As has been said before, this is [del]an elephant[/del]irrelevant. Future prediction is not a part of the law until Tom Cruise says it is.
Both of these are Roman Polanski’s fault. Had he not fled and stayed away for as long as he did, these wouldn’t be issues. He did, so they are. The fault lies not with the prosecution, but with Polanski himself.
Again, irrelevant. Polanski does not get to be rewarded for fleeing prosecution. The defense can argue this if they want (likely they won’t), but there needs to be a trial first.
Actually this could prove an acceptable middle ground. Prosecute him for fleeing from justice, but not for the rape itself. This way Samantha does not have to testify, he gets time in prison, and everybody’s happy.
It is irrelevant that a woman’s life is about to be made a living hell so that an abstract concept can feel good. I don’t understand this kind of dehumanizing of the victim.
A question for the in house staff of attorneys: Would Samantha even need to testify, or would the earlier testimony be allowable? I think the earlier testimony is usable, but most of my legal knowledge comes from the Law and Order franchise which was voided after Jerry Orbach died.
There’s a world of difference between “You think child rape is okay” and “Roman Polanski’s crime is excusable.” I think your position is the latter – based on your repeated attempt to excuse Polanski him from the consequences of his crime. I have NEVER said ANYTHING like the former.
Is it possible a third party was in the room with a gun to his head. It is not likely however, nor is there any evidence whatsoever to back up either assertion. We must confine ourselves to not the outer fringes of the theoretical, but to the actual facts of the case as they are known to us and as admitted by the defendant.
Don’t know, but we don’t make decisions on criminal punishments based on the likelihood that any one person will be made safer by the incarceration of each individual criminal. By this rationale, a man who kills his whole family out of hatred of blood relations, should be immediately released since no one person will be made safer by his incarceration.
I’m willing to assume that one.
Maybe so, but ISTM just as likely, if not more so, that the message this sends will be ‘You cannot run from justice. You must face it and make whatever arguments you can in the forum provided: the criminal justice system.’
We are a collective society that does not reduce down to specific individuals. I don’t honestly think that I, Jodi, have the right to take away anyone’s freedom, but that doesn’t mean I don’t grant that society can. IOW, society has powers, goals, and responsibilities that transcend the individual. Thus your question as to the personal effect of this California case upon me, is spurious. She has some say; I have none. But so what? Neither do you but that hasn’t stopped you from arguing about it. Why should it stop me?
I have already pointed out that her wishes are not the end of the inquiry, as have several others. AFAICT, you read that as “fuck the silly bitch,” so I’m not sure the value of trying to explain it again.
If Geimer wanted him tortured slowly, disemboweled, buried up to his neck in an ant-hill covered with honey and burned alive, then his corpse used as a public urinal, would you support that?
If so, do you believe that the victim’s wishes are more important than the rule of law? (FTR: I don’t)
If not, why don’t you think the victim’s wishes matter? Because asking the state to ignore the facts that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, then fled from justice to lounge on the banks of the French Riviera* in sunny Paris is just about as bad.
*Hyperbole…maybe. Where did he live in Paris? Did he live in the sewers among his fellow vermin and rats?
Yep. In the Belly of the Beast was the name of the book IIRC (I’d check but I have a slow connection). He killed after being released (and the plot was fictionalized on OZ).
Vidal was late to the prisoner lit party. His main claim is being pen pals with Timothy McVeigh and writing an article positing that he might be innocent. Then he took up 9-11 conspiracy as a hobby.
Capote (Vidal’s archrival) was odd in that while he clearly fell in love with Perry Smith and defended him pretty much to his dying day as a misunderstood artist, he never once attempted to save his life or claim his innocence or ameliorating circumstances in any way. In the Hoffman movie it was implied this was due to needing an ending for his book, but from all I’ve read of Capote I think it was because he knew Smith, however tragic a figure, was also a guilty as hell psychopath too dangerous to ever go free and that if anybody deserved the death penalty Smith did.
I’m not trying to dehumanize the victim or make an abstract concept feel good any more than you are trying to retroactively dehumanize a thirteen year old girl or nullify the basis of our justice system. It is unfortunate that a woman needs to have her past dredged up again after she has gained closure, but it is not my fault or that of the American justice system or the District Attorney or of Switzerland. Roman Polanski fled and stayed away purposefully until now. It is his fault that the victim may have to testify again and he shouldn’t be rewarded for it. I almost think that he should suffer a more severe punishment for it. I’m curious why you seem not to feel the same, if I can ask for more information or a post that I may have missed.
Torture is not legal under the law as a penalty for rape (unless perhaps they sent him to Guantanamo, which would resolve the situation nicely). It is clear that the victim’s wishes could only possibly be considered within the constructs of the law, and while the law makes no allowance for torture it does for mistrials and dropped charges.
You are arguing that he should NOT be arrested. You said:
The guy committed a CRIME that you are EXCUSING for the reasons given above and repeatedly since. Based on everything you have said to date, you want there to be NO CONSEQUENCES to his actions – because he was crazy, because he had a bad childhood, because the victim doesn’t want it, because he hasn’t done it again since, because it would be too expensive. YOU WANT HIM TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS CONDUCT. You have said nothing – NOTHING – except that.
This is NOT the same as saying “child rape is okay,” which no one but YOU YOURSELF has EVER said was your position.
