April 16, 2024

French System Tints View of the Strauss-Kahn Case

PARIS — The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, which continues to crowd out much other news here, is becoming something of a civics lesson in American justice — one that has inspired both biting criticism and some respect.

Legal experts say much of the consternation here over what many consider rough treatment in the news media and the courts is rooted in a general unfamiliarity with an American justice system that differs profoundly — in procedure, tone and philosophy — from the French model.

“There is an aspect of pageantry that we don’t have in our country,” said Judge Marie-Blanche Régnier, who is national secretary of a French magistrates trade union.

While the American justice system has its origins in British common law and involves ordinary citizens at almost every level, the French judicial system is rooted in the Napoleonic Code and is largely conducted behind closed doors. Suspects are typically ushered into courthouses through discrete side entrances, out of view of the public.

State-appointed magistrates prosecute and pass judgment in most trials without the oversight of citizen jurors, who serve only in the most serious cases. In such cases, formal charges come — if they come — only after a lengthy inquest by an investigating judge, who collects evidence on behalf of both the prosecution and defense before determining if a trial is warranted.

And in further contrast to the American system, investigating magistrates are legally bound to secrecy during an inquest.

All too often, critics say, the French system allows cases against well-known people to go nowhere or result in reduced charges without explanation. “For the powerful,” Judge Régnier said, “there is a treatment that can be different.”

Because the magistrates are considered impartial investigators, and are tasked with seeking the truth without bias, the defense typically does not conduct a separate investigation.

Building their arguments primarily on evidence collected by investigating magistrates, and only rarely introducing significant evidence of their own, French lawyers seldom attack the credibility of witnesses or plaintiffs, a common tactic in American court cases.

“We’re going to see the man who could have been the embodiment of the French left obligated — because it’s the American judicial system that wants it — to crush this woman,” Jean-Dominique Merchet, a deputy editor at the weekly magazine Marianne, said on France Info radio. “It’s going to be terrifying.”

Much also has been made here of the 74-year sentence that Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who stepped down as the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, could face if convicted on all counts. American audiences pay little heed to such numbers. But French law puts far stricter limits on sentencing, and discrepancies between maximum terms and sentences as they are handed down are often less drastic.

Noting that the Manhattan district attorney is elected, many French also see the influence of politics in the muscular approach taken toward Mr. Strauss-Kahn, accused by a hotel housekeeper of attacking her in his room.

The “deliberate destruction” of Mr. Strauss-Kahn would probably be a “very winning” electoral strategy, Robert Badinter, a Socialist senator and former justice minister, said on France Inter radio.

Bradley D. Simon, a New York defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said some American lawyers also disliked the “theatrics of the criminal justice system.”

But he rejected French assertions that Mr. Strauss-Kahn had been unfairly singled out. Rather, Mr. Simon said, he is being “treated as badly as everyone else.”

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly criticized the French judiciary as lacking independence.

Writing on his blog after Mr. Strauss-Kahn was arrested, the respected Paris magistrate Philippe Bilger praised the diligence of an American system that “does not hesitate to apprehend even the most emblematic personalities with lightning speed.”

In France, he said, such people “would have had the time to prepare their truth or their lie.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/world/europe/29france.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Square Feet: Government, Too, Has Trouble Selling Buildings

But the federal government did not put the building on the market until November 2009. By then, of course, the real estate market had slumped. Akridge and its partner, Rockwood Capital, a real estate investment fund in White Plains, finally bought the building last October, paying $12.5 million, less than the $14 million asking price.

In a report last October Republicans in Congress pounced on the long delay in selling the Bethesda building — and the discounted price — as an example of how the federal government has been mismanaging its real estate holdings.

The government owns or manages more than 900,000 buildings or other structures across the country — office buildings, courthouses, warehouses and other property types — making it the nation’s largest landlord. But like the former N.I.H. building, about 14,000 are no longer needed and are costly to maintain. An additional 55,000 are regarded as underutilized.

The report was also harshly critical of government spending to operate surplus and underused buildings, including $6.5 million for the Old Post Office Building at 12th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. The administration’s own figures estimate the annual operating expenses for those buildings at more than $1.8 billion.

Last June President Obama ordered executive agencies to accelerate efforts to dispose of unneeded buildings, and set a goal of saving $3 billion by the end of 2012. Yet various obstacles make it difficult for the government to unload buildings it no longer wants.

For one thing they must first be offered to other federal, state and local agencies. Officials also have to ascertain if the building has a community use — say, for a homeless shelter.

At times an agency may want to sell an obsolete building but cannot afford the moving costs, Jeffrey D. Zeints, a deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a telephone interview. Then, too, political considerations may come into play. “Politicians love to come hold a ribbon-cutting for a new building,” Mr. Zeints said. “Getting rid of a building is less rewarding.”

The Obama administration has determined that if the barriers to selling were removed, he said, the savings could be much higher — $15 billion over five years. The sum includes the dollars not spent on maintenance and energy costs as well as sale proceeds.

To speed up the disposal process the administration wants to create an independent commission modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC, a process begun in 1988 to review Defense Department recommendations for closing military bases. The proposed commission, the Civilian Property Realignment Board, would be able to cut through much of the existing red tape, establish new procedures and come up with recommendations for selling property in bulk, Mr. Zeints said.

The commission would also recommend ways the government could use its space more efficiently by, for example, consolidating space or getting agencies to move into one building.

In addition, the legislation is expected to provide incentives for federal agencies by allowing them to share in the proceeds from any sales. To reduce political influence, the commission’s recommendations would be submitted to Congress as a package and not subject to amendment — similar to the way the base closure recommendations were handled. Daniel Werfel, the controller for the Office of Management and Budget, said the commission would include people with experience in commercial real estate, government operations and community development.

The commission concept has bipartisan support, said Jeff Denham, Republican of California and the chairman of the House subcommittee on public buildings. “The goal in the short term is to sell as many buildings as possible to generate some immediate cash flow to help with the debt crisis,” said Mr. Denham, who backed a similar proposal when he was a state legislator. The longer-term goal is to improve the way the federal government handles its real estate needs, he said.

Some real estate experts wondered if a board was necessary. “Whenever government is faced with a problem, the first thing they do is appoint a commission,” said Nicholas R. Smith, an executive vice president at First Potomac Realty Trust, a publicly traded company that leases more than 700,000 square feet to the government. Mr. Smith said the process for selling federal property should simply be made less complex.

Jeffrey D. DeBoer, the chief executive of the Real Estate Roundtable, a Washington trade group that represents industry leaders, described the proposed board as a “positive idea.” But he urged the government to restrict its sales efforts for now to stronger markets with relatively low office vacancy rates, like Manhattan, the Back Bay area of Boston, Washington, San Francisco and the West Side of Los Angeles.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8368f7c9784380dbcaa70f10d268926d