@hawkeye10,
Quote:. 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 one has to distinguish between "sexual matters" and sexual crimes.
Sexual crimes don't come before a judge unless someone reports the crime to the police and the D.A. decides to prosecute. Generally, it is the victim who reports the crime, if we are talking about adults. When someone reports a crime, they want the perpetrator arrested and tried (and probably convicted). So, we know what this party desires.
They cannot prosecute a sexual case without the cooperation of the victim. They need her testimony. If she is seen in an ER following a rape and refuses to cooperate with the police, there isn't much they can do. This lack of cooperation goes on all the time with battered wives because they are too frightened to press charges. Woman are often fearful of reporting rape, or pressing a rape charge, for many different reasons. That's why the rapist never gets arrested.
You can't ask the perpetrator what they desire in terms of disposition. You don't expect the victim of a sexual crime to work out a private deal with the perpetrator do you? I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Michael Jackson trying to pay off the families of children he molested? That kind of deal? You can't protect society with this sort of arrangement,
I have no problem with sexual crimes remaining in the courts, that's where I think they belong. I believe in the criminal justice system. I believe that juries generally try to be fair and impartial. I think the adversarial system works. The appeals process helps to insure fairness.
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.
The case we have been discussing, with Polanski, was not a sexual matter, it was a sexual crime. It was reported to the police by the victim. She wanted the government to act and to arrest Polanski. Apart from giving testimony, and concurring with the plea deal, she had no further role in this case, nor should she. Had Polanski had a jury trial, she would have had no control over the verdict, or the length of any sentence he would receive. And she certainly would not have had any authority to alter that outcome when she was an adult. Since Polanski copped a plea, the victim's role in this case ended at that point. It's the media who drag her back into it. He admitted guilt. She has been legally out of this case since 1977.
Quote:And the children victims should be able to overrule the state when they reach majority.
If the state has obtained a conviction on a sexual crime involving a child, that child cannot have any authority to overturn a verdict when they reach majority. That's crazy. Is that what you mean?
Look, Polanski's victim has said all along that he raped her. She's never said otherwise. He's already admitted his guilt. He just didn't hang around to be sentenced. That victim, now a grown woman, can't just say to the court, "Forget it". The legal situation with Polanski had passed that point 33 years ago. He had his day in court, he plead guilty, but then he skipped the country. The legal system has a right to demand his return in order to pass sentence. The case is not concluded until that sentence is passed, and the victim cannot dictate that aspect of the justice system.
