19
   

Roman Polanski free

 
 
ossobuco
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 09:21 pm
@snood,
Maybe informed consent has narrowed since my understanding, but I don't take it your way, firefly.

Perhaps others will post..
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 09:23 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Sex
The question of whether informed consent needs to be formally given before sexual intercourse or other sexual activity, and whether this consent can be withdrawn at any time during the act, is an issue that is currently being discussed in the United States regarding rape and sexual assault legislation. For example, people who perform sexual acts on sleeping people are not given consent unless the initiator have given prior informed consent to the act within a reasonable recency, and are assumed to be consenting during the act and to not prosecute for it when waking up. This is also an issue in rape fantasy enaction which is often discussed by a "ravishment community" of participants (a subset of the BDSM community) who advocate extensive prior negotiation and planning.

While children may be able to give consent, a more complex question applies in terms of informed consent: whether children are developmentally and otherwise able to give informed consent, in particular to an adult, bearing in mind power relationships, maturity, experience and mental development. For this and other reasons most states have an age of consent under which a child is deemed unable to give consent. As evaluation of maturity, mental maturity, child development, child communication, and child intelligence are further explored, this may be based on psychological and medical evaluation of status for sexual activity instead of chronological age.

Animals are not usually considered able to give informed consent in a legal sense (although advocates and some ethologists argue they have the capability to agree and strongly solicit such activity), and partly for this reason, but more usually due to concerns for morality, bestiality is illegal in many jurisdictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

The theory of informed consent has to do with such stuff as rights, the knowability of information, the communication of consent, when the process of informed consent can reasonably be expected from individuals. The problem for the feminists is that consent is a very iffy thing when it comes to sex, and so is the ability for all parties to know what the chain of events will be, where this fling of passion is going to go. Too much of it comes from instinct and the heart, too much is driven from urges that we only loosely know about and have control over. The feminists claim that informed consent is possible and reasonable during all sex, which tells me conclusively that they have never been properly fucked.Or they are lying. Or they are telling other people what to do (and making not doing it a crime which currently is called rape and comes with draculin penalties) when they don't do it themselves all the time.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 10:44 pm
@snood,
My point to Hawkeye was that "informed consent" has no logical meaning in a sexual relationship involving a minor. What on earth would the minor be "informed" about? Who would do the "informing"? The terminology makes no sense in that context.

Most people do encounter "informed consent" regarding certain medical treatments or procedures which might have known risks or side effects. If the person is not made aware of these risks beforehand, the consent they give for treatment would not be "informed".

The same would be true for consenting to participate in some research studies. The person must be informed of the nature of the study, as well as possible risks, in order to give "informed consent" to participate.

The above instances of informed consent are to protect the consumer, but also to legally protect the provider of services from being sued. The thinking is that, once informed, the consumer has willingly consented to take such risks.

I really used medical treatment as the only example of "informed consent" in my previous posts in order to clearly distinguish it from the sort of sexual relationship, or rape, that Hawkeye was referring to. Regarding sexual activity, the law considers consent, or willingness to participate. A child cannot legally give consent to participate in such activity--they are under the age of consent. There is nothing for the child to be "informed" about, they cannot legally give their consent to have sex with an adult, period. And we have been discussing a child in the Roman Polanski case. And this particular child, who was also given drugs and alcohol by Polanski, did not wish to participate in sexual activity.

I did not mean to imply that "informed consent" is not used in other medical areas or by other practitioners in health related fields--dentistry, physical therapy, nursing, psychology, social work, etc. Patients and clients need to be informed about the nature of professional services and treatment, parameters of such treatment, risks or negative effects, confidentiality issues, release of information issues, and anything deemed necessary to comply with HIPAA and state and local statutes, as well as the ethical standards of the various professions. Some of this is legally necessary, some is ethically required, and some is just good business practice. I didn't go into all of that when I initially referred to "informed consent" simply because it was unrelated to the topic we have been discussing regarding Polanski.



hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:15 pm
@firefly,
Quote:

My point to Hawkeye was that "informed consent" has no logical meaning in a sexual relationship involving a minor. What on earth would the minor be "informed" about? Who would do the "informing"? The terminology makes no sense in that context.

