The crime didn’t carry a life sentence, did it?
If you are suggesting he should be killed in prison, that is ridiculous.
Where did I say either of the first two things was okay? Am I allowed to say that’s a complete and total strawman? Consider it said. Nor did I say spooje should die in prison, as a matter of fact. In the future, try responding to things I actually say. I made no comment on spooje’s situation, but if I had, I would’ve said the following: “Legally, I’m pretty sure he would be okay if he didn’t know the girl’s age, as I think there are exceptions in the law for that kind of thing. Furthermore, I don’t think he did anything wrong.” But thanks for the complete mischaracterization based on precisely zippo.
Sorry, I should’ve kept going. No, it’s not, Derleth. In fact, it’s against the law. People who are drunk can’t legally consent to sex, thus, that’s also rape. I’m not sure if there’s a similar situation in place for people who have severe cognitive defects, but since I never said or implied such a thing was okay, I think I’m good there.
I don’t know what guidelines there would be for sentencing, but for charges that include rape, endangering the welfare (i.e. suppling drugs to a minor), evading arrest, etc., I think it conceivable that the sum years of the sentence could exceed the sum years of remaining life expectancy. Do you disagree that strongly?
The mere suggestion that I’d advocate prison violence is disdainful.
Actually, Salva went to prison for his crimes, and now he’s registered in California as a sex offender. What else do you want?
Are you fucking slow? First of all, don’t misquote me, twist my intentions, or try to put words in my mouth.
Secondly, are you trying to say that child rape was legal in California in the 1960s? Because if you’re actually trying to say something else then that statement doesn’t make any fucking sense.
Bullseye.
YOu can say that Polanski is a talented individual, and still enjoy his films, while at the same time, acknowledging that he’s a murdering scumbag.
And sadly, I see some of what Doghouse mentioned-some of the same people who booed Kazan (another talented asshole), gave Polanski a standing ovation. If you’re going to separate the man from his work, at least be consistant. Same goes if you’re going to boycott someone’s work because of his personal life.
Whether or not Samantha consented, Polanski was STILL the adult in the situation. He should have known better. I deeply and truly feel for what happened to Sharon Tate. I feel for him in that regard.
Nevertheless, the man’s a scumsucking rapist.
And finally, a question-why was he never extradicted? Why did France just let him stay there, despite his conviction?
There is no hell, only France?
What the fuck does Louisiana have to do with anything? Polanski didn’t rape her in Louisiana. Am I being whooshed or are you making some ass-backward swipe at the South?
I agree totally.
That’s an interesting sentiment, and I suspect it lies at the heart of the OP’s problem. Exactly what makes you feel that way?
Uh, I didn’t. I quoted you, accurately, as stating that for all you know, Polanski has carried out other such offenses while in France. To my knowledge, such is not the case, and your statement seems to imply that if such had happened, for some reason the French authorities would not take action. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here.
Obviously, I’m arguing with emotion rather than reason, so I’ll say no more in regards to the OP.
Polanski is a naturalized French citizen (dating, I believe, from his childhood). France is not obligated to honor, and normally does not honor, extradition requests for its citizens from the US. He apparently could be extradited should he, for example, travel to certain other EU countries such as the UK.
Reference:
I don’t know if you are being whooshed, but you appear to be making too much of it. Unless my geography skills are rustier than I thought, Louisiana is just one state in the South. It also happens to be a state where you couldn’t legally get a blow job until just a few years ago. In reality, I believe I meant to name Georgia, where the law is still on the books, but if you like to get offended over flippant comments, be my guest.
Yeah, you could have meant that he should get a life sentance. But it’s more than a bit ambiguous, dontcha think?
You might be convinced of that based on a portion of the girl’s testimony, but the courts, with access to all the evidence, were not. Polanski pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. All other charges were dropped.
No. I don’t. Why go inserting phases that don’t exist when the point has already been clarified? For extra credit, try the following thought experiment: you hear a 70 year old man has died, do you think A) “huh.” or B) “Redrum! Redrum!”
Don’t answer. Consider it an exercise in personal development.
I’ll just pipe in here that it is quite common for the State to allow a person to plead guilty to a lesser charge. The fact he pled guilty to a lesser offense does not necessarily mean, nor even imply, that the intercourse was non-consensual.
This is true.
And your knowledge on this matter is better than mine why?
**
This is where you twist my words. You’re trying to make me look like I’m taking an underhanded stab at the French, but you’re wrong again.
I’ve been to France, I think it’s a beautiful country with wonderfully pleasant people, but are you meaning to tell me that you believe no crime goes unpunished in any country?
Marley23: I did not intentionally mischaracterize your posts. I’m sorry if you thought I did. I was guilty of not understanding the laws (all of the things mentioned in my post are, in fact, unlawful, a fact I was unaware of). I’m sorry.
What I said was in response to your post here:
A rather absolutist view, ne pas? By characterizing statutory rape as a crime based solely upon age, as opposed to being based upon relative ability to give consent irrespective of age, you equate actually consensual acts to much worse acts.
Rape is a very strong crime, as it should be. It is the most degrading of the violent crimes, when it is violent, and it deserves capital punishment.
But expanding the definition of rape to include nonviolent status offenses makes the law much more difficult. We must subdivide rape into two specific categories, violent rape and statutory rape. Violent rape is real rape, as defined by common usage of the term, whereas statutory rape can be proven simply on a technicality (one day of discrepency is, in theory, all it takes). But the stigma in both cases is very real, regardless of how consensual the act was.
So, it comes down to one question: Do you think status offenses are as bad as violent offenses?