Dave
Staff member
Top of the page.
---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
Page #4 that is. I'm shocked nobody said anything about this.
- Status
---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
Page #4 that is. I'm shocked nobody said anything about this.
C
Chibibar
Ok. After reading 5 pages of stuff. I still think he should pay for the crime he did.
It sets bad precedent. I mean so he is a famous director, made good movies, but if this was just a regular guy did a crime and skip out on sentencing (he did flee) and later saying "I'm sorry and I'm old" you should forgive him?
I don't think so. I have a very low tolerance for this kind of stuff (sex with kids/rape/abuse) so he does not get any sympathy from me.
It sets bad precedent. I mean so he is a famous director, made good movies, but if this was just a regular guy did a crime and skip out on sentencing (he did flee) and later saying "I'm sorry and I'm old" you should forgive him?
I don't think so. I have a very low tolerance for this kind of stuff (sex with kids/rape/abuse) so he does not get any sympathy from me.
There needs to be adjustment for <18
C
Chibibar
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/QUOTE]
Yea. It is funny how my wife and I are 7 years apart, but when I reference something of my life in the past, she always goes "Do you know how old I was back then?" luckily I met her when she was 20. so I'm safe
C
Chazwozel
What is locking him away for 10 + years in federal prison going to accomplish exactly? (aside from further wasting tax dollars).
The thing is I don't think he got away with rape at all. Look at all the media scrutiny, he's had to live in exile from the U.S. for 30 years, he payed a settlement to the victim. Over these 30 years I think he's paid for his crime. Putting him away in prison isn't going to magically make what he did go away and make him a non-rapist.[/QUOTE]
Should we just do away with the criminal justice system and simply export people to France as punishment? Personally living in France would be punishment for me but most people, I think, might like it.
And what it accomplishes is it tells Polanksi and the rest of the world that a crime of a rape does not just disappear over time.[/QUOTE]
Even after he settled with the victim with an undisclosed sum and lived in exile for 30 years? What is it exactly about serving a prison sentence makes the crime magically go away? My feeling is that he's done his time in other ways, and for the U.S. system to slap him down afresh with new charges and put him away for a number of years in a maximum security prison is far worse than what he deserves. You're trying to pull the ol' 'use him as example' argument Steinman was. Rape cases are not going to spike up to untold amounts because Roman Polanski does not go to prison, just like murders didn't spike when O.J. was acquitted.
What a way to go. The guy fucks up once in his life, and gets to finish it off in prison. Are you saying people involved in other crimes like D.U.I related death cases deserve to rot in jail for one mistake they made? Polanski is not a horrible monster. You know why this case hits so close to home for me? My brother was killed by a DUI, and the guy that did it is currently serving for it. He's got 15 years, no parole. At the time I thought it was a just ruling, but after some years passed I've gone through several sessions with my and his lawyers to see if he can get off earlier. He was just a regular dude, who one night fucked up royally. That doesn't deserve a lifetime of punishment.
Cold, straight judgment is the single biggest flaw of the system. People are not methodological robots, and make judgments without emotion based on nothing but cold assumptions is simply wrong. I agree with Tin, that it's scary how willing some people are to lynch the guy when technically he's innocent until proven guilty.
---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------
Top of the page.
---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
Page #4 that is. I'm shocked nobody said anything about this.[/QUOTE]
Ok, yeah, Icarus, what the hell does a 22 year old have in common with a 14 year old? I'm afraid I'd shoot you too if that was my daughter.
And she should be able to drive herself home.
Dave
Staff member
And she should be able to drive herself home.[/QUOTE]
And it should NOT BE A FUCKING CRIME TO DATE HER!
Top of the page.
---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
Page #4 that is. I'm shocked nobody said anything about this.[/QUOTE]
I just... I just don't know what to say to be honest. I've never actually met anyone who admitted to dating what amounts to a child.
And she should be able to drive herself home.[/quote]
And it should NOT BE A FUCKING CRIME TO DATE HER![/QUOTE]
Well if you want to kill the thrill...
M
makare
My concern is the law and society. What message does it send to people if we are willing to turn a blind eye to crime, especially one so horrible? He made one mistake? No, he made two. The rape and running away. If he had stayed and gone to trial, maybe he would have been found innocent on the merits of the case. Maybe he would have been convicted and it would be over now. We will never know.
