Roman Polanski

[Chazwozel]

Guh, mental flub on my part.

Either or it's not generally used in rape cases...the inmates do that part sans appeals.

Also, I have a -very- dim view of rapists and especially child rapists. Just because his wife was killed by the Manson family is no excuse for him to get sympathy on this matter.

Really? Cause I think having one's 8 month pregnant wife stabbed to death would dramatically alter someone's mental state for many years to come. I don't agree with what the guy did in the least, but lets look at the facts.

The parents consented to allowing a private photo shoot in a house.
Drugs and alcohol were involved prior to the incident
Drugs and alcohol were involved during.

Anyway... it was 30 years ago. He's lived in exile from the U.S., as a result, for 30 years when a 4 year sentence in prison would have been it. It's not exactly prison, but that's not a picnic either, but hey that's what he chose to do. Essentially, Polanski's not an evil man. He hasn't gone on to repeat this offense. He's not a serial rapist. Essentially the guy fucked up royally on drugs. My stance is that he's paid his dues and then some already.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

And imagine the precedent that would set, Chaz. The words "fucked up on drugs" can be twisted by defense lawyers in a million different ways to gain lighter sentencing for their clients (not that it hasn't been done before, it would just have more weight).

This also sets a precedent that if you flee from sentencing and run away to another country, as long as your 'achievements stand as a monument to your character' you can get off essentially scott-free.

A murderer and thief who uses his other natural talents to create beautiful, lasting and timeless works of art that make the angels weep is still a murderer and should be treated as such. Thusly should Polanski

 

[Andromache]

its ok to rape a child if her parents were idiots, your wife was brutally murdered and you flee the country, act remorseful, make beautiful films and live out of the reach of the law for 30 years, till the victim wants this to go away because she's had her life ruined by the media and "got over a long time ago"?

 

[Espy]

Well. This thread is going in bad directions. Hell, the tags alone are getting creepy.

It doesn't help that in my "new posts" list this one is right below the "RAPE TUNNEL" thread.

 

[strawman]

Roman Polanski is not a danger to society. Isn't that the whole point of incarceration? To rehabilitate?

No, Mr. Wozel, there are many reasons for incarceration. Some of which are, in no particular order:

1. Punishment for crimes
2. Crime prevention (no chance to commit more crime while incarcerated)
3. Rehabilitiation
4. The threat of punishment reduces crime (due to risk/benefit)

If they slap him on the wrist and let him go, then it sends a message that anyone considering raping a child will weigh the risk/benefit equation a little more in the wrong direction - you may have people actively thinking, "Maybe I can get away with it."

I haven't read that he was caught, but it sounds like extradition went through. I'm sorry that the girl has to go through the public humiliation again (one of the reasons the names of victim's of sexual abuse are no longer released) but the fact is that he commited a crime against the STATE, and thus should be prosecuted regardless of the girl's desire or participation in the trial.

Still, you'll get your wish. If she doesn't participate (and probably even if she does) he's rich enough to fight the charges with very costly lawyers, and I doubt he'll get jail time.

You can blame it on the parents, if you like, Chaz, but at the end of the day he chose to rape her.

Your excuses all ring hollow.

-Adam

 

[Chazwozel]

Roman Polanski is not a danger to society. Isn't that the whole point of incarceration? To rehabilitate?

No, Mr. Wozel, there are many reasons for incarceration. Some of which are, in no particular order:

1. Punishment for crimes
2. Crime prevention (no chance to commit more crime while incarcerated)
3. Rehabilitiation
4. The threat of punishment reduces crime (due to risk/benefit)

=If they slap him on the wrist and let him go, then it sends a message that anyone considering raping a child will weigh the risk/benefit equation a little more in the wrong direction - you may have people actively thinking, "Maybe I can get away with it."

I haven't read that he was caught, but it sounds like extradition went through. I'm sorry that the girl has to go through the public humiliation again (one of the reasons the names of victim's of sexual abuse are no longer released) but the fact is that he commited a crime against the STATE, and thus should be prosecuted regardless of the girl's desire or participation in the trial.

Still, you'll get your wish. If she doesn't participate (and probably even if she does) he's rich enough to fight the charges with very costly lawyers, and I doubt he'll get jail time.

You can blame it on the parents, if you like, Chaz, but at the end of the day he chose to rape her.

Your excuses all ring hollow.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Funny, after O.J. was acquitted after being blatantly guilty, murder rates did not rise in the U.S. because potential murders figured they'd get off easy as long as they had a good lawyer.

The parent thing was more for the nitwits that decided to make sway my vote on a more personal level. No I would not let my 13 year old daughter go to an actors house for a private photo shoot.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

And imagine the precedent that would set, Chaz. The words "fucked up on drugs" can be twisted by defense lawyers in a million different ways to gain lighter sentencing for their clients (not that it hasn't been done before, it would just have more weight).

