DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN

The prosecuting authorities in New York have asked the judge to drop the criminal case against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. It's important to understand what that means; and also what it doesn't mean.

The case has been dropped because the authorities no longer believe that they can prove DSK's guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", the standard of proof in all criminal cases in the U.S. This is a higher standard of proof than in civil cases, where matters are decided "on the balance of probabilities". And it is right in my view that it should be so. If the state, acting on behalf of society, is going to take away a person's freedom and other rights for long periods of time, then it needs to be pretty sure both that a crime has been committed, and that it has got the right person who committed it. There are, after all, plenty of examples throughout history - too many of them in recent history - where that has not been true.

In a sexual incident that left no signs of violence, and with no third-party witnesses, everything hinges on the testimony of the two persons concerned. Essentially, it would have been DSK's word against hers; and in particular, it would have been his word that she consented (no crime) against hers that she did not (a crime). Unfortunately, she in this instance has repeatedly changed her story, thereby undermining her credibility as the chief prosecution witness. As the motion to dismiss the case succinctly put it, "if we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so".

But if the end result is clear, so too are other things. The first is that a sexual encounter between the two did take place. Semen containing DSK's DNA was found on the woman's dress, which "established that the defendant had engaged in a sexual act with the complainant". Because of this and other things, the prosecutors obviously thought that DSK had committed a crime. But since they can't prove it, he must go free (the option under Scots criminal law, of the third verdict of "not proven", is not available in the U.S.).

It is not for me to judge the morality of what DSK has done; ultimately, that is for him and his wife to sort out. But secondly, in choosing to have a sexual encounter of an almost classical "powerful man meets downtrodden woman" kind, and in the five minutes available to him before he had to get a cab to the airport, DSK showed in my view a stunning error of judgement. Even if his case were 100% true (i.e. it was totally consensual), didn't he stop to think how it would look to the outside world if she chose to reveal it? If the whole Clinton impeachment saga demonstrated one thing, surely it was that not only should sexual relations by the world's most powerful men not be an abuse of power, but they should not be seen to be an abuse of power.

It is common to say that France, and French voters in particular, don't care a fig about this sort of thing, and that DSK can quickly resume what appeared to be his otherwise effortless path towards the Socialist Party's nomination as their candidate in the forthcoming Presidential election. I am not so sure. DSK may well have regained his freedom this week; but I think his reputation has taken a dent that it will be difficult for him to overcome.  

Walter Blotscher