Options

Roman Polanski: he made a thriller

1626365676871

Posts

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'll let you guess how many people involved in the criminal justice system have enough money to make bail and buy an international plane ticket shortly thereafter.

    Considering bonds don't have to be paid in full and an international ticket only runs about $1000? Probably a lot.

    Haha, kay.

    Yeah, but what percentage of people involved with the criminal justice system even have passports.

    I don't even have a passport, and I can get one free through my job.

    And what percent of people can reasonably abscond to another country without facing what is basically a life in the gutter? It's not like I could just buy a plane ticket to France (or even England, where I speak the language) and reasonably expect to thrive (or even survive).

    The fact that Polanski had considerable wealth certainly made flight a more feasible option.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    AroducAroduc regular
    edited December 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Just like Roman Polanski's wealth and celebrity have played a part in his case.

    Please tell me what part Polanski's wealth and celebrity has played in this case. This has been brought up numerous times, yet I haven't seen anyone explain how it's pertinent, other than the one positive thing this case has going for it (i.e., victim's restitution).

    It's what let him have the opportunity to escape in the first place. They let him out to work on a movie before sentencing, and he never came back.

    No. This is incorrect. He did come back. And served 42ish days in a mental whatever as part of his plea bargain, whereupon he was let out early with a gold star from his psych. And then he fled.

    Aroduc on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Just like Roman Polanski's wealth and celebrity have played a part in his case.

    Please tell me what part Polanski's wealth and celebrity has played in this case. This has been brought up numerous times, yet I haven't seen anyone explain how it's pertinent, other than the one positive thing this case has going for it (i.e., victim's restitution).

    It's what let him have the opportunity to escape in the first place. They let him out to work on a movie before sentencing, and he never came back.

    No. This is incorrect. He did come back. And served 42ish days in a mental whatever as part of his plea bargain, whereupon he was let out early with a gold star from his psych. And then he fled.

    I think the fleeing part there is the escaping he is talking about.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'll let you guess how many people involved in the criminal justice system have enough money to make bail and buy an international plane ticket shortly thereafter.

    Considering bonds don't have to be paid in full and an international ticket only runs about $1000? Probably a lot.

    Savant wrote:
    It's what let him have the opportunity to escape in the first place. They let him out to work on a movie before sentencing, and he never came back.

    He had already served a probational sentence and was awaiting sentencing. People out on bail wait for their court date on their own recognizance all the time. Even poor people.

    No, you don't get it. Between his plea and the observation period, they allowed Polanski to travel to Germany to work on a film. He was a wealthy foreign national convicted of a felony, practically a textbook example of a flight risk, but because he was a famous director, they not only allowed him to keep his passport while awaiting sentencing, but also suspended proceedings for 3 months during which he was allowed to travel out of the country to work on his film.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Less punishment is less deterrent. Less deterrent means more crime committed inside America. That means more danger to the American population.

    And I told you to show me where Polanski's escape has led to increased statutory rape in California and I'd agree with you. I'm still waiting.
    Prove that incarceration is not a deterrent to potential criminals, or give it up.

    Prove a negative? Sir . . . I'm embarrassed for you. Or is there a Pew phone poll now that tracks pedophilia?

    "On a scale of zero to ten, how strongly would you rank incarceration as a deterrent to your raping children?"
    Yes, non-capture of Polanski might encourage more foreign nationals from countries without extradition treaties to act in the same manner,

    Or Americans with the means to live comfortably outside the nation.

    Again, nothing stopping them if the circumstances are right. You're arguing apples and oranges. Or orangutans.
    Living free is not as much punishment as extradition and incarceration.

    Yet the same ends are met. So who cares? You? Because we haven't "punished him enough?" Are you admitting you would forfeit certain safety of American girls for the social and visceral pleasure of ensuring his "punishment," at the risk of having him free on American streets again?
    Rape is a bad enough crime that we should discourage it as much as possible.

    And have we somehow encouraged it more in the last 30 years?

    You're asking me to prove one man being out of jail encouraged crime as proof that deterrence works. That's an unreasonable position, and I can only imagine it means you've run out of arguments. The effectiveness of deterrence has already been addressed in the thread. It's up to you to disprove it.

    You can also give up implying people want Polanski punished for their own pleasure. I stated clearly that more punishment means more deterrence.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'll let you guess how many people involved in the criminal justice system have enough money to make bail and buy an international plane ticket shortly thereafter.

    Considering bonds don't have to be paid in full and an international ticket only runs about $1000? Probably a lot.

    Savant wrote:
    It's what let him have the opportunity to escape in the first place. They let him out to work on a movie before sentencing, and he never came back.

    He had already served a probational sentence and was awaiting sentencing. People out on bail wait for their court date on their own recognizance all the time. Even poor people.

