Roman Polanski free

If I dispute what? Your insensitivity for a child being raped by an adult. I don't need to back that up one bit. You are doing a fine job of it yourself.

Arella Mae wrote:

If I dispute what? Your insensitivity for a child being raped by an adult. I don't need to back that up one bit. You are doing a fine job of it yourself.

If I dispute what? Your insensitivity for a child being raped by an adult

Arella Mae wrote:

Quote:

If I dispute what? Your insensitivity for a child being raped by an adult

Your emotional revulsion to facts of this case renders you unable to discuss the facts. You inability to talk about how the victim was viewed at the time also bolsters my case that 2010 is a much different time that 1977 when it comes to childhood sexuality, especially may/December encounters. Though we have not talked much about it, it also highlights how power is a much bigger concern in sexuality now then it was then, at the time that Polanski was older and in a power position did matter, but not anywhere to the decree it does now.

The girl is not on trial and has won a monetary reward in the case.

The girl seeks no vengeance.
She has defended Polanski, more than once.
Its not very nice to essentially drag her name thru the mud,
applying words like "tramp" to her. I think its uncalled for.

Let's see, an adult male rapes a 13 year old child and she gets called a tramp?
Seems to me we have a word for adults who molest/rape children. It's called pedophile!

You are a kind soul, David. Your JJ fix is on my I'm Nervous thread.

Why do you think that things are different now? If anything, the moral fibre at the time would be stronger than it is now.

Quote:

Why do you think that things are different now? If anything, the moral fibre at the time would be stronger than it is now.

To what planet has your extended stay been?

I am totally shocked at your response. I do believe people can be rehabilitated. Please have no doubt about that. However, someone slaughtering, especially laying in wait for them, must serve the time for the crime. What kind of message would it be to criminals if we say, "well, if you can disappear for 18 years and don't kill anyone else, we'll take that into consideration?"

It's not like I think he should get the death penalty but I certainly do believe he lost the right to his freedom a long time ago. Those 18 years he spent "fooling" everyone by lying to them about who and what he was destroyed many lives on top of the CHILDREN he killed that have no life at all, not to mention is elderly mother and his wife.

I do have a problem with certain sexual behaviors being considered crimes. Those things I would consider "sexual matters" rather than crimes. For instance, sodomy laws should not be used to prosecute homosexuals or invade the privacy of either homosexuals or heterosexuals, when the behavior occurs among consenting adults (or minors above the age of consent). I don't think it is the government's business what type of sexual behaviors consenting adults engage in in private. In the past several decades many sodomy laws have been struck down, but some states still have them. I'd favor repealing all of them.

So I also think the struggle for people to receive equal treatment under the law is a battle worth fighting.

It's not that I don't care - it's that I don't know what else I can do beyond speaking my mind and voting my conscience and teaching my children to care about others, no matter where they live.

But like I asked - then what? Because I don't see much change resulting from simply caring and speaking out.

Some breaking news today. Hawkeye, take note.

News Alert
Top court upholds internet luring ruling

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the conviction of an Edmonton man who lured a 13-year-old boy on the internet for sex.

Arella Mae wrote:

I am totally shocked at your response. I do believe people can be rehabilitated. Please have no doubt about that. However, someone slaughtering, especially laying in wait for them, must serve the time for the crime. What kind of message would it be to criminals if we say, "well, if you can disappear for 18 years and don't kill anyone else, we'll take that into consideration?"

Why specially laying in wait for them? Why punish someone for murder harder because they have good planning skills? Having planned to kill them only makes an argument against having doing the killing out of an emotional discharge or something similar.

I understand the law takes that in consideration then applying the punishment, but I fail to understand why.

Disapparearing for 18 or even 10 years is no simple matter. Actually, I think its not anything anyone sane would consider a possibility, unless they have no sense of time. There's the issue of nobody discovering the criminal until 10 years have passed, but if a criminal doesnt intends to be discovered he intends to NEVER be discovered, it would be stupid to plan to not be discovered for only 10 years, and wouldnt really make sense.

Also, forgiving criminals after a long period of time gives then an estimule to confess their crimes, and can end the suffering of relatives of vanished people whom to that day suffered with the doubt, and perhaps would never know. There is a lot of other useful information that could be obtained that way.

Arella Mae wrote:

It's not like I think he should get the death penalty but I certainly do believe he lost the right to his freedom a long time ago. Those 18 years he spent "fooling" everyone by lying to them about who and what he was destroyed many lives on top of the CHILDREN he killed that have no life at all, not to mention is elderly mother and his wife.

I believe the concept of "right" is fundamentally flawed then applied to things such freedom, so we cant really argue here unless you are willing to discuss about "right", but that would be way off topic =)

You seem to consider that the lives of children have higher value than those of non-children. Why? We all know that the instinct we have to protect children is much stronger than the one we do to protect other adults, but that does not make their lives more valuable except, maybe, from an individual standpoint.

Your emotional revulsion to facts of this case renders you unable to discuss the facts. You inability to talk about how the victim was viewed at the time also bolsters my case that 2010 is a much different time than 1977 when it comes to childhood sexuality, especially may/December encounters. Though we have not talked much about it, it also highlights how power is a much bigger concern in sexuality now then it was then, at the time that Polanski was older and in a power position did matter, but not anywhere to the decree it does now.

If you cannot understand what everyone but what?one or two other people (who are just as out there as you are IMO) are saying to you I sure am not arrogant enough to think I'm going to get through to you

I am understanding, I am just not agreeing, and not agreeing to censor out of my comments that which you dont want to hear. You have zero justification for taking personal offense towards me for speaking the truth about how this case was viewed at the time, and why. It has nothing to do with me.

And if you have been following my posting history at all you know damn well that I am not going to let anyones moral righteousness dictate to me my portion of the conversation.

Quote:

The girl is not on trial and has won a monetary reward in the case.

if you were more educated you would know that the primary reason the parents allowed the plea deal was that they knew that given the rules of evidence at the time their daughter was going to be essentially on trial.

If you were more educated, you'd know that the parents were in no position to allow or disallow a plea deal.

Quote:

If you were more educated, you'd know that the parents were in no position to allow or disallow a plea deal.

they were at the time, they are not now only because laws often forbid the DA from exercising discretion.

In the old days DA could overrule the parents, but in practice rarely did.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

Your emotional revulsion to facts of this case renders you unable to discuss the facts. You inability to talk about how the victim was viewed at the time also bolsters my case that 2010 is a much different time than 1977 when it comes to childhood sexuality, especially may/December encounters. Though we have not talked much about it, it also highlights how power is a much bigger concern in sexuality now then it was then, at the time that Polanski was older and in a power position did matter, but not anywhere to the decree it does now.

LAWRENCE SILVER, SAMANTHA GEIMER'S ATTORNEY: I was.

KING: Were you part of the plea bargaining?

SILVER: Larry, today you see Samantha and she's fine, robust, healthy woman. But at age 13, and this was before O.J., there was just the intense publicity. This was -- this courthouse, with cross examination about these sort of delicate events was not the place for a recovering young girl.

KING: So, she never appeared in court?

SILVER: No. Well before the grand jury but never in court. And, you know, the Santa Monica courthouse has five entrances and most news channel had one camera crew at each entrance to try to get a picture.

KING: It would have been a circus?

SILVER: It was a circus. It was a circus.

My job, I thought, was to try to keep her out of the courtroom, try to keep her to getting back to her life.

KING: You did that?

SILVER: And -- yes, I think we did.

KING: Were you shocked what the judge did?

What did the judge do, tell us?

SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover