19
   

Roman Polanski free

 
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:54 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Is fleeing to avoid sentencing a crime in the US legal system?


It sure is a crime. And there is still an Interpol warrant, in effect for 188 countries, calling for his arrest.

That's why he can't return to the U.S. He will immediately be arrested.

Intrepid
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 03:01 pm
@chai2,
Chai2 wrote:
Quote:

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.



Too bad Polanski doesn't feel the same way
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 03:30 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Chai2 wrote:
Quote:

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.



Too bad Polanski doesn't feel the same way
It's a false dilemma anyway. Most of us who think he's a scumbag will continue to do so, whether he pays his debt to society or not. No demonstration of remorse at this point is sufficient to balance things out.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 03:50 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
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?


Actually, Merry Andrew tried to make that case for the war criminals of the US government. He was specifically referencing Colin Powell but he probably meant to extend it to them all.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 03:55 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Actually, Merry Andrew tried to make that case for the war criminals of the US government. He was specifically referencing Colin Powell but he probably meant to extend it to them all.
Prosecutors do it all the time, make judgements about whether or not to prosecute particular people for particular crimes taking in all of the situation, not just the crime and seeking justice for it. There are some crimes like domestic violence where this discretion has been removed by law, but for the moment this is controversial.

Plenty of people have argued that the DA in this case made a bad decision, because Polanski should not be hounded by this case any more. I think that the last year has shown this to be true.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Intrepid
 
  5  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 04:13 pm
@JTT,
JTT, JTT, JTT. You just can't open your mouth without the word hypocrisy pouring out
JTT
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 04:15 pm
@Intrepid,
You never even had time to read those facts, did you, Intrepid? There's no hypocrisy in what I'm saying but there sure as hell is in the tripe that comes from your mouth.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Intrepid
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 04:38 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

You never even had time to read those facts, did you, Intrepid? There's no hypocrisy in what I'm saying but there sure as hell is in the tripe that comes from your mouth.


Your reading comprehension needs some work. Maybe I should type slower so you can get the gist of what is written. Nowhere did I accuse you of hypocrisy. I said, "You can't open your mouth without the WORD hypocisy coming out.

It was a play on what you wrote to Occum Bill. Of course, you would not understand that since you were off topic anyhow and now you have caused me to do the same.

Roman Polanski is a child molester and rapist who deserves more than what he got....which was nothing.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 04:56 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Chai2 wrote:
Quote:

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.



Too bad Polanski doesn't feel the same way
It's a false dilemma anyway. Most of us who think he's a scumbag will continue to do so, whether he pays his debt to society or not. No demonstration of remorse at this point is sufficient to balance things out.



The only debt he had to pay was to the woman, and apparantly she either feels it's been paid, or doesn't care anymore.

If she's ok with it, then I'm ok with it.

No one will ever be able to please all of society, so you concentrate on those that matter.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 05:27 pm
That doesn't seem to reconcile itself very well with the concept of living in a civilized society - "the offender owes no debt to anyone except the offended".
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 05:35 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
The fact that this then 13, now 46? year old is STILL saying it was consenual, even after all these years, means a lot to me.
can you document this, because the way I remember the facts it started out with him pressing and her not saying anything, which by the standards of the time was consensual, but that when he went for the sodomy she said no and he pressed ahead anyways. She also said that she never wanted to have sex with him. HE says that she wanted it, but she never has said that, so how do you get to your opinion?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 05:38 pm
@snood,
Quote:
That doesn't seem to reconcile itself very well with the concept of living in a civilized society - "the offender owes no debt to anyone except the offended".
for the same reason that we say that the government should stay out of our bedrooms we could and should say that the government has no business mediating private intimate relationships unless one of the parties makes the request.

EDIT: obviously the mother was the proxy when she was a minor, but once she came of age she had the right to decide for herself. If the government had not yet finished the case she should have been able to end it. I dont think that the collective has any compelling interest in private affairs that supersedes the wishes of the parties. The only excuse offered is the fear that one party will be victimized by the other into dropping the case, and the collective has the right and obligation to tamp down the abuser/victim dynamic. A valid concern, but not one that allows the collective to butt into relationships when ever it wants to, as it does now. What we have now is clearly the abuse of the individual, on very flimsy rationalization.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 05:46 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

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.
The gravity of the crime does not change my position, 18 years is too much time to just throw him on jail without further consideration.

Arella Mae wrote:

I don't care if a million years were to pass, he would still have to pay for his crime.
Making him suffer will not ressurect those he killed nor undo the emotional scars he left on their family and friends. I dont believe in revenge, I actually believe and feel it does nothing but sink and harm further both the criminal and the avenger.

Arella Mae wrote:

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?
Lying is a separate matter, although it does makes him more likely to not have regenerated.

Arella Mae wrote:

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?"[/color]
The reason totally matters. Killing for religious purposes would mean his intentions were good, but utterly misguided, and so it would require a totally different form or punishment/treatment than if he had killed then for convenience.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
So, why are you wasting time on a forum that doesnt likes you rather than leading a crusade against USA?