    Yes and when they don't make the court date, we go after them.
    On top of that, you're not normally allowed to leave the country (or even the state, I'm pretty sure) if you have a pending court date and you're out on bail.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    The effectiveness of deterrence has already been addressed in the thread. It's up to you to disprove it.

    Patently wrong. You've stated Polanski's non-apprehension would encourage more rapists, thus his arrest would serve as a deterrence to those rapists.

    You're asking me to prove (well, disprove) a negative statement. I can't prove how many things aren't happening. That's a ridiculous argument. The only provable subset in that argument is the amount of rape that has occurred as a result of Polanski's flight from justice, which is a number I've asked for repeatedly and been shut out as of yet.

    Likewise, if you're stating Polanski's arrest is important in terms of aggregate social tolerance (which it seems you are), surely you can admit the lack of an individual case doesn't significantly alter said social tolerance. The specific uniqueness inherent to his case surely puts him as an outlier to the aggregate social tolerance value of child rape. Or more simply, rape is still illegal whether Polanski faces an American trial or not, and if you're claiming a newfound lack of deterrence based on his flight, the onus is on you to back that up.

    That's the difference between a positive and negative statement.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    The effectiveness of deterrence has already been addressed in the thread. It's up to you to disprove it.

    Patently wrong. You've stated Polanski's non-apprehension would encourage more rapists, thus his arrest would serve as a deterrence to those rapists.

    You're asking me to prove (well, disprove) a negative statement. I can't prove how many things aren't happening. That's a ridiculous argument. The only provable subset in that argument is the amount of rape that has occurred as a result of Polanski's flight from justice, which is a number I've asked for repeatedly and been shut out as of yet.

    Likewise, if you're stating Polanski's arrest is important in terms of aggregate social tolerance (which it seems you are), surely you can admit the lack of an individual case doesn't significantly alter said social tolerance. The specific uniqueness inherent to his case surely puts him as an outlier to the aggregate social tolerance value of child rape. Or more simply, rape is still illegal whether Polanski faces an American trial or not, and if you're claiming a newfound lack of deterrence based on his flight, the onus is on you to back that up.

    That's the difference between a positive and negative statement.

    No, telling someone to prove that rapes happened because someone wasn't in jail is a ridiculous argument. Saying that deterrence doesn't work and failing to provide evidence (despite being asked to do so repeatedly after making that claim) is a ridiculous argument.
    surely you can admit the lack of an individual case doesn't significantly alter said social tolerance.

    You've already tried this. I've already quoted the post refuting it.

    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'll let you guess how many people involved in the criminal justice system have enough money to make bail and buy an international plane ticket shortly thereafter.

    Considering bonds don't have to be paid in full and an international ticket only runs about $1000? Probably a lot.

    Savant wrote:
    It's what let him have the opportunity to escape in the first place. They let him out to work on a movie before sentencing, and he never came back.

    He had already served a probational sentence and was awaiting sentencing. People out on bail wait for their court date on their own recognizance all the time. Even poor people.

    Yes and when they don't make the court date, we go after them.
    On top of that, you're not normally allowed to leave the country (or even the state, I'm pretty sure) if you have a pending court date and you're out on bail.

    Depends on what you are charged with. They also often gank your passport.

    psychotix on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    Some interesting data

    If that report is correct, Polanski is only looking at four years in jail for the rape charge, tops. Of course, he'll likely be found guilty on several charges, but also likely not if he cops a plea bargain.

    A fucking slap on the wrist.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    Some interesting data

    If that report is correct, Polanski is only looking at four years in jail for the rape charge, tops. Of course, he'll likely be found guilty on several charges, but also likely not if he cops a plea bargain.

    A fucking slap on the wrist.

    I've already posted research showing that consistency in punishment is a more powerful deterrent than severity of punishment. So even a minor sentence is significant.

    Also I highly doubt that fleeing from justice is going to disappear in a plea bargain.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'll let you guess how many people involved in the criminal justice system have enough money to make bail and buy an international plane ticket shortly thereafter.

    Considering bonds don't have to be paid in full and an international ticket only runs about $1000? Probably a lot.

    Savant wrote:
    It's what let him have the opportunity to escape in the first place. They let him out to work on a movie before sentencing, and he never came back.

    He had already served a probational sentence and was awaiting sentencing. People out on bail wait for their court date on their own recognizance all the time. Even poor people.

    Yes and when they don't make the court date, we go after them.
    On top of that, you're not normally allowed to leave the country (or even the state, I'm pretty sure) if you have a pending court date and you're out on bail.

    Allowed to and not able to are not necessarily the same thing.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    Some interesting data

    If that report is correct, Polanski is only looking at four years in jail for the rape charge, tops. Of course, he'll likely be found guilty on several charges, but also likely not if he cops a plea bargain.

