Why should Roman Polanski be arrested, tried, sentenced?
Precedent
Precedent in the legal sense is purely judicial. This is an enforcement issue. "Precedent" only applies in the colloquial sense of "setting a good/bad example."
Ah, my bad. There was a reason I dropped law in high school.
You can do law in high school where you are from?
Kalkino on
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Why should Roman Polanski be arrested, tried, sentenced?
Precedent
Precedent in the legal sense is purely judicial. This is an enforcement issue. "Precedent" only applies in the colloquial sense of "setting a good/bad example."
Ah, my bad. There was a reason I dropped law in high school.
I'm probably being too pedantic. It is absolutely true that letting Polanski escape sentencing would be a bad example for future law enforcers to follow.
Why should Roman Polanski be arrested, tried, sentenced?
Precedent
Precedent in the legal sense is purely judicial. This is an enforcement issue. "Precedent" only applies in the colloquial sense of "setting a good/bad example."
Ah, my bad. There was a reason I dropped law in high school.
Look if they really wanted him in prison they should have done this shit correctly the first time around. Why so incompetent?
So because they may have messed up the sentencing in the trial the first time 'round, obviously the case wasn't that important and it should just be dropped?
Well, obviously, if you manage to run from the law before they put you in jail, you've earned your freedom because hey, those guys just incompetent.
It's actually like that for most crimes, with the statute of limitations. I can go rape a whole mess of people and if I'm unable to be brought to justice in 25 years, I'm scott free.
The difference here is that statuatory rape has no statute of limitations right?
override367 on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Look if they really wanted him in prison they should have done this shit correctly the first time around. Why so incompetent?
So because they may have messed up the sentencing in the trial the first time 'round, obviously the case wasn't that important and it should just be dropped?
Well, obviously, if you manage to run from the law before they put you in jail, you've earned your freedom because hey, those guys just incompetent.
It's actually like that for most crimes, with the statute of limitations. I can go rape a whole mess of people and if I'm unable to be brought to justice in 25 years, I'm scott free.
The difference here is that statuatory rape has no statute of limitations right?
The statue of limitations applies to indictment. Polanski was indicted well within the period of the statute and summarily convicted.
Why should Roman Polanski be arrested, tried, sentenced?
Precedent
Precedent in the legal sense is purely judicial. This is an enforcement issue. "Precedent" only applies in the colloquial sense of "setting a good/bad example."
Ah, my bad. There was a reason I dropped law in high school.
You can do law in high school where you are from?
*jealous*
I guess it would depend on how it was done/taught. If it was to give kids a good understanding of how the legal system works and how that relates to them being adults - that is pretty cool. If it is pre-college track then I would be of the opinion that its too specialist for high school, and that time would be better spent on learning more general skills or knowledge.
Somehow, I don't see this being the least bit controversial if Polanski wasn't a celebrity.
If the headline was "Plumber who drugged, raped, 13 year old girl arrested after fleeing country and evading arrest for 32 years" Would anyone be complaining?
Corvus on
:so_raven:
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
So it's GREAT that this case is still being pursued even to the detriment of the person raped.
Yes. Trials and the justice system do not exist solely for the victims.
Because yes a man who hasn't been on US shores since the great PONG craze is important to our justice system.
Then you'll say 'oh so criminals can just leave the US and we shouldn't try to catch them' to which I'll say 'dude it was 30 years ago and no one else has accused him of shit' to which you'll say 'oh good everyone gets a free rape card as long as they don't do it again' to which I'll say 'show me any evidence that he is someone who is likely to re-offend or has not suffered some punishment for the incident and in fact the media frenzy over this IS something that should be taken into account when talking about this specific case is it doing anyone any good to have this stupid shit go on for so long?' That's as far ahead as I've got please take up the argument from this point.
Why are we always unwilling to forgive people for crimes they committed long ago in the past. Why can't we just let it go. Looking forward, not back.
Not to Godwin the thread, but do you feel the same way about Nazi war criminals currently in hiding?
