Though many conservatives took some schadenfreude in seeing the Socialist fat-cat Dominique Strauss-Kahn being perp-walked several weeks ago in New York City, I see what happened to Mr. Strauss-Kahn differently.  As someone who admires the US Constitution, I agree with the French that the prosecutor-media collaboration of a perp-walk is unjust and a violation of the presumption of innocence ideal.  In France for this reason the perp-walk is illegal.  Here in the USA the same media that can't wait to smear the image of a famous and accomplished man, keeps the accuser's identity hidden.  Why?  And why does the media all follow each other in lockstep?  Where is the maverick in the media who says "if we are going to participate in the accused man being perp-walked (and creating an image that will poison the jury pool), then we must also publish the identity of the accuser woman"? 

Even when the accuser is discovered to be a fraud, such as in the Duke Lacrosse case, the media still for the most part keeps the accuser's identity a secret.  And even after the fake-rape discovery, the media still never hounded the fraudulent accuser as they had hounded the accused.  And many of these prosecutors who would perp-walk an innocent man will not prosecute a fraudulent accuser, even though the accuser committed perjury, and caused tremendous damage against the accused and their families -- not to mention a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money prosecuting the case.  The woman who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse students was never prosecuted for perjury (and even if she had been, a perjury conviction wouldn't be enough considering she could have imprisoned these innocent men for 15 years of their lives).

The accuser's name in the Duke Lacrosse case became prominent when she was arrested in February of 2010 for attempted murder, first-degree arson, assault and battery, identity theft, communicating threats, damage to property, resisting an officer, and child abuse.  In the end she was convicted of 5 misdemeanors and served 88 days in jail.  A year later, on April 02, 2011, she allegedly stabbed her boyfriend multiple times; he later died of the inflicted stab wounds.  Her name is Chrystal Mangum.  This is the lady that the media was protecting.  

Before the charges were even filed against the young white Duke Lacrosse men, the media of "former prosecutor" types kept speculating how many years these young men could be spending in prison, and whether or not they could also be charged with "hate crimes" since Chrystal Mangum is black.  The same media types never discussed "hate crimes" against Chrystal Mangum when it was discovered she had fabricated the whole story.  Would any man who had fabricated a story endangering the freedom of numerous female students be able to walk away free of any charges?  Never mind answering this question because in today's America it appears that only women can endanger the freedom of men by a mere unsubstantiated accusation. 

In today's world, the accusation alone against any man (especially one of achievement) -- true or not -- will ruin his life, his career, and the lives of all those associated with him.  The anonymous female accusation in America is a modern-day curse on men.  The whole legal system, the whole national media, especially the "former prosecutor" commentators, all appear so eager to discredit men and ruin their reputations.  A good illustration of this would be the CBS video clip (Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal) of an interview by Hannah Storm of former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who frequently can be seen on The O'Reilly Factor, like many other "former prosecutors" types.  The first question CBS anchor Hannah Storm asked Wendy Murphy was why the prosecutor hadn't hurried-up filing the charges against the Duke Lacrosse students.  A follow-up question was if hate charges could be filed against the white males, as well.  The whole premise from the beginning was that the men were guilty, and the idea of  a fraudulent accusation or any consideration of "innocent until proven guilty" seemed lost in this legal expert's analysis.  It appears that in America today men are a little less equal than women.  

Ever since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) with over 1 billion in funding for police and prosecutors, the constitutional ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" has faded, at least for men.  The Salem witch trials appear to have arrived again, except now men are on trial if the finger-pointing at them is that of a woman.  Today if a wife calls the police to have her husband arrested for domestic violence (which doesn't require much), the police and prosecutors will find whatever means they can to prosecute him.  If the wife later tries to recant her statement, admitting she lied, the police and prosecutors regard this as "battered wife syndrome," and dismiss her statements and credibility.  Even if the wife begs them to drop the charges, the prosecutors will seek to proceed.  On the other hand, if the same wife seeks to strengthen the domestic case against her husband, the police and prosecutors will gladly accept more damming evidence.  Like the Salem witch trials, the accused is sunk either way.  And like baseball players have batting averages, today's prosecutors have conviction rates, and the ones on domestic violence convictions, date-rapes, i.e., crimes against women, rank very high on the scoring card as they are tied to VAWA funding and the future political career of a prosecutor -- or future career on The O'Reilly Factor as a legal expert contributor.

Whatever the outcome of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's trial, his life and career have been ruined.  And to my conservative friends, the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is a socialist, perhaps a hypocritical socialist, is irrelevant, in the bigger picture of individual rights and the presumption of innocence.  By the way, who isn't a socialist in America today?   

First of all, let us give the French credit for being honest when they refer to one of their political parties as "Socialists."  The majority of Democrats and Republicans believe in the current IRS tax system and will not eliminate it in favor of a flat tax.  The French correctly call this sliding-scale taxation "socialism."  The Democrats and The New York Times call it "progressive," and the Republicans don't even talk about it, anymore.  When is the last time a prominent American politician talked about eliminating entire governmental departments, such as Amtrak, US Postal Service, IRS, etc (as many European "socialist" countries have done, in whole or in part, over the last two decades).

So before we take pleasure in mocking the hypocrisy of French socialists, let us ask ourselves -- while printing more money -- if we today are any less socialist then the French.  After fighting for border security of foreign nations and for the increase of the standard of living for foreign citizens around the world, does the average American today have a higher standard of living than the average French man?  The truth of the matter is that the United States by any honest measurement today is a socialist nation; we declined into a socialist state several decades ago without the 4 to 8 weeks' paid vacation like the French (call it family values if you wish).   

Furthermore, when is the last time you heard an Attorney General of the United States use the term "individual rights"?  Certainly not Eric Holder, who favors group rights.  Yet, here is what the former French justice minister, Elisabeth Guigou, said according to Business Insider (May 16, 2011): 

The American system "is an accusatory system," while in France, "we have a system that takes perhaps a little more time but which is, despite everything, more protective of individual rights."

In the end, I'm not that concerned about Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn as he has hired one of the best defense attorneys available.  My concern is with all those other accused men who can't afford Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyer, and whose story of injustice goes unreported, as many have, in today's anti-male justice system.