    A fucking slap on the wrist.

    The law has changed since 1977; Polanski faces up to 20 years, as was the penalty for the crime when he was convicted. And that ignores his failure to appear, or the other charges that were put back on the table by it. If they really wanted to, they could put Polanski away for what would likely be the rest of his life, assuming he is extradited. I don't think such a sentence is likely, unless a judge really wanted to send a message to future defendants on bail.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    Some interesting data

    If that report is correct, Polanski is only looking at four years in jail for the rape charge, tops. Of course, he'll likely be found guilty on several charges, but also likely not if he cops a plea bargain.

    A fucking slap on the wrist.

    How is it not a deterrent to rich pedophiles from France? At the very least it cuts them off from every other country that has extradition treaties with America. Or is it your belief that there is only one rich pedophile in the country?

    Quid on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I think this is a pessimist vs. optimist thing. Pessimists in this case are going to assume that making examples don't deter, and optimists will assume the opposite. And there's no data to support either.

    Henroid on
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    nah, he just doesn't think America should legally extradite French people that commit crimes on American soil against Americans because it serves no utility.

    Because.

    Quid on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ross makes me annoyed that I ever thought the Polanski issue should be let go.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm reminded why I have never felt utilitarianism to be a useful philosophy and why it annoys the everliving hell out of me

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    I'm not actually sure where you're taking this claim. "this specific instance" has absolutely no meaning as far as our justice system is concerned. The law is not meted out on an individual basis. Laws, ideally, apply to everyone. Even if extraditing Polanski specifically had no direct effect on deterring or upholding the utility of the population or whatever, it would not matter, because the way our justice system works (again, ideally) is that it is applied to everyone no matter their circumstance. You don't get to rape a girl even if we had psychic powers and could tell that you would never rape again and would eventually become a wealthy humanitarian/superhero that raises kittens for orphans.

    If you want to argue that this is the way our system shouldn't work, then this is not the thread to do that.

    BloodySloth on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    I'm not actually sure where you're taking this claim. "this specific instance" has absolutely no meaning as far as our justice system is concerned. The law is not meted out on an individual basis. Laws, ideally, apply to everyone. Even if extraditing Polanski specifically had no direct effect on deterring or upholding the utility of the population or whatever, it would not matter, because the way our justice system works (again, ideally) is that it is applied to everyone no matter their circumstance. You don't get to rape a girl even if we had psychic powers and could tell that you would never rape again and would eventually become a wealthy humanitarian/superhero that raises kittens for orphans.

    If you want to argue that this is the way our system shouldn't work, then this is not the thread to do that.

    This isn't how our justice system works. There are all sorts of places where the criminal system has built in mechanisms to allow real humans like judges and prosecutors and jurors to make decisions based on the circumstances of the individual case. In the rare circumstances where we do apply criminal law in THE SAME WAY EVERY TIME FOR EVERYBODY, it tends not to work very well.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'm reminded why I have never felt utilitarianism to be a useful philosophy and why it annoys the everliving hell out of me

    yeah if you're big into punishment vengeance I can see how it wouldn't be for you

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    I'm not actually sure where you're taking this claim. "this specific instance" has absolutely no meaning as far as our justice system is concerned. The law is not meted out on an individual basis. Laws, ideally, apply to everyone. Even if extraditing Polanski specifically had no direct effect on deterring or upholding the utility of the population or whatever, it would not matter, because the way our justice system works (again, ideally) is that it is applied to everyone no matter their circumstance. You don't get to rape a girl even if we had psychic powers and could tell that you would never rape again and would eventually become a wealthy humanitarian/superhero that raises kittens for orphans.

    If you want to argue that this is the way our system shouldn't work, then this is not the thread to do that.

    This isn't how our justice system works. There are all sorts of places where the criminal system has built in mechanisms to allow real humans like judges and prosecutors and jurors to make decisions based on the circumstances of the individual case. In the rare circumstances where we do apply criminal law in THE SAME WAY EVERY TIME FOR EVERYBODY, it tends not to work very well.


    I guess this is the case, but I'm not sure it's ever gone so far as to allow someone who's been convicted of a crime just go free because it's easier for other people.

    BloodySloth on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    I'm not actually sure where you're taking this claim. "this specific instance" has absolutely no meaning as far as our justice system is concerned. The law is not meted out on an individual basis. Laws, ideally, apply to everyone. Even if extraditing Polanski specifically had no direct effect on deterring or upholding the utility of the population or whatever, it would not matter, because the way our justice system works (again, ideally) is that it is applied to everyone no matter their circumstance. You don't get to rape a girl even if we had psychic powers and could tell that you would never rape again and would eventually become a wealthy humanitarian/superhero that raises kittens for orphans.

    If you want to argue that this is the way our system shouldn't work, then this is not the thread to do that.