Not to further Godwin the thread but do you mean to include the Nazi criminals we gave pardon to so they'd work for us?
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Right, which is why we use diplomacy like extraction treaties when France/the US/Canada have criminals on their soil that need to go to the places they commited their crimes to face the justice system. I think you're agreeing with me, I'm just making sure.
Yeah, we're on the same page.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Somehow, I don't see this being the least bit controversial if Polanski wasn't a celebrity.
If the headline was "Plumber who drugged, raped, 13 year old girl arrested after fleeing country and evading arrest for 32 years" Would anyone be complaining?
MrMister on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
If that was the story there probably wouldn't be a story let alone a thread.
And then we could talk about some other crime involving some other celebrity.
If that was the story there probably wouldn't be a story let alone a thread.
And then we could talk about some other crime involving some other celebrity.
Polanski's almost a perfect case though. Horrible crime, very little controversy in America over whether he actually perpetrated it, beloved in Europe and the darling of the rich and famous. Plus, y'know - Hollywood.
I'm not particularly impressed by all the raging about the sanctity of the judicial system and crap in this thread. Considering all the people who should be in jail but aren't (politicians, policemen, rich people, etc) and all the people who are in jail but shouldn't not to mention all the other stupid bullshit in our criminal code like Megan's Laws, I for one do not have enough respect left for our judicial system to give a damn.
Well then, I'm going to buy a plane ticket to France then rape somebody you care about...we'll see how you feel then.
Just because we can't put all the powerful/famous people in prison that should be doesn't mean I don't feel strongly that we should try.
Why should Roman Polanski be arrested, tried, sentenced?
Precedent
Precedent in the legal sense is purely judicial. This is an enforcement issue. "Precedent" only applies in the colloquial sense of "setting a good/bad example."
Ah, my bad. There was a reason I dropped law in high school.
You can do law in high school where you are from?
*jealous*
I guess it would depend on how it was done/taught. If it was to give kids a good understanding of how the legal system works and how that relates to them being adults - that is pretty cool. If it is pre-college track then I would be of the opinion that its too specialist for high school, and that time would be better spent on learning more general skills or knowledge.
The first one mostly, though I know the class did eventually do mock trials in the local courthouse against other schools, with local lawyers volunteering time to help out.
I think maybe if he was forced to play The Path by Tale of Tales that could be considered equivalent to his entire prison time and he would get the added benefit of learning of the dangers of rape. It's a win/win.
Somehow, I don't see this being the least bit controversial if Polanski wasn't a celebrity.
If the headline was "Plumber who drugged, raped, 13 year old girl arrested after fleeing country and evading arrest for 32 years" Would anyone be complaining?
A little, because it's been 32 years, and I would be concerned about how efficiently the justice department was allocating its resources.
It's more important to get Polaski because he's famous and successful, even though I can see why it's a bit silly in this one specific case because of how it may very likely destroy the victim more than the event did with our modern media. That can't be used as an argument against it, it's just a huge shame.
Nothing about this case is good, you don't bring him to justice because it's helpful or good to any individual person, you bring him to justice because it's good for society.
Man all this talk of high school and law reminds me of my terrible work experience, where I worked as a clerk at court and basically had to spend all day every day listening to the staff make racist jokes.
A 44 year old man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He was convicted . He fled prosecution, and has lived a cushy life for decades. Effectively he has received no punishment from his act. If there were procedural or ethical problems at trial then he can avail himself of the legal system and appeal. For all intents and purposes he is guilty. If he is guilty he should be punished.
- Addressing the argument that others go free
Here is the thing it doesn't matter that certain generals won't get prosecuted for war crimes or others go free. That's not how it works. What matters right now is this case where again a 44 year old man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and then fled from punishment. If this were how our legal system was run, who could we prosecute? Only those with a 100% conviction rate? I wan't to know what are the limits on this idea.
However even assuming that what happens in other cases should be considered, how about the other side of that argument? Do you have any idea how often people and companies get away with doing horrible stuff just because of how expensive it is to bring a lawsuit or because there isn't enough proof for a certain legal standard?