This also sets a precedent that if you flee from sentencing and run away to another country, as long as your 'achievements stand as a monument to your character' you can get off essentially scott-free.

A murderer and thief who uses his other natural talents to create beautiful, lasting and timeless works of art that make the angels weep is still a murderer and should be treated as such. Thusly should Polanski

hmmm, Michael Vick seems to have committed pretty inhumane crimes, and he's forgiven and forgotten after serving a light sentence, primarily because he's got talent.

 

[strawman]

Funny, after O.J. was acquitted after being blatantly guilty, murder rates did not rise in the U.S. because potential murders figured they'd get off easy as long as they had a good lawyer.

You sure about that? Citation, please.

As far as the child thing goes, it's a valid point that violence against a child is, justifiably, given a harsher sentence than violence against an adult.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

Michael Vick seems to have committed pretty inhumane crimes, and he's forgiven and forgotten after serving a light sentence, primarily because he's got talent.

No, primarily because he committed those acts against animals which have little protection.

If he was running a child fighting ring, and killed underperforming children then one can presume he'd get a slightly harsher sentence, and would not be welcomed back so well.

The other major difference is that Polanski has not, to my knowledge, ever said sorry, whereas Micheal Vick has not only plead guilty, but can't seem to stop apologizing.

The public is very forgiving when people admit guilt, promise to undo what they've done (inasmuch as possible), and promise not to do it again.

-Adam

 

[Chazwozel]

Funny, after O.J. was acquitted after being blatantly guilty, murder rates did not rise in the U.S. because potential murders figured they'd get off easy as long as they had a good lawyer.

You sure about that? Citation, please.

As far as the child thing goes, it's a valid point that violence against a child is, justifiably, given a harsher sentence than violence against an adult.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

I'm not hunting down citations for you, look up murder rates in the U.S. between the years O.J. was arrested and his acquittal yourself, smartass. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a spike in murder rates because O.J. got off the hook. Nor did rape rates go up in 1977 after Polanski fled the country.

Do please stop making it seem like I condone what he did. I don't.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------

Funny, after O.J. was acquitted after being blatantly guilty, murder rates did not rise in the U.S. because potential murders figured they'd get off easy as long as they had a good lawyer.

You sure about that? Citation, please.

As far as the child thing goes, it's a valid point that violence against a child is, justifiably, given a harsher sentence than violence against an adult.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

Michael Vick seems to have committed pretty inhumane crimes, and he's forgiven and forgotten after serving a light sentence, primarily because he's got talent.

No, primarily because he committed those acts against animals which have little protection.

If he was running a child fighting ring, and killed underperforming children then one can presume he'd get a slightly harsher sentence, and would not be welcomed back so well.

The other major difference is that Polanski has not, to my knowledge, ever said sorry, whereas Micheal Vick has not only plead guilty, but can't seem to stop apologizing.

The public is very forgiving when people admit guilt, promise to undo what they've done (inasmuch as possible), and promise not to do it again.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Polanski did plead guilty. And the European public loves him...

 

[Armadillo]

Polanski did plead guilty. And the European public loves him...

Good for him. His crime occurred in the United States.

 

[strawman]

I'm not hunting down citations for you

Then don't make assertions you can't back up.

Do please stop making it seem like I condone what he did. I don't.

You are saying that he shouldn't be treated as a CHILD RAPE SUSPECT. Of course it appears that you condone what he did.

If you don't condone what he did, why are you saying that the justice dept's actions are not justified?

Polanski did plead guilty.

Pleading guilty does not equate to an apology, and more often than not involves a plea deal which says, "I'm not REALLY guilty, but I'm cutting a deal so I don't have to be punished for the crime I actually committed, but instead will be punished for a lessor crime."

And the European public loves him...

Huh, you brought up Michael Vick and US attitudes changing for him, and now you're talking about European attitudes? Dude, your train is derailed.

-Adam

 

[MisterSteve]

There is only one punishment suitable for rapists. The age of the victim is completely irrelevant.

 

[@Li3n]

There is only one punishment suitable for rapists. The age of the victim is completely irrelevant.

Except that the age of the victim is the main argument for rape... otherwise he would have had a good defence case.

Still, having sex with a 13 year old = bad... punish him, but don't go overboard either.

 

[Chazwozel]

I'm not hunting down citations for you

Then don't make assertions you can't back up.

Do please stop making it seem like I condone what he did. I don't.

You are saying that he shouldn't be treated as a CHILD RAPE SUSPECT. Of course it appears that you condone what he did.

If you don't condone what he did, why are you saying that the justice dept's actions are not justified?

Polanski did plead guilty.