Our system of justice is based on the concept that only the judiciary can decide if an offender should be punished and only the judiciary can decide when that punishment is sufficient. My argument is not deterrence or making an example. My argument is Roman Polanksi was accused of committing a crime, he had every opportunity under the criminal law to defend against that crime, but he chose to run away. In running away he took it upon himself to undermine the right of the judiciary to decide his case but his behavior certainly does not erase the crime.
There is nothing cold about the law. Judgments are made by human beings and are based on centuries of precedent, however emotion and situation play a large part in it. If a jury decides that someone deserves the maximum punishment that is the jury's right. I am not sure what you keep referring to. The law is always bending and always changing. It is not written in stone and changes to fit many circumstances. Just because you personally do not like the outcome does not make it irrational and does not make it unjust.
And finally in criminal cases the victim is the law and until the offender "settles" with the law, it cannot be over.
C
Chazwozel
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/QUOTE]
why exactly?[/QUOTE]
The formula doesn't work below 14 I think; 14/2 = 7 + 7 = 14
13/2 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5
Top of the page.
---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
Page #4 that is. I'm shocked nobody said anything about this.[/QUOTE]
How the hell did I miss that?!
My little sister is 14. If some 22 year old dude started trying to hang around her, I think I'd beat the shit out of him.
When I was 21, a 17 year old sister of a friend of mine had a crush on me, and even that made me feel a little skeevy. And in the state of Florida, that wouldn't have even been a crime.
Sorry Icarus... maybe you might want to not tell that story anymore.
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/quote]
why exactly?[/quote]
The formula doesn't work below 14 I think; 14/2 = 7 + 7 = 14
13/2 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5[/QUOTE]
It works for the ages it is meant for.
The one we have right here in the chat transcripts.What story?
C
Chibibar
My concern is the law and society. What message does it send to people if we are willing to turn a blind eye to crime, especially one so horrible? He made one mistake? No, he made two. The rape and running away. If he had stayed and gone to trial, maybe he would have been found innocent on the merits of the case. Maybe he would have been convicted and it would be over now. We will never know.
Our system of justice is based on the concept that only the judiciary can decide if an offender should be punished and only the judiciary can decide when that punishment is sufficient. My argument is not deterrence or making an example. My argument is Roman Polanksi was accused of committing a crime, he had every opportunity under the criminal law to defend against that crime, but he chose to run away. In running away he took it upon himself to undermine the right of the judiciary to decide his case but his behavior certainly does not erase the crime.
There is nothing cold about the law. Judgments are made by human beings and are based on centuries of precedent, however emotion and situation play a large part in it. If a jury decides that someone deserves the maximum punishment that is the jury's right. I am not sure what you keep referring to. The law is always bending and always changing. It is not written in stone and changes to fit many circumstances. Just because you personally do not like the outcome does not make it irrational and does not make it unjust.
And finally in criminal cases the victim is the law and until the offender "settles" with the law, it cannot be over.[/QUOTE]
The problem Chaz is this guy "exile" wasn't really an exile per se. He CHOSE to run away and live a life of luxury AND MADE A MOVIE. You don't have many freedom while in prison. To me, the self impose exile (he chose to ran away from the court) is not punishment. He still had access to everything a free person can access except going back home which to some might not be a bad punishment.
I am not advocating that a single murder put away for life (again it depend on the case) but this guy skip out on the court and fled AND commit a crime. If he had serve his time back then and let go, I wouldn't have much an issue (well personally I would but that is my personal view) since he did the time.
Right now, he did NOT do his time and skip out on the courts.
like I said before, if this was just a normal guy (a non famous person) would that person get the same treatment?
:werd:
It's okay guys.
Polanski said, he shouldn’t go to jail just because he drugged a child then f**ked her in the ass while she begged him to stop, and that he’s already suffered enough by living his life in exile.
He agrees though that he should be punished in some very harsh way.
So he has proposed a solution:
Place him under house arrest.
Specifically, this house.
This chalet outside Gstaad, Switzerland, where singing bluebirds presumably pull your sheets back in the morning and Mr Sun gives you a big thumbs up. Oh that poor man. He’ll never make it!
*yanked from WWTDD.com
Polanski said, he shouldn’t go to jail just because he drugged a child then f**ked her in the ass while she begged him to stop, and that he’s already suffered enough by living his life in exile.
He agrees though that he should be punished in some very harsh way.