Using your argument and turning it around I would say it is exactly BECAUSE it is so hard to always get justice that when there is a clear cut case we should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Not for vengeance and not because of what the victim wants, but because of what it says about our society. Don't you want to live in a society where we at least try, when we can, to have justice served. Where the laws apply equally to all of us?
- What harm is he doing?
Someone earlier asked what harm did he commit to society by living free until the end of his life. Here is the harm:
By fleeing from punishment in a very real since he is harming all of us. He is in effect saying that if you are rich enough and enough people like your work you can get away with it. Sure you might have to inconvenience yourself but you can get away with it. If this is allowed to stand then this is just one more step on down a road we have traveled to far down already. This road leads us to an America where all that truly matters is money and status. While I know the justice system is not perfect and money and status matter too much already giving up is not the way to fix that. What is our constitution, the wars we have fought, our very sense of being an American citizen worth if a 44 year old man can lure a 13 year old girl to a house, drug her, rape her, be convicted, flee for 30 years , and have nothing happen?
Is that an America you want to live in? I don't. The America we have right now is to close to that already.
I'm not particularly impressed by all the raging about the sanctity of the judicial system and crap in this thread. Considering all the people who should be in jail but aren't (politicians, policemen, rich people, etc) and all the people who are in jail but shouldn't not to mention all the other stupid bullshit in our criminal code like Megan's Laws, I for one do not have enough respect left for our judicial system to give a damn.
Well then, I'm going to buy a plane ticket to France then rape somebody you care about...we'll see how you feel then.
Just because we can't put all the powerful/famous people in prison that should be doesn't mean I don't feel strongly that we should try.
We let people get away with far worse things all the time in the name of political expediency. Hell, we've done worse things to people in the name of the War on Terror.
The law has to apply to everyone equally or else it has no moral right to do anything. Since it is abundantly clear that the law in the US is not equal, morally it has no right to judge anyone.
EDIT: Also, the evidence of impropriety on the part of the judge would seem to suggest that he never even got a fair trail in the first place which would frankly nullify the whole thing.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Why should Roman Polanski be arrested, tried, sentenced?
Precedent
Precedent in the legal sense is purely judicial. This is an enforcement issue. "Precedent" only applies in the colloquial sense of "setting a good/bad example."
Ah, my bad. There was a reason I dropped law in high school.
You can do law in high school where you are from?
*jealous*
I guess it would depend on how it was done/taught. If it was to give kids a good understanding of how the legal system works and how that relates to them being adults - that is pretty cool. If it is pre-college track then I would be of the opinion that its too specialist for high school, and that time would be better spent on learning more general skills or knowledge.
The first one mostly, though I know the class did eventually do mock trials in the local courthouse against other schools, with local lawyers volunteering time to help out.
My god, all we had was a debate club. Never learned a thing about law until i was 19 and attending university.
Seeing as Polanski is 76 now, if this follows through and he has to serve time, it's very possible that he could die while serving his sentence.
Which is definitely a sad, bitter end to a very tragic life.
Someone should make a biopic a few years down the road.
If he didn't want to die in prison, maybe he should given himself up a couple of decades earlier.
If he didn't want to die in prison he maybe shouldn't have raped a 13 year old girl. I don't give a shit if he saw his parents killed in front of him after seeing a movie and vowed that one day he'd abuse an underage girl to compensate its not a get out of jail free card. He commited a pretty big crime and THEN ran away and spent 30 years not in hiding but living a public life with every appearance a giant FU to the girl, her family and law. I mean he was going to collect an award, the guy doesn't care about what he did at all.
DarkWarrior on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
Is there any evidence that Polanski felt remorse for what he did in any way?
I'm not a close follower of the details of his life, but it's my impression that the never really felt he did anything wrong.
Seeing as Polanski is 76 now, if this follows through and he has to serve time, it's very possible that he could die while serving his sentence.
Which is definitely a sad, bitter end to a very tragic life.
Someone should make a biopic a few years down the road.