So call me stupid all you want with your corn-pone pea-pickin’ banjo-pluckin’ insults, but at least I’m not being mendacious about what my position is.
Nice allusion to your “southerners are stupid racists” threads. Nice that you work in all of my family and most of my friends into your vitriol; I wonder why you don’t do that with black/Asian/Jewish posters though.
Excusing his crime would be to say “Let him come back to America, let him walk free on our streets”. I’m saying the rights of the victim in this case should outweigh the rights of SOCIETY. By your own words her life will be made less by his prosecution… why is this just not a problem to you? Why must she be victimized twice?
If it’s injustice you want righted there’s no end to it, it’s an unlimited supply. We’re killing thousands of people every year across the globe and there’s not a day that goes by without violent crime. What’s so important about this one that the victim’s wishes are to be ignored completely and she must be made to relive the most painful ordeal of her life?
The purposes served by incarceration are 1) punishment 2) protection of society 3) rehabilitation, though obviously not all three are always an issue. In this case only 1) punishment is the one that can be served. The person who has the most right to demand punishment is the person who says “Please don’t”. I do not understand why I’m being called unreasonable for saying “Let’s lean on her side”.
And again, I’ve said repeatedly if she wanted him prosecuted I’d be for it, and that if this was in 1998 instead of 1978 I’d be fine with it, but it’s not and regardless of what bad fiction indicates Revenge is NOT a dish best served cold. An argument could be made that it’s better cold than not at all, but the victim here isn’t hungry at all.
Because somebody isn’t willing to follow through on something, that means a threat must have had a different meaning? 99% of internet tough guys saying they’ll kick somebody’s ass don’t mean it, but the meaning of the threat is still clear.
Yes, I have seen your clarification about legal action. My original point about being a hypocrite about what goes on in the Pit still stands.
Your illogic is causing my eyes to glaze over so I’m gonna have to cut you off right here.
You are the one making assertions about the harm he hasn’t done to other people. Where’s your evidence for this? Lacking evidence of wrongdoing is not the same thing having evidence of good behavior.
Anyone disturbed enough to do what he did to that girl and then run away is probably capable of committing all kinds of things. There’s no data publically available that I know of that should compell us to believe this was an isolated incident. What inner insight into Polaski’s character and morals do you have that suggests otherwise?
Two questions if I may ask Sampiro, and Frank as you seem to also be on the victim’s rights side.
If this were a present case (meaning that she was still thirteen and he was aged whatever and there had been no stretch of intervening years) and she felt that he should not be prosecuted, would you agree with her or feel that he should be prosecuted?
If she felt at age thirteen when the crime occured that Roman Polanski should be prosecuted, why should the way she feels now be more relevant than the way she felt at the time the crime was commited?
I don’t have to make allusion to anything but this: 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.
You sound like the bastard child of Lewis Grizzard and Larry the Cable Guy when you do that, and you act like you’re being magically less insulting if you sound like you’re spittin’ 'baccy every fifth word. You’re not; you’re just as insulting as if you used the proper English you manage to marshall on other occasions. And spare me your weak canard about how any objection to anything Southern must either be racism (by me) or an accusation of racism – to you, of course, you being The Victim in this scenario, as usual. You poor Southerner, you. I live down here too, and if I find your corn-pone tiresome, that doesn’t make me a racisit, anti-Southern or anti-South. It makes me anti-You when you pull that shit. So to put it in your vernacular, that dog don’t hunt.
Please explain how the second is inconsist with the first, so that your position doesn’t devolve down to both.
I didn’t say it’s not a problem for me. I do think it’s a factor to be heavily weighed in deciding how to proceed. But only one factor. And I will point out that while you have wisely focused on the victim at this point in the discussion, as it is clearly the most persuasive point, you started from “his folks were in Auchwitz and his wife was horribly murdered and he must have been insane.” Now your position seems to be that the wishes of the victim must be paramount. I’m not sure I agree with that – I kind of think I don’t – but I’m less likely to argue with it than with some of the other rationales you were trotting out when this bus first left the station.
Actually they are pretty much intercheangable in a court of law. It’s in fact pretty much the basis of our legal system- “innocent [that’s legalese for “good behavior”] until PROVEN guilty”. He’s not even accused.
Ignored in the sense that I’ve answered it REPEATEDLY- if this were a “fresh case” then I’d be fully in favor of it being prosecuted. A 13 year old does not have the legal right to not let someone be prosecuted.
You didn’t ask, but what if the victim was 21 and did not want to press charges on a recent crime? No, I wouldn’t honor their wishes- for several reasons that I won’t go into since nobody asked.
But this ISN’T a fresh case and the victim ISN’T a minor now.
It’s a bullshit accusation. And it’s a low, vile kind of accusation that doesn’t need to be said, even here in the pit.
People seem to want to twist Sampiro’s view into something it isn’t. I don’t see a defense of Polanski’s actions. What I see is someone who thinks (and for fuck’s sake, SAID), the the desires of the victim should be weighed more heavily than the alleged “justice” that continued prosecution would bring.
Personally, I don’t think he’ll ever get sent back to the U.S. But if he does, I hope the gov’t can find a way to impose appropriate punishment, while at the same time, not exposing the victim to more pain and suffering.