???informed consent is a requirement for legal sex, though we often abbreviate to saying consent. I was simply being more precise than you like.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:48 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Maybe there were other incidents also. We really don't know.
U coud say THAT about anyone; no one alive is safe from accusation, under THAT criterion.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:07 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
informed consent is a requirement for legal sex


Therefore, "informed consent" is irrelevant when referring to illegal sex--i.e. sex with a 13 year old. And unlawful sex with a minor is what Polanski pleaded guilty to.

You aren't being more precise. Consent, informed or otherwise, was never an issue in this case. This child did not want to have sex with Polanski and she told him that. Apart from her being below the age of legal consent, she made it clear she was not consenting to sexual activity with him.

Quote:

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Polanski: Justice like Swiss cheese
July 14, 2010

Now that Roman Polanski is free to return to his gilded exile in France, it’s worth remembering what he pleaded guilty to 32 years ago: drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. That would be a shocking crime if it happened in an ordinary suburb and the perpetrator worked in an office park. The fact that Polanski is a brilliant artist shouldn’t matter at all — nor should the time elapsed or the victim’s purported lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Yet the Swiss justice ministry decided not to extradite the 76-year-old director, who was arrested at the Zurich airport last fall on his way to a film festival. Swiss officials said their decision hinged on US prosecutors’ refusal to hand over secret testimony about his sentencing. They also cited “international public order.’’

Polanski’s 1977-78 sentencing was, indeed, shrouded in controversy; his lawyers argue that the judge acted improperly and reneged on a deal. This could become an argument for granting Polanski a new trial or revising his sentence. But letting him stay free, surrounded by luxury and accolades, sends a disturbing message about how money and celebrity can supersede morality and justice, not just in the United States, but around the world.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/07/14/polanski_justice_like_swiss_cheese/
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:12 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Therefore, "informed consent" is irrelevant when referring to illegal sex--i.e. sex with a 13 year old
the complete definition of illegal sex is "sex without informed consent"....so no.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:22 am
@manored,
Arella Mae wrote:

What if that criminal committed murder? John List wasn't caught for nearly 18 years. During the whole time he was on the run he committed no more murders. He was considered a quiet and upstanding citizen of his community, yet he slaughtered his mother, wife, and his children. You think because he then lived a crime free life he should be let off the hook?
Quote:
Depends of why he didnt kill anyone else in the 18 years that followed.


You surely are not serious? He killed his mother, his wife, his daughter, and two or three sons! He laid in wait for each of his children to come home from school and shot them one at a time. One son was shot I think it was a total of nine times. After he killed them all, he calmly sat down and ate himself some dinner and then drove off into the sunset and a new life.

I don't care if a million years were to pass, he would still have to pay for his crime. There is absolutely NO statute of limitations on murder. He lived a lie for 18 years. Lied to his new wife, the community, etc. But I guess that's okay as long as he had the right motive for not committing murder again?

I wonder if it would matter to you if you knew that he killed them as he said "for religious purposes? He couldn't care for them so he sent them to heaven?"
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 08:13 am
punishment.

I think we all agree a person should be punished for wrongdoing.

In this case, are people unhappy he is not receiving the punishment THEY think he should have?

What if , albeit not prison, life events, related to this incident, have occured to him that have caused him exactly the right amount of punishment?

What if, the changed public opinion of him as caused him enough mental anguish and regret?

These stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage. Minds innocent and quiet take that for a hermitage.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 08:35 am
@chai2,
To chai2, from prison

These stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage. Minds innocent and quiet take that for a hermitage.
Roman Lovelace
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 11:03 am
@panzade,
oh....I thought I had just made that up on the spot. Surprised

so, are you saying you cannot think of a situation where an offender does not go to a state sanctioned prison, but nevertheless lived through some sort of punishment?

Just as stone walls do not a prison make, living in a mansion doesn't mean the person has bought himself a free pass.

I don't know if Polanski has suffered a punishment. I don't know that he hasn't.
I don't know that putting him behind bars for awhile at this point might not be as bad as what the last 30 plus years have brought him.

If the victim behind this wants to move on, I think that's a cue that we should too.

Or, would putting him behind bars make just make US feel better?

Yep, that's all that matters, not that the victim doesn't care, not that the offender may feel repentant already, not that prison might not be that bad on him....it's important that the punishment is what we want it to be.

I want you in prison, and I want you to suffer exactly x amount.

Then, I will feel better.
firefly
 
  5  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 11:05 am
@chai2,
Quote:
What if , albeit not prison, life events, related to this incident, have occurred to him that have caused him exactly the right amount of punishment?

What if, the changed public opinion of him as caused him enough mental anguish and regret?


What's being overlooked is the fact that Polanski fled the country, before being sentenced, and he has been a fugitive from justice for the past 33 years. So, in addition to the original crime of rape, Polanski committed the additional crime of fleeing the country to avoid sentencing. He's had 33 years to return to the U.S. and get his legal problems straightened out, and a team of top notch highly paid lawyers to help him do that. So, why hasn't he done that? Maybe because he really doesn't want to take responsibility for what he did in 1977. It's easier to just continue his luxurious lifestyle, enjoy his acclaimed status and celebrity, go on with his work and collect his awards, and forget about that nasty little rape incident that tends to cramp his travel plans. If this is "punishment", a lot of people would be willing to trade places with Polanski.

"Mental anguish and regret" does not substitute for fulfilling the legal sentence imposed for a crime. Jails and prisons are filled with people who are sorry they got themselves there. Should we let them all go free because they have suffered emotionally as a result of their crimes? And where is there evidence of Polanski's true remorse for what he did to his 13 year old victim? Poor Roman thinks he's the victim because he thinks he was screwed by the legal system. Forget what he did to get himself involved with that legal system, raping, sodomizing and drugging a child, because he's the real victim, and look how he's suffered. The poor guy couldn't even come to L.A. to pick up his Oscar in person. Oh, the horrible mental anguish he's suffered. Ya gotta feel for the guy.Rolling Eyes

Because his plea deal was never finalized, he still stands charged with the original crimes of raping and drugging a 13 year old and performing oral sex and sodomy with her, all felonies, and all considerably more serious, in terms of length of punishment, than a single charge of statutory rape. He had been promised a sweetheart deal if he entered a guilty plea for statutory rape--a mere 40 odd days in jail, time he had already served while undergoing psychiatric evaluation. Think of that, a month and a half in jail for drugging and raping a child. Not statutory rape, based only on the age of the girl, but actual rape of a non-consenting female child. He never expected to receive much "punishment" for his crime, nor was he prepared to receive more punishment for it--that's why he skipped the country.

The issue of whether the judge in Polanski's case was about to renege on the plea bargain agreement, and impose a sentence longer than time served, should be investigated. After 33 years, with several of the principals in the case either dead, or elderly or infirm, that becomes a difficult task, but it should be done. And Polanski should return to the U.S. and work out a new sentencing agreement with the current D.A.

At this point, everyone wants to see this case concluded. If Polanski was indeed going to receive time served 33 years ago, let them give him time served now. If he was going to receive an additional 45 days 33 years ago, let him do his 45 days in jail now and get it over. If Polanski really has any sense of responsibility about the crime he committed, he should be willing to do 45 days in a private jail cell. He'd still be getting off easy, very easy, considering what he did. For Pete's sake, even Paris Hilton got a 45 day sentence, for violating her probation. And, like Paris, Polanski could probably get out of jail after a few days, and spend the rest of the sentence under house arrest at some palatial villa in L.A.. But at least he would have shown some sense of responsibility for his crime, and the case would finally be legally over.
Intrepid
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 11:28 am
@firefly,
Right on!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 11:28 am
@chai2,
Ya know...I really think punishment for breaking a law has little to do with how the public perceives the culprit has suffered or not.

For example. If Roman had tried to off himself several times due to a guilty conscience. Or his life had fallen apart because of his crime...it wouldn't really matter to the authorities and it shouldn't matter to us. Maybe only in the sentencing ,if he had shown remorse.

So, are you saying that there are cases where a culprit should be exonerated because they've paid their debt to society by suffering from bad luck(Murder of Tate) or angst? Or perhaps because he's an icon for young movie makers?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 11:49 am
@firefly,
Quote:
been a fugitive from justice for the past 33 years. So, in addition to the original crime of rape, Polanski committed the additional crime of fleeing the country to avoid sentencing.
The debate is academic now, this is over. Polanski will not take a chance on traveling outside of his safe zone, which is most of Europe, where no one will bother him now. The Americans can bitch and stew, but it is all hot air.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:02 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
So, in addition to the original crime of rape, Polanski committed the additional crime of fleeing the country to avoid sentencing.


Is fleeing to avoid sentencing a crime in the US legal system?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:41 pm

I 'm really glad that he did not infect her with any diseases.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:44 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
oh....I thought I had just made that up on the spot. Surprised

so, are you saying you cannot think of a situation where an offender does not go to a state sanctioned prison,
but nevertheless lived through some sort of punishment?

Just as stone walls do not a prison make, living in a mansion doesn't mean the person has bought himself a free pass.

I don't know if Polanski has suffered a punishment. I don't know that he hasn't.
I don't know that putting him behind bars for awhile at this point might not be as bad as what the last 30 plus years
have brought him.

If the victim behind this wants to move on, I think that's a cue that we should too.

Or, would putting him behind bars make just make US feel better?

Yep, that's all that matters, not that the victim doesn't care, not that the offender may feel repentant already,
not that prison might not be that bad on him....it's important that the punishment is what we want it to be.

I want you in prison, and I want you to suffer exactly x amount.

Then, I will feel better.
Very well said, Chai; have u considered practicing law ?
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:28 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Ya know...I really think punishment for breaking a law has little to do with how the public perceives the culprit has suffered or not.

For example. If Roman had tried to off himself several times due to a guilty conscience. Or his life had fallen apart because of his crime...it wouldn't really matter to the authorities and it shouldn't matter to us. Maybe only in the sentencing ,if he had shown remorse.

So, are you saying that there are cases where a culprit should be exonerated because they've paid their debt to society by suffering from bad luck(Murder of Tate) or angst? Or perhaps because he's an icon for young movie makers?


I really don't care about what the law says, I'm all about if the offender has suffered the consequences and hopefully made amends, and vows to himself not to commit that act any more.

"The law is an ass" as Mr. Bumble says.

It's us, the public (or some of us) who are saying they don't think he has suffered punishment, equating that with being in prison.

I did not say anyone should exonerate him. I'm saying it should be looked at to see if his life subsequent AND related to this particular episode has caused sufficient punishment.
I did not say his personal angst, if any should be punishment enough. How has life treated him, how have peope treated him, ostricizing him, excluding him, making him "other"? If it is true that the punishment should fit the crime, how do we determine that sitting in a prison is the proper punishment, when to him, that might be something to be hoped for, a little peace and quiet.

If I commited an undesireable act 30 -40 years ago, and had the choice to sit in a cell for a couple of years, or have every single person who ever hears my name associate me with that act, regardless of who I am today, I would much rather take the jail time, and be done with it.

Ever since that time, every single person he has met for the first time, and maybe every time they see him, thinks about this incident. You don't think he can see that in everyone's eyes? No matter what is has, or will become, that will be the look people will give him until the day he dies.

Perhaps that is right that they do. Perhaps that is the appropriate punishment. To me, from personal experience, I would rather sit in prison if given the choice, and would feel I got the better end of the bargain.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:45 pm
@chai2,
For me, it's a question of equal treatment under the law. I work with young men who are imprisoned for possession with intent to sell and they're in prison because either they waived their right to a trial and pled guilty or went on trial, were found guilty and sentenced to prison.

Either way - they answered the warrant for their arrest, went through the system and ended up in prison- one of them for four to eight years, another for six and neither of them ever laid a hand on another human being in violence.

Then on the other hand we have this guy who raped a thirteen year old girl, did not answer the warrant or honor the system and never had to spend a night in prison, and never will - simply because he had the means to flee- and stay out of reach for thirty years.

There's something fundamentally wrong with that picture.

And if you've ever been in a prison - iron bars and brick walls DO indeed make a prison-I know I'd be able to feel a lot freer in my own home.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 02:29:25