If he didn't want to die in prison, maybe he should given himself up a couple of decades earlier.
If he didn't want to die in prison he maybe shouldn't have raped a 13 year old girl. I don't give a shit if he saw his parents killed in front of him after seeing a movie and vowed that one day he'd abuse an underage girl to compensate its not a get out of jail free card. He commited a pretty big crime and THEN ran away and spent 30 years not in hiding but living a public life with every appearance a giant FU to the girl, her family and law. I mean he was going to collect an award, the guy doesn't care about what he did at all.
If that's directed at me, preaching to the choir much?
I think maybe if he was forced to play The Path by Tale of Tales that could be considered equivalent to his entire prison time and he would get the added benefit of learning of the dangers of rape. It's a win/win.
We have rules against cruel and unusual punishment.
I'm not particularly impressed by all the raging about the sanctity of the judicial system and crap in this thread. Considering all the people who should be in jail but aren't (politicians, policemen, rich people, etc) and all the people who are in jail but shouldn't not to mention all the other stupid bullshit in our criminal code like Megan's Laws, I for one do not have enough respect left for our judicial system to give a damn.
Well then, I'm going to buy a plane ticket to France then rape somebody you care about...we'll see how you feel then.
Just because we can't put all the powerful/famous people in prison that should be doesn't mean I don't feel strongly that we should try.
We let people get away with far worse things all the time in the name of political expediency. Hell, we've done worse things to people in the name of the War on Terror.
The law has to apply to everyone equally or else it has no moral right to do anything. Since it is abundantly clear that the law in the US is not equal, morally it has no right to judge anyone.
What are you saying here? That we just convict no one until corruption of the system is entirely erased? Do you really think that's good for anyone?
Seeing as Polanski is 76 now, if this follows through and he has to serve time, it's very possible that he could die while serving his sentence.
Which is definitely a sad, bitter end to a very tragic life.
Someone should make a biopic a few years down the road.
If he didn't want to die in prison, maybe he should given himself up a couple of decades earlier.
If he didn't want to die in prison he maybe shouldn't have raped a 13 year old girl. I don't give a shit if he saw his parents killed in front of him after seeing a movie and vowed that one day he'd abuse an underage girl to compensate its not a get out of jail free card. He commited a pretty big crime and THEN ran away and spent 30 years not in hiding but living a public life with every appearance a giant FU to the girl, her family and law. I mean he was going to collect an award, the guy doesn't care about what he did at all.
If that's directed at me, preaching to the choir much?
Posts
You can do law in high school where you are from?
I'm probably being too pedantic. It is absolutely true that letting Polanski escape sentencing would be a bad example for future law enforcers to follow.
*jealous*
It's actually like that for most crimes, with the statute of limitations. I can go rape a whole mess of people and if I'm unable to be brought to justice in 25 years, I'm scott free.
The difference here is that statuatory rape has no statute of limitations right?
The statue of limitations applies to indictment. Polanski was indicted well within the period of the statute and summarily convicted.
I guess it would depend on how it was done/taught. If it was to give kids a good understanding of how the legal system works and how that relates to them being adults - that is pretty cool. If it is pre-college track then I would be of the opinion that its too specialist for high school, and that time would be better spent on learning more general skills or knowledge.
If the headline was "Plumber who drugged, raped, 13 year old girl arrested after fleeing country and evading arrest for 32 years" Would anyone be complaining?
Yeah, we're on the same page.
And then we could talk about some other crime involving some other celebrity.
The man can be a bit of a genius behind the camera.
Polanski's almost a perfect case though. Horrible crime, very little controversy in America over whether he actually perpetrated it, beloved in Europe and the darling of the rich and famous. Plus, y'know - Hollywood.
Yeah thats true, but at least we wouldn't have to hear the people defending him.
This. There's no statute of limitations after you're convicted.
Well then, I'm going to buy a plane ticket to France then rape somebody you care about...we'll see how you feel then.
Just because we can't put all the powerful/famous people in prison that should be doesn't mean I don't feel strongly that we should try.