Pleading guilty does not equate to an apology, and more often than not involves a plea deal which says, "I'm not REALLY guilty, but I'm cutting a deal so I don't have to be punished for the crime I actually committed, but instead will be punished for a lessor crime."

And the European public loves him...

Huh, you brought up Michael Vick and US attitudes changing for him, and now you're talking about European attitudes? Dude, your train is derailed.

-Adam[/QUOTE]


You're right, Ned. Burn the witch! Put him away for 10+ years. Roman Polanski is public enemy number 1, more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. He deserves to rot in jail forever, for a 30 year old crime for which the victim is even asking for his pardon. But the American Justice system needs it's examples, despite that he's turned his life around after a terrible past.

Kick em while their down, right? That's the Christian way.

Let's review your reasons for incarceration:

1. Punishment for crimes
2. Crime prevention (no chance to commit more crime while incarcerated)
3. Rehabilitiation
4. The threat of punishment reduces crime (due to risk/benefit)

1. Ok, Polanski needs to serve some community service to pay back society, or spend a few months in prison to punish him for his crime. I agree something needs to be done, but not to the extent of locking him away for 10 or so years.
2. I think 30 years rape free asserts that he's not going to do it again.
3. He doesn't need rehabilitation. He's a fully function member of society for the past 30 years.
4. If you honestly believe that rape cases are going to increase because of Polanski getting off light, you need your head checked. That right there is alarmist bullshit if I ever heard it.

Do you honestly believe that it's worth the tax dollars to put him away? Like I said, if you put Polanski away, you might as well let Manson go to balance the costs?

 

[Espy]

Yeah. Still gold.

 

[Espy]

Yeah. Still gold.

 

[Chazwozel]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html

Once an aspiring actress, Geimer has said she long ago got over what Polanski did to her. She sued him, and a settlement was reached out of court. But the media, prosecutors and the courts in Los Angeles, California, continue to torment her, she has said.

 

[Vytamindi]

I I say if they lock him away, they should release Charles Manson to balance out the prison costs.

Ummm.... yea, I am coming into this thread late... but

WHAT?

 

[strawman]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html

media, prosecutors and the courts in Los Angeles, California, continue to torment her, she has said.

And just think. If he had just faced the music and done his time instead of skipping out before sentencing, then this would have been resolved over 25 years ago and it would merely be a footnote in history.

But by skipping bail and evading capture he is still compelling the district attorney to pursue this case and keeping the wound fresh and open.

-Adam

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I don't know off the top of my head if it's a crime or not, but I think he should face U.S. prison time for fleeing his plea sentence.

 

[North_Ranger]

I I say if they lock him away, they should release Charles Manson to balance out the prison costs.

Ummm.... yea, I am coming into this thread late... but

WHAT?

[/QUOTE]

It's Chaz trying to be "teh phunny".

 

[Mr_Chaz]

I've been thinking about this one since I first heard about it, I think I've made up my mind now but it's still pretty confused in there.

He committed the crime so he should pay the price. That's the way it works, you mustn't get an exception just because you're famous. I don't like this, my heart tells me to disagree because I like his films, he's already had a (self imposed) punishment, he's been forgiven, and he was in a pretty bad mental state. However, I have to overrule my heart here, because exceptions can't be made.

However, this is why judges have the ability to decide on the sentence. For the reasons above (not the I like his films one obviously) the sentence should probably be lenient, a short prison term or community sentence or whatever, but a sentence there should be.

 

[crono1224]

I'm not hunting down citations for you

Then don't make assertions you can't back up.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't you have to back up your reasoning that light sentences cause people to not care or weigh their actions less?

I don't have specific citation but criminals don't think they will get caught in the first place, it's one of the reason the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.

Also using the example of if it was his daughter what would he do, is asinine the reverse is if it was your brother or son that committed these acts how harshly would you want them punished.

 

[strawman]

I don't know off the top of my head if it's a crime or not, but I think he should face U.S. prison time for fleeing his plea sentence.

He fled sentencing altogether whie he was out on bail.

Chances are good that if this actually gets to court (lots of Europe are trying to keep him from being deported, but it's up to Switzerland to make the call) then the sentence for skipping bail may well be harsher than the sentence for the rape of a minor.

Either way, by skipping bail he completely loses his plea agreement, so he forced himself into the situation he was trying to avoid - the judge throwing out his plea bargain. Still, it means that they either have to come up with another plea agreement, or go to trial. Either way the punishment is likely going to be worse than originally due to him promising to return for sentencing (and thus being allowed to stay free) and then choosing not to.

Keep in mind that the judge does NOT have to accept a plea agreement just because it's what the prosecutor and defendant agree upon, there are many reasons a judge might invalidate that and let them go back to the bargaining table or go to trial.

Also, he's not going to get bail. He will be in prison until he is sentenced. All around it's going to be rougher for him.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

I'm not hunting down citations for you

Then don't make assertions you can't back up.

