Creepy Ben Stein Defends Accused Rapist

There are some people that just creep you out when you look at them. Ben Stein (pictured) is one of those people for me. Stein is a creationist and conservative apologist, but probably is best known for his commercials for Visine eye drops and FreeCredit.com (which is far from free). Now he has added something else to his repertoire -- defender of rapists and attacker of victims.

As you may know, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was arrested in New York City for trying to rape a hotel maid. He is being held without bail for now. This is not the first time to be accused of sexual impropriety for Strauss-Kahn. Back in 2008 he coerced a female economist who worked under him to engage in an affair. He obviously thinks since he is an important international financier he can have his way with women who have little power.

But Stein never met a banker he didn't like. In a column for the conservative magazine American Spectator Stein sprang to the defense of Strauss-Kahn and attacked his victim. Here is some of what he wrote:

I have had hotel maids that were complete lunatics, stealing airline tickets from me, stealing money from me, throwing away important papers, stealing medications from me. How do we know that this woman’s word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?


The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn “forced” the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He’s a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it’s anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?

I could understand someone saying Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proven guilty, because that is how our system of law works. But Stein's unwarranted attack on a victim of sexual assault is beyond the pale. I had thought Stein couldn't get much lower than his disingenuous defense of creationism in the fundie film Expelled. I was wrong. He has found a way to get lower.

If the accused had been a sports figure or Hip-Hop artist, Stein would have been one of the first to condemn the crime. But it was a rich and powerful banker, so Stein attacked the victim instead. I'm beginning to think there is no bottom for this creep.

Maryland Judge Releases Rapist

This case is clearly a travesty of justice. Last week in Maryland, Montgomery County Circuit Judge Katherine Savage dismissed all charges against a man accused of raping and repeatedly molesting a seven-year-old girl. She said he had been denied his right to a speedy trial.

The man had been arrested in August of 2004. Why had his trial not been held? It turns out that he is a Liberian immigrant, and his native language (Vai) is only spoken by about 100,000 people in a small region in Liberia (and part of Sierra Leone).

Even though the man had attended both high school and community college in the United States, and had spoken english to the police who investigated the crime, a court-appointed psychiatrist recommended that an interpreter be found for the man. The court agreed.

The court clerk said she had contacted the Liberian embassy and courts in all but three states. The first interpreter left the courtroom in tears because she couldn't take the graphic details of the horrid crime. A second interpreter was dismissed for faulty work. A third couldn't show up at the last minute because of personal family problems.

Finally, a suitable interpreter was found, but the judge ruled it had taken too long and dismissed the case. I believe her ruling was in error, and I hope the prosecutors can get it overturned on appeal.

The Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial was to prevent prosecutors from jailing someone for a long period of time while they continued to search for evidence. That does not apply in this case.

The prosecutors have been ready to go to trial for three years, but have been prevented from doing so by a defense request for an interpreter. I have doubts that an interpreter was really needed in this case, but if one was, it was to help insure the defendent got a fair trial. It was not a prosecution attempt to delay the trial while they searched for evidence.

The defense should not be allowed to make demands that delay a trial for years, and then profit from that delay by having the case dismissed for lack of a speedy trial. Furthermore, this defendent has not been incarcerated during this wait for his requested interpreter. He only spent one night in jail, and then was released on $10,000 bond (another travesty).

This judge was wrong. She allowed the defendent to delay the trial and then rewarded him for it. She should be ashamed of herself for turning this child molester loose on society!