The first one mostly, though I know the class did eventually do mock trials in the local courthouse against other schools, with local lawyers volunteering time to help out.
A little, because it's been 32 years, and I would be concerned about how efficiently the justice department was allocating its resources.
It's more important to get Polaski because he's famous and successful, even though I can see why it's a bit silly in this one specific case because of how it may very likely destroy the victim more than the event did with our modern media. That can't be used as an argument against it, it's just a huge shame.
Nothing about this case is good, you don't bring him to justice because it's helpful or good to any individual person, you bring him to justice because it's good for society.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Which is definitely a sad, bitter end to a very tragic life.
Someone should make a biopic a few years down the road.
Would you mind sharing with the class?
- Addressing the argument that others go free
Here is the thing it doesn't matter that certain generals won't get prosecuted for war crimes or others go free. That's not how it works. What matters right now is this case where again a 44 year old man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and then fled from punishment. If this were how our legal system was run, who could we prosecute? Only those with a 100% conviction rate? I wan't to know what are the limits on this idea.
However even assuming that what happens in other cases should be considered, how about the other side of that argument? Do you have any idea how often people and companies get away with doing horrible stuff just because of how expensive it is to bring a lawsuit or because there isn't enough proof for a certain legal standard?
Using your argument and turning it around I would say it is exactly BECAUSE it is so hard to always get justice that when there is a clear cut case we should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Not for vengeance and not because of what the victim wants, but because of what it says about our society. Don't you want to live in a society where we at least try, when we can, to have justice served. Where the laws apply equally to all of us?
- What harm is he doing?
Someone earlier asked what harm did he commit to society by living free until the end of his life. Here is the harm:
By fleeing from punishment in a very real since he is harming all of us. He is in effect saying that if you are rich enough and enough people like your work you can get away with it. Sure you might have to inconvenience yourself but you can get away with it. If this is allowed to stand then this is just one more step on down a road we have traveled to far down already. This road leads us to an America where all that truly matters is money and status. While I know the justice system is not perfect and money and status matter too much already giving up is not the way to fix that. What is our constitution, the wars we have fought, our very sense of being an American citizen worth if a 44 year old man can lure a 13 year old girl to a house, drug her, rape her, be convicted, flee for 30 years , and have nothing happen?
Is that an America you want to live in? I don't. The America we have right now is to close to that already.
Didn't a movie about him just come out?
EDIT: Yes, one did.
If he didn't want to die in prison, maybe he should given himself up a couple of decades earlier.
We let people get away with far worse things all the time in the name of political expediency. Hell, we've done worse things to people in the name of the War on Terror.
The law has to apply to everyone equally or else it has no moral right to do anything. Since it is abundantly clear that the law in the US is not equal, morally it has no right to judge anyone.
EDIT: Also, the evidence of impropriety on the part of the judge would seem to suggest that he never even got a fair trail in the first place which would frankly nullify the whole thing.
Hmm, apparently it did.
I'll have to check that out.
Still, documentary /= biopic.
Well that would have ruined his plan.
He made it to 76 years old.
It seemed to me, probably to him, and to a lot of others that he was going to get away with it.
...this is horribly offtopic is it not.
He still may, depending on how extradition goes.
If he didn't want to die in prison he maybe shouldn't have raped a 13 year old girl. I don't give a shit if he saw his parents killed in front of him after seeing a movie and vowed that one day he'd abuse an underage girl to compensate its not a get out of jail free card. He commited a pretty big crime and THEN ran away and spent 30 years not in hiding but living a public life with every appearance a giant FU to the girl, her family and law. I mean he was going to collect an award, the guy doesn't care about what he did at all.
I'm not a close follower of the details of his life, but it's my impression that the never really felt he did anything wrong.
If that's directed at me, preaching to the choir much?
We have rules against cruel and unusual punishment.
Initially trying to make the girl who accused you out to be some of kind of slut is generally a bad sign.
What are you saying here? That we just convict no one until corruption of the system is entirely erased? Do you really think that's good for anyone?
Its in concert WITH not AT you.