So he has proposed a solution:
Place him under house arrest.
Specifically, this house.
This chalet outside Gstaad, Switzerland, where singing bluebirds presumably pull your sheets back in the morning and Mr Sun gives you a big thumbs up. Oh that poor man. He’ll never make it!
*yanked from WWTDD.com
C
Chazwozel
Actually a regular person (with French citizenship) who had fled to France as Polanski had done probably would have gotten away Scott free. The only reason the D.A. kept going after him was because he is so famous. If he was a normal Joe, he wouldn't have been caught in Switzerland.
---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------
Shit, I'll go under house arrest in his stead, if that's the case.It's okay guys.
Polanski said, he shouldn’t go to jail just because he drugged a child then f**ked her in the ass while she begged him to stop, and that he’s already suffered enough by living his life in exile.
He agrees though that he should be punished in some very harsh way.
So he has proposed a solution:
Place him under house arrest.
Specifically, this house.
This chalet outside Gstaad, Switzerland, where singing bluebirds presumably pull your sheets back in the morning and Mr Sun gives you a big thumbs up. Oh that poor man. He’ll never make it!
*yanked from WWTDD.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091002/us_time/08599192743200
Did Polanski's recent appeal of the Judges decision cost him his freedom?
He recently contacted LA District Attorney's office to look in to his allegations against the judge in the case.
Did Polanski's recent appeal of the Judges decision cost him his freedom?
He recently contacted LA District Attorney's office to look in to his allegations against the judge in the case.
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/QUOTE]
why exactly?[/QUOTE]
The formula doesn't work below 14 I think; 14/2 = 7 + 7 = 14
13/2 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5[/QUOTE]
Neither does dating.
I
Iaculus
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/QUOTE]
why exactly?[/QUOTE]
The formula doesn't work below 14 I think; 14/2 = 7 + 7 = 14
13/2 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's subtly suggesting that you should be going for an older girlfriend, then? I see nothing wrong with that.
:io:
C
Chazwozel
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/QUOTE]
why exactly?[/QUOTE]
The formula doesn't work below 14 I think; 14/2 = 7 + 7 = 14
13/2 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's subtly suggesting that you should be going for an older girlfriend, then? I see nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE]
Well I was just commenting on why there may be an adjustment? I agree the formula works for the ages that it's intended to. Although, I remember having 'girlfriends' when I was 12 and 13... not that it amounted to anything more than holding said girlfriends hand and her books between classes, but still...
I
Iaculus
There needs to be adjustment for <18[/QUOTE]
why exactly?[/QUOTE]
The formula doesn't work below 14 I think; 14/2 = 7 + 7 = 14
13/2 = 6.5 + 7 = 13.5[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's subtly suggesting that you should be going for an older girlfriend, then? I see nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE]
Well I was just commenting on why there may be an adjustment? I agree the formula works for the ages that it's intended to. Although, I remember having 'girlfriends' when I was 12 and 13... not that it amounted to anything more than holding said girlfriends hand and her books between classes, but still...
[/QUOTE]Eh - it's never more than a ballpark figure, right? A general guide? A deviation of about a year probably isn't an issue, and at that age, the difference isn't terribly high. Only one if you're twelve or half if you're thirteen.
C
Chibibar
In many society they are consider children. You can't get legally get into any contract agree with with a child under 18 without a parent consent.
Also not all 14 year old girl mentality are the same. Heck, I'm 37 and STILL play video games and people think I'm still a child. (at least my parents and relatives think so) I think the reason the age of 18 is consider adult is the cognitive process has been develop and more "hard coded" and able to make decisions (may not sound decision but they can)
until the law is changed that an adult is 14 instead of 18. She is a child.
In many society they are consider children. You can't get legally get into any contract agree with with a child under 18 without a parent consent.
Also not all 14 year old girl mentality are the same. Heck, I'm 37 and STILL play video games and people think I'm still a child. (at least my parents and relatives think so) I think the reason the age of 18 is consider adult is the cognitive process has been develop and more "hard coded" and able to make decisions (may not sound decision but they can)
until the law is changed that an adult is 14 instead of 18. She is a child.[/QUOTE]
You admit that not everyone at a certain age is the same - this was not a legal dispute (heck, that was why I gave that example - not everyone is the same) but to show that the law generalises and because of that, there's cases where it protects people who don't need protecting. If you both know you're ready, if you both know it's right, if you both really mean it and if you both know you're mature enough, are you really going to be so narrow minded to be blinded by a mere number which means nothing really?