Hmm, another major hypocrite. It's nice to meet you too, Manored.
I was serious. Also, even if I wasnt, irony isnt hypocrisy. If it is, then you also are an hypocrite as demonstrated above.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Feel free to read on about how men have been made into presumed rapists, and how normal power imbalances have become the basis for rape and child abuse charges.
Absurd condemnations happen on ever area of criminality, as far as I can tell. I do think the world has been too neurotic about pedophilia lately though.

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.
It does have something to do, in some cases, not because its legally allowed, but because popular pressure can achieve much, and sadly not always desirable things.

aidan wrote:

For me, it's a question of equal treatment under the law.
I believe that is something that does not exist, will never exist, and is not desirable. We are all different, and thus, require different treatment. The same amount and type of punishment that regenerated one man may drive another over the top and into madness.

snood wrote:

That doesn't seem to reconcile itself very well with the concept of living in a civilized society - "the offender owes no debt to anyone except the offended".
I agree. The important matter is whenever the offender will offend again or not, and that has nothing to do with what the offended thinks of him.
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:06 pm
@manored,
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.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
This was never a "private intimate relationship". It was a rapist and his child victim.

Polanski is charged with violating California laws, he entered a guilty plea to reduced charges, but then fled the country before sentencing. He is a fugitive from justice. Because he fled, all of the original felony charges against him (about 5 of them) are still standing.
This situation has nothing to do with the wishes of the victim. When you violate the laws of a state, you are subject to the justice system and punishments required by the state. He acknowledged his guilt, but fled to avoid possible incarceration. This is not a private matter. Polanski is wanted by the state of California. This is very much the business of government.

The mother was not "a proxy". Both the victim and her mother were willing to go along with the plea deal for Polanski in order to spare the victim from having to participate in a highly publicized trial. They wanted to shield her as much as possible. They wanted the case finished as soon as possible. As it turned out, when Polanski fled, the victim was hounded by the media, and she has said that the next year was a nightmare for her. Thanks to the fact that Polanski is still evading the law, the woman is again thrust into an unwanted spotlight 33 years later. She wants to be left alone and just continue with her life.

In 1993, when the victim was an adult (about age 28), she sued Polanski in civil court for sexual assault, seduction, and infliction of emotional distress. This was almost 16 years after the rape. She certainly wasn't willing to end the case then. She brought the suit under the name "Jane Doe" to protect her privacy. She won a settlement of about $500,000 from Polanski. Three years later he still had not paid the settlement, and by then owed her $600,000 including interest. It was never made public whether he ever paid the settlement.

However, the victim has said that the terms of the settlement prevent her from discussing the case, so he may have paid her, and bought her silence in the bargain. In 1997, after she may have been finally paid by Polanski, she came forward, revealed her name, and gave media interviews saying she felt Polanski should be offered a new deal by the prosecutors. Who knows whether those sentiments were related to the settlement money? Therefore, I'm not sure we should just assume the victim really wants him to go free. She wants to be able to abide by the settlement terms, she wants to get on with her life, and she wants the media to leave her alone, and she has said all of that. She doesn't want to be dragged back into this mess, and who can blame her. Polanski's problems are with the state of California, not with her. She's really not a part of this anymore. It's between Polanski and the state. The victim wanted the criminal case finished 33 years ago.

A rape is not a "private affair". It is a crime. The "wishes of the parties" are not relevant in the disposition of this case. Are you going to ask Polanski what his "wishes" are? What they always were--to avoid any jail time. And the other involved "party" is not the victim, it's the state of California. And their stated wishes are to have Polanski returned to California to face sentencing for his crimes.









hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:36 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
This situation has nothing to do with the wishes of the victim
My argument is that it should, that the laws are miswritten.

Quote:
A rape is not a "private affair".
The state has an obligation to look out for the children, to look over the shoulder of the parents, so in some cases the state has a valid claim to put sexual cases in the legal system even if the victim and the parents don't want it there. But as a general rule I argue that sexual matters should not be in front of a judge unless one or both parties desire it to be so. I think that the laws should be rewritten to reflect that. And the children victims should be able to overrule the state when they reach majority.
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
What about cases like when a woman is raped and the rapist has threatened her that if she reports it, he'll come back and kill her or cases where witnesses are threatened? Should we take into consideration that she doesn't want to prosecute? If we start letting everyone decide what should happen to the criminals in "their" situations, it would be total chaos.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:47 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
What about cases like when a woman is raped and the rapist has threatened her that if she reports it, he'll come back and kill her or cases where witnesses are threatened? Should we take into consideration that she doesn't want to prosecute? If we start letting everyone decide what should happen to the criminals in "their" situations, it would be total chaos.
Not if the state supplies proper resources to the victim, and the victim trusts the state to do what they have promised. I think that the assumption that the abuser would hold this control over the victim ASSUMES that the state would not do their job properly, which based upon what I have seen is a reasonable assumption. We can do better.

If we can get mobsters to turn on their bosses we can do this.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 08:17:42