Katzav will spend the next fifteen years in jail. In the process, it became obvious that was an incompetent manager, failed to seduce even one office girl in his long career. I doubt he ever introduced his member into a woman other than his ugly wife. The judges said that Katzav's testimony had been "replete with lies," and that he should have accepted the plea bargain that was offered him. He turned it down at the time, saying he would fight for his complete innocence. But the barracudas ripped his balls off.
14 comments:
Katzav has no one to blame but himself. He took a deal with no jail time, but double crossed the prosecutor and backed out at the last moment, vowing to completely vindicate himself. He played his bluff and lost and must suffer the consequences. Even if he was truly innocent of the charges, such a bold move is risky, but when you are guilty to boot, it is suicidal.
K
Hi all! I'm from London but am living in Berlin at the moment.
Gotta like this forum!
____________________________________
[url=http://stephetteh.wordpress.com/]Barrater is my life[/url]
I think this is a leopard seal ripping up a penguin, but the point is the same.
Anon.
15 years is a gross injustice, especially if he never got to the strategic part. The successors of the Medean woman got him. Men are just sperm donors now.
Anon.,
It is seal ripping a penguin, right. I could not get the picture of the barracudas ripping Katzav's balls off.
"Barracudas" are a code word for middle aged female secretaries and typists that worked in the offices once managed by Katzav and testified against him, and of course the female careerist attorneys and policewomen who prosecuted him. They ripped his balls off.
I'm no expert, but I skimmed the court's opinion (the conviction), and even without access to the unreleased evidence, it seems like the court completely shifted the burden of proof to Katzav, resolving doubts against him (and not requiring the prosecution to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt).
What we are seeing here is the emergence of a new definition of "rape". For example, see Assange's serious problems caused by two adult women who willingly opened their legs for him. Rape? What rape? The same with Katzav. The main accuser willingly went with him to a hotel room, fully aware of his intentions and what was expected from her. In the eternal war between men and women, we are losing badly. We are indefense. Fortunately, at my age, this issue is rather irrelevant for me personally.
Oh, come on. If the woman experiences remorse later, then surely a crime has been committed.
As I said before, Katsav is being punished now for backing out of his deal. The judicial system depends on plea bargains - there is not enough court capacity to actually give every criminal a lengthy trial, so deals are highly encouraged - this is how 99% of cases are resolved. Katsav had a pretty good deal and should have taken it. He would have been raped only a little, just like those women were raped only a little, so it would have been a fair deal. But he wanted to gamble for higher stakes. He gambled and lost. He, by the way, brought the whole affair on himself by claiming he was being blackmailed - until then the prosecutors had no interest. If nothing else he is guilty of being clueless and behind the times. The swinging '60s are over.
Al Gore did the exact same thing and so far has avoided jail, though his wife did leave him. Clinton, Edwards, they all have behaved in the same way. Alpha males are programmed to act this way but the era in which you could club the woman over the head and drag her by the hair to your cave is over - sometimes you have to restrain your instincts.
K
K
Your analysis is much better than mine. The sentence clearly states that he brought this on himself. As in The Bonfire of the Vanities, the number one rule of contemporary living is "avoid being caught in the legal machine."
Katsav is being punished now for backing out of his deal. The judicial system depends on plea bargains - there is not enough court capacity to actually give every criminal a lengthy trial, so deals are highly encouraged - this is how 99% of cases are resolved. In my dealing with the regulating authorities I have felt many times that the worse attitude is to force them to work. If I present a simple and clear submission and follow up with a short verbal explanation, they sign easily. Nothing makes them angrier that have to read a long, complicated document and having to think or to decide. Katzav started by making the big mistake of complaining and forcing the Attorney General and the police to work on a difficult, probably unsolvable, disgusting, risky case. When the Attorney General offered him (and himself) an easy and rapid and secure way out, he rejected it and forced the Attorney and the police to work night and day, risking their careers. He is being pubished for that mistake, not for anything that went on that hotel room, which anyway no one will ever know for sure (nor cares).
The principle of equity matters, even if Katsav had brought it upon himself, the judiciary had the duty to see to it that his rights as an ordinary citizen against the powers of the state were protected. American-style plea bargaining is a travesty that encourages snitches and other forms of loathsomeness.
Equity, shmeckwity - J has the correct analysis. This is how life really is.
Re: avoiding the legal machine, sometimes my clients say, "maybe it would be better if we go to court" because they are unable to settle some matter either with the authorities or w. another party. I tell them that I would rather run naked thru the street than be a party to a lawsuit, on either side.
K
"He is being punished for that mistake, not for anything that went on that hotel room." - The judge said that quite explicitly in his pronouncement. It was not a hidden subtle message but a clear warning pour encourager les autres.
K
That judge ought to be drawn and quartered (figuratively of course). Perhaps the Israelis are afraid of being thought racist, since he is a Christian. All judicial systems derived from the British defend the right of a man to a fair trial without prejudice. It is ultimately based on the inviolability of the individual conscience. If we are going to clear the case backlog one might as well castrate the rapists and be done with it which I imagine is what the feminists have in mind.
Post a Comment