An American observer comments on French politics.
During the DSK affair, I understood that French prosecutors directly obey the president, in complete disregard for separation of powers. Hence if the prosecutor won't prosecute, it means someone told them NOT to do their job. Do you have another explanation?(I did think that it could be the prosecutor is one of Chirac's friends. There's a lot of tolerance for conflit of interest in the legal system here, as far as I can tell.)
If Chirac is not fit to stand trial, because he is not capable of understanding and participating in his own defense, (Chirac is said to suffer from a dementia disorder) then how can they proceed? Can they try him without him being present, without being able to confront his accusers? If they can try someone in abstentia, why not post mortem? I'm sure a Mitterrand trial would shine an interesting light on the French justice system.
In inquisitorial systems it is quite common for the prosecutor to argue for acquittal. The same happened in the Netherlands with Geert Wilders earlier this year. If they don't think the guy did it, their duty is to say so.As for separation of powers, I don't see what that has to do with anything. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch of government, even if it is better if they do their job with some measure of independence.
Post a Comment