The girl in question grew up being abused by alcoholic parents, had to take care of her little brother and had to really fight through her childhood and despite all that she had become a wonderful woman at such young an age. I was the only person she knew at the time who understood what she had gone through and who she could open up to, and that helped her immensely, something which she admitted so herself only a few months ago (yes we're still very close friends).
And then some narrow minded gits here dare to put in question this relationship based on a few figures without knowing any of the facts.
C
Chazwozel
By perspective, you want us to be child molesters?
Nah, I've dated plenty, I've had plenty of perspective in my social/dating life; I've never had anything in common with a 14 year old girl in 8th grade- going on high school freshman - during my junior year of college. Sorry chief.
What did you do? While all your friends were out playing beer pong, you were at a Hanna Montana sleep over?
The number that should have went through your mind is 14 will get you 20.
C
Chazwozel
In many society they are consider children. You can't get legally get into any contract agree with with a child under 18 without a parent consent.
Also not all 14 year old girl mentality are the same. Heck, I'm 37 and STILL play video games and people think I'm still a child. (at least my parents and relatives think so) I think the reason the age of 18 is consider adult is the cognitive process has been develop and more "hard coded" and able to make decisions (may not sound decision but they can)
until the law is changed that an adult is 14 instead of 18. She is a child.[/QUOTE]
You admit that not everyone at a certain age is the same - this was not a legal dispute (heck, that was why I gave that example - not everyone is the same) but to show that the law generalises and because of that, there's cases where it protects people who don't need protecting. If you both know you're ready, if you both know it's right, if you both really mean it and if you both know you're mature enough, are you really going to be so narrow minded to be blinded by a mere number which means nothing really?
The girl in question grew up being abused by alcoholic parents, had to take care of her little brother and had to really fight through her childhood and despite all that she had become a wonderful woman at such young an age. I was the only person she knew at the time who understood what she had gone through and who she could open up to, and that helped her immensely, something which she admitted so herself only a few months ago (yes we're still very close friends).
And then some narrow minded gits here dare to put in question this relationship based on a few figures without knowing any of the facts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's fine. You can be friends with her, but then when she tries to make relationship type advances towards you, you're supposed to be the mature one and understand that it's wrong. There's nothing wrong with befriending a younger person, but it's another thing to date them no matter how much you think they've 'matured'.
*edited* she wasn't a 'woman' at 14, she was an eight grader who, unfortunately had to take care of a younger sibling due to bad parents.
C
crono1224
In many society they are consider children. You can't get legally get into any contract agree with with a child under 18 without a parent consent.
Also not all 14 year old girl mentality are the same. Heck, I'm 37 and STILL play video games and people think I'm still a child. (at least my parents and relatives think so) I think the reason the age of 18 is consider adult is the cognitive process has been develop and more "hard coded" and able to make decisions (may not sound decision but they can)
until the law is changed that an adult is 14 instead of 18. She is a child.[/QUOTE]
You admit that not everyone at a certain age is the same - this was not a legal dispute (heck, that was why I gave that example - not everyone is the same) but to show that the law generalises and because of that, there's cases where it protects people who don't need protecting. If you both know you're ready, if you both know it's right, if you both really mean it and if you both know you're mature enough, are you really going to be so narrow minded to be blinded by a mere number which means nothing really?
The girl in question grew up being abused by alcoholic parents, had to take care of her little brother and had to really fight through her childhood and despite all that she had become a wonderful woman at such young an age. I was the only person she knew at the time who understood what she had gone through and who she could open up to, and that helped her immensely, something which she admitted so herself only a few months ago (yes we're still very close friends).
And then some narrow minded gits here dare to put in question this relationship based on a few figures without knowing any of the facts.[/QUOTE]
Yes cause we are going to take someones biased word that they are as mature as they say the person is. First of all 14 year old is in what middle school? Hasn't ever lived on her own, prolly never had a real job or even part time job, doesn't understand alot of how things work. The 22 year old is either in college/graduated college, or been working full time for at least a few years.
Its stage of the life differences, and beyond that its life experience differences. Fuck you can't even take her to an R rated movie, or bar, she can't fly on a plane without parents permision or her lying.
- Status