-Adam[/quote]

Shouldn't you have to back up your reasoning that light sentences cause people to not care or weigh their actions less?[/QUOTE]

I could go ahead and show marijuana use on University of Michigan campus (where the campus police will NOT arrest for possession) and Ann Arbor city in general (where city police will arrest for possession) and the fact that Ann Arbor Police cannot work on Campus. I could then go to show that marijuana use is greater on campus than off.

The nice thing about my example is that there is an obvious correlation, if not causation. But no, I'm not going to go ahead and do the legwork.

For my assertion the effect would be small anyway, so it's not a huge deal, but it is something to take into account when deciding to pursue a case.

You don't use extradition for shoplifting.

You don't always use extradition for rape.

You do use extradition for skipping bail.

-Adam

 

[Chazwozel]

I could go ahead and show marijuana use on University of Michigan campus (where the campus police will NOT arrest for possession) and Ann Arbor city in general (where city police will arrest for possession) and the fact that Ann Arbor Police cannot work on Campus. I could then go to show that marijuana use is greater on campus than off.


-Adam

And that also has nothing to do with the smaller campus population vs a large city population and the higher ratio of college kids smoking more dope (and having easier access to it) than non college folk...

Getting caught with marijuana on a college campus has pretty severe consequences too, like getting booted out of school. People still do it. I think you're trying to pull your Boy Scout logic into things that just aren't there.

 

[Cajungal]

Ya know, I hear he's just a copy of a Greek Polanski.

 

[fade]

The pursuit is also about skipping the punishment. I would expect no less. Even if he got a slap on the wrist, the moment he didn't show up for that slap, the worse he made it for himself. We expect no less of our children, why should we not expect the same of an adult?

You seem insistent that not doing it again is a reason to believe he's paid his price. Why? That makes no logical sense to me. In contrast, most murders are crimes of passion, and in most cases, the murderer would never do so again, because the case was highly situational. Does that mean that if a murderer fled, he'd have the same luxury? Why not? Is that a straw man? I think not.

I also must say, I find it hard to believe that 30 years in "exile" in a first world tourist destination is a strong punishment. From a place he only lived for 10 years, following a life in the place he was "exiled" to, mind you.

 

[Twitch]

Why do we as a public never want to punish people for fleeing the law? It's a crime and has punishments associated with it. Why should we let this guy go from his original crime and fleeing his sentence? Because he's famous? Because he's sorry? Not that he fled the country for sure. Or maybe because he avoided the law for such a long amount of time he's not a threat anymore. Well damn, we shouldn't charge anyone if they can get away from it for long enough.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Ya know, I hear he's just a copy of a Greek Polanski.

:clap2:

 

[Cajungal]

Ya know, I hear he's just a copy of a Greek Polanski.

:clap2:[/QUOTE]

^_^ yaaaaaaay

 

[Chazwozel]

Why do we as a public never want to punish people for fleeing the law? It's a crime and has punishments associated with it. Why should we let this guy go from his original crime and fleeing his sentence? Because he's famous? Because he's sorry? Not that he fled the country for sure. Or maybe because he avoided the law for such a long amount of time he's not a threat anymore. Well damn, we shouldn't charge anyone if they can get away from it for long enough.

Actually, Americans, in general, usually want to lynch the suspect before he/she's even proven guilty. I think most of the United States want Polanski to burn at the stake, because we loves us a good scapgoat. Someone to point at and say, "at least I ain't evil like that dar varmint." Black and white thinking. Gotta love it.

 

[Twitch]

Well I don't speak for the rest of America but I'm a "black and white" guy I guess. I feel that if a crime is committed the punishment should be carried out no matter who you are.

 

[Chazwozel]

Well I don't speak for the rest of America but I'm a "black and white" guy I guess. I feel that if a crime is committed the punishment should be carried out no matter who you are.

black and white logic is the reason why the world is as fucked up as it is.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Well I don't speak for the rest of America but I'm a "black and white" guy I guess. I feel that if a crime is committed the punishment should be carried out no matter who you are.

What exactly do you think is punishment?

 

[Twitch]

Well I don't speak for the rest of America but I'm a "black and white" guy I guess. I feel that if a crime is committed the punishment should be carried out no matter who you are.

What exactly do you think is punishment?[/QUOTE]
The punishment is whatever the law says it is. In this case it was four years jail time plus whatever he'll face for fleeing. If we say that a crime is punishable with X and then we decide not to punish someone with X then why do we bother to enforce the law? And I'm not saying that this one case means we should abandon the law, or that it implies that we are. I'm saying that there is no reason he should be excused for his crime.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Well I don't speak for the rest of America but I'm a \"black and white\" guy I guess.

(Sorry, I never get a chance to do that.)