocence. I thought that you weren't discussing the criminal case but were focusing on pre-trial stuff?
 
I do think the conditions she is being kept in should be better as I think remand prisoners should have all the facilities bar their liberty, they are still innocent in the eyes of the law.

I know there is a suicide risk consideration but in the UK* she would be seen regularly by an appropriate medical professional to evaluate her risk.

*Having to star it as the cuts over the last decade or so to the prison service means that often this isn't happening despite it being in regulations.
 
Darat said:
I do think the conditions she is being kept in should be better as I think remand prisoners should have all the facilities bar their liberty, they are still innocent in the eyes of the law.

I know there is a suicide risk consideration but in the UK* she would be seen regularly by an appropriate medical professional to evaluate her risk.

*Having to star it as the cuts over the last decade or so to the prison service means that often this isn't happening despite it being in regulations.
Click to expand...

That's a running theme, first with the Epstein case, and now with Maxwell. American prisons are barbaric. Neglect and deprivation is a normal state of affairs. They aren't often the subject of such high profile attention, but prisoners not doing well in prison is not unusual.
 
Which leads to an interesting line to walk--I'm in favor of improving jail and prison conditions, even radically in many ways. But I've little interest in making someone like Maxwell the poster person for such reform, especially not as a case for letting a flight risk out.
 
theprestige said:
According to Planigale, France would be reluctant because the French don't actually consider trafficking minors for rape to be a serious crime. It's not clear whether she herself shares this "French" view. Her willingness to accept the risk that Maxwell will flee to France and receive no more than a gallic shrug as punishment suggests that she does, though.
Click to expand...

This is a total lie.

Please take this back.

This is just resorting to ad hominem because you lack the ability to make an evidence based argument.

I have never said anything about what the French judicial view of sex crimes is. I have certainly never said anything to defend those who commit sexual assault. I suspect I am the only one on this thread who has actually been subject to a sexual assault as a teenager so do not all you old white men dare to lecture me on rape.

If you cannot sustain a discussion without resorting to blatant lies you have lost the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom