You have no idea if point #4 is true. For all any of us know, he could have been raping kids for the past 30 years but the crimes have simply gone unreported due to X,Y, and Z reasons.
And if you’re wrong about #4, then you’re wrong about #5.
It’s ridiculous to assert what you’re asserting as if you have ominopotent knowledge. This is why people are accusing you of being an apologist.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but he’s not that into you.
Oh, as opposed to all the rapes that are sensible, and all the rapists who consider the consequences before committing a rape. This, like the vast majority of rapes, is a perfectly sane man who wanted to have sex with the girl, so he did. He PLED GUILTY. So your whole “He must have been insane!” defense is complete twaddle, for which you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
You have no evidence whatsoever of any sort of negative mental state, you just want that to be the truth for God alone knows what reason. But heck, if you’re just going to make up defenses out of whole cloth, why not have him possessed by aliens?
I’m aware of where we are, Sugar Lips, and if something so at odds with what was actually said, is what you “seem to be hearing,” you need to get your ears checked. My larger point is that someone who has no problem twisting others’ words so egregiously to make posters sound bad, doesn’t have a leg to stand on in regards to snarkiness.
Well, yes, I would imagine so. But then no one is suggesting anything like that, except hysterical lil’ ol’ you.
We have yet to invent the magical Unraping Machine, and therefore nothing anyone does unrapes anyone. Is that in your mind a grounds for excusing rape?
No, I’m surely not. :rolleyes:
And by the way, you’re New And Improved List of Defenses no longer actually includes the defense I have previously objected to as utter bullshit. May we therefore assume you have retracted it?
Maybe a certain TV host who has sometimes been accused of similar–but even more unspeakably vile–crimes, with the difference that he allegedly performed those deeds even more recently than Polanski…say, around 1990 or thereabouts…will step up to the plate.
And there’s a fundamental difference from me obviously facetiously asking if you and ol’ Roman are BFFs, and you taking the statement “It’s Polansky’s fault though that she’s in this predicament, had he not violated the law and fled it wouldn’t be an issue today. For him to realize some benefit from that is wrong and, therefore, should not sway the decision on extradition in his favor,” which is what lieu said, and implying that his position is “the silly bitch; fuck her.”
To compare the two is disengenious and dishonest.
Well, at least one famous director, French no less, is not defending Polanski:
For those two, I’ll do my 45 days in the county lock up.
See that part there is where I’m confused. I thought that they’d gone past the point where Polanski could withdraw his plea. If the trial phase is closed and they’re on to the sentencing part, isn’t it too late for Polanski to withdraw his plea? At that point, wouldn’t the judge have had to accept the plea and read it into record?
As I said previously, I agree that Polanski is unlikely to receive any sympathy from a jury.
I’m glad it’s this way too - I consider it one of the great strengths of our country as it makes law enforcement about something higher than individual vengeance. I’m glad that the prosecution is handled by people with no direct connection to the case. It also puts the burden of proof on a larger scale as well.
So no - I don’t think the victim’s wishes should matter if a crime is prosecuted and I’m glad that they don’t.
It’s not just about her, as I said above.
And of course, the blame for this rests entirely on Polanski for dragging this out.
This is true of every crime ever committed. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prosecute crimes.
We don’t actually know this. For all we know, he’s been using his money and connections to go through an underage prostitute a week.
Again we don’t actually know this.
But also again, it’s not just about keeping him off the streets. It’s important that the state maintains its ability to prosecute crimes even if the criminal tries to run away.
I don’t actually believe it will cause an actual incident.
Many old men are in prison. I do believe the state has a responsibility to keep safe the people the people it incarcerates. I hope Polanski gets whatever care he needs to keep him safe in prison - as I hope the same for other geriatric prisoners.
This is true of pretty much any crime you care to point at. I’m sure California will cope. (Think of all the business the tv journalists will bring in. It will be like a convention!)
I’m not really following you here - I agree that it’s a poor argument to say that the money should be spent on homegrown criminals but I don’t see how that supports your point.
The harm to America would come from allowing criminals to escape their debt to society by fleeing from prosecution. America would also be harmed by allowing wealthy & famous people to think that they are above the law here.
You’ve repeated it more than twice. It’s still not just about her.
Right, you just said you’d pursue further action against perceived libel.
And clarified in post #101 that he meant through board channels, not through the court system.
And put me in the camp that feels he should be punished if only to show that those who flee from the justice system will be pursued. Yes, the pain that the original victim feels is tragic, but it’s important for members of society to understand that running from an undesired incarceration could very well result in spending the twilight of their years staring at iron bars.
Nope. But the victim’s statements are only relevant to a point. If you’re a victim of armed robbery but aren’t injured physically in the robbery, it doesn’t matter how much you think the armed robbers should be given the death penalty, they’re not going to get it.
In the same vein, it doesn’t matter how much the victim of a drugging and raping says “Let him go”.
The victim should be able to influence the sentencing harsher or lighter, but not “kill” or “absolve”.
If the victim was saying “Hey, I want the sentencing to be light”, yeah, we should listen and give him whatever the minimum mandatory sentences are for child drugging, child rape and fleeing from justice. But we don’t just ignore the crime itself.
And Polanski would have had closure had he actually stuck around for the sentencing phase of the trial. Instead he left the country.
Now for me this is not a sideshow. This about justice and the law. Polanski broke the law when he drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl and he further broke the law when he fled the country. To erase his debt simply because time has passed 1) simply furthers the belief that certain things are okay if one is famous enough. We wouldn’t be talking about this at all if Roman Polanski the short order cook had commited the same crime. There would be no petition with names of famous people attached at all. There would only be an old man heading off to jail. 2) teaches that if one has the money or ability to hide for long enough, punishment simply doesn’t apply. I don’t like that one bit, and I don’t see how it should sit well with others. If any disagree, I’d like to hear reasons.
Not at all. As has been said though, if she feels this way, let her say so during sentencing. How she feels now likely doesn’t reflect how she felt at age thirteen (when this happened and when the trial would’ve taken place) and even still would not have had any bearing at the time the charges were filed. That’s not arguable. It also doesn’t affect the charge of flight as she can’t grant permission for a person to avoid their sentence.
Personally, I think it’s arguable that her comments now should have any weight at all in sentencing. Not for any Grace-esque “fry 'im” reasons but simply that being able to avoid justice long enough for the victim to have reached forgiveness and closure shouldn’t constitute a case for leniency. He shouldn’t be rewarded for having cash and clout enough to put a trial off for this long.
I have no idea that you’re not saying this while standing over the body of two teenagers whose throats you just slashed after they caught you catching fire to the twelfth Wendys you’ve burned down this week. But I have no evidence of that, nor any reason to think that you are, and if I were to call the cops and say “Better go check out ‘you with the face’ because I suspect based on no evidence whatever and the complete absence of a victim that he may have dead bodies in his home” they’d assume, quite reasonably, I’m a nut.
No court in the land will admit evidence on what somebody may possibly have done. (Hell, there have been trials in which the person’s prior history of criminal violence has been inadmissible.) This is not a consideration until something is proven or at very least a reasonable accusation is made.
Woody Allen is calling for Polanski’s release! I swear it is impossible to write parody nowadays!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/polanski.filmmakers.protest/index.html
But this cuts both ways. Why do you advocate excusing his conduct based on the state of mind he might possibly have had? State of mind is also something that has to be proven or at least a reasonable assertion made. Reasonable, meaning some evidence, however scant, to back it up.
You may assume that cats communicate telepathically in Vulgate Latin if you wish. As for your accusations that I seem to think Polanski committed no crime and if he did it was excusable, I don’t know what I can tell you since no matter how many times I say I think he’s a rapist it’s read “he thinks child rape is okay”.
So yes or no answers:
Is it possible that he was an impaired state of mind when this happened?
Is it likely that one person will be safer if he’s incarcerated?
Is it probable that Samantha’s life is going to be greatly changed and not for the better if this becomes a highly televised circus?
Is it possible that the message this sends will be ‘Once you come forward with allegations of rape- no matter how true they are- your life will never again be your own?’
Do you honestly think that you, Jodi, are as victimized as Samantha Geimer and thus you should have just as much say as she does in the prosecution of this case?
And a one word answer question: do you think Samantha Geimer’s life will be better or worse if he is brought to trial?
I HAVE NEVER EXCUSED HIS CONDUCT. Christ Almighty eating a corndog and bouncing on a pogo stick woman, were you born this stupid or did you take private lessons in a Special Ed class? Disagree with me all you want, but you are either flat out lying to bait me or you have the reading comprehension skills of the fungus on the fleas of the cloaca of a road killed poison dart frog.
IANAL, but I’m not sure if probation is even an option for foreign nationals. To tack on another question, if probated would he have to remain in the country?
Which obviously can mean only one thing: I’m going to spend $50,000 in legal fees to prosecute a guy I’ve never once (to my knowledge) met, whose name and location and race and age and even gender I’m not even positive of, on the off chance that a weird alignment in the heavens and 13 consecutive long shots a judge would force him to say “I’m sorry I offended you on a chat board”.
Reading comprehension, thy username is Snarky_Kong.
Wasn’t that Norman Mailer?