    This isn't how our justice system works. There are all sorts of places where the criminal system has built in mechanisms to allow real humans like judges and prosecutors and jurors to make decisions based on the circumstances of the individual case. In the rare circumstances where we do apply criminal law in THE SAME WAY EVERY TIME FOR EVERYBODY, it tends not to work very well.


    I guess this is the case, but I'm not sure it's ever gone so far as to allow someone who's been convicted of a crime just go free because it's easier for other people.

    It very nearly did it for polanski in this case. He was going to get a slap on the wrist sentence and might not even have ever had to serve it.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Pata wrote: »
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    so are you running for office or something?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    Some interesting data

    If that report is correct, Polanski is only looking at four years in jail for the rape charge, tops. Of course, he'll likely be found guilty on several charges, but also likely not if he cops a plea bargain.

    A fucking slap on the wrist.

    I've already posted research showing that consistency in punishment is a more powerful deterrent than severity of punishment. So even a minor sentence is significant.

    Also I highly doubt that fleeing from justice is going to disappear in a plea bargain.

    Doesn't this suggest that the real deterrent isn't the sentence, but the act of getting caught?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    I'm not actually sure where you're taking this claim. "this specific instance" has absolutely no meaning as far as our justice system is concerned. The law is not meted out on an individual basis. Laws, ideally, apply to everyone. Even if extraditing Polanski specifically had no direct effect on deterring or upholding the utility of the population or whatever, it would not matter, because the way our justice system works (again, ideally) is that it is applied to everyone no matter their circumstance. You don't get to rape a girl even if we had psychic powers and could tell that you would never rape again and would eventually become a wealthy humanitarian/superhero that raises kittens for orphans.

    If you want to argue that this is the way our system shouldn't work, then this is not the thread to do that.

    This isn't how our justice system works. There are all sorts of places where the criminal system has built in mechanisms to allow real humans like judges and prosecutors and jurors to make decisions based on the circumstances of the individual case. In the rare circumstances where we do apply criminal law in THE SAME WAY EVERY TIME FOR EVERYBODY, it tends not to work very well.

    And yet a crime is a crime if you commit it, no matter how famous or rich you are. The law DOES apply to everyone, and every defendant gets the same rights. Every defendant is also expected to show up to court when ordered to.

    Don't confuse that with prosecutorial discretion or a judge's sentencing discretion.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Come on Ross, you're making the outrageous claim that deterrence doesn't help prevent crime. Let's have some evidence.

    No, I'm making the claim that in this specific instance Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't provide any more deterrence than is already present.

    I'm not actually sure where you're taking this claim. "this specific instance" has absolutely no meaning as far as our justice system is concerned. The law is not meted out on an individual basis. Laws, ideally, apply to everyone. Even if extraditing Polanski specifically had no direct effect on deterring or upholding the utility of the population or whatever, it would not matter, because the way our justice system works (again, ideally) is that it is applied to everyone no matter their circumstance. You don't get to rape a girl even if we had psychic powers and could tell that you would never rape again and would eventually become a wealthy humanitarian/superhero that raises kittens for orphans.

    If you want to argue that this is the way our system shouldn't work, then this is not the thread to do that.

    This isn't how our justice system works. There are all sorts of places where the criminal system has built in mechanisms to allow real humans like judges and prosecutors and jurors to make decisions based on the circumstances of the individual case. In the rare circumstances where we do apply criminal law in THE SAME WAY EVERY TIME FOR EVERYBODY, it tends not to work very well.

    And yet a crime is a crime if you commit it, no matter how famous or rich you are. The law DOES apply to everyone, and every defendant gets the same rights. Every defendant is also expected to show up to court when ordered to.

    Don't confuse that with prosecutorial discretion or a judge's sentencing discretion.

    The fundamental question is why do such discretionary measures exist?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    so are you running for office or something?
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'm reminded why I have never felt utilitarianism to be a useful philosophy and why it annoys the everliving hell out of me

    yeah if you're big into punishment vengeance I can see how it wouldn't be for you

    ...

    Also, I'm still not seeing why we shouldn't legally extradite French people that commit crimes against Americans on American soil.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    so are you running for office or something?
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'm reminded why I have never felt utilitarianism to be a useful philosophy and why it annoys the everliving hell out of me

    yeah if you're big into punishment vengeance I can see how it wouldn't be for you

    ...

    Also, I'm still not seeing why we shouldn't legally extradite French people that commit crimes against Americans on American soil.

    Blanket statements are really fun.

    I'm not against extradition as a practice, I'm against extraditing polanski because I don't think it accomplishes anything.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I'm not against extradition as a practice, I'm against extraditing polanski because I don't think it accomplishes anything.

    Then what makes it useful in other cases?

    Quid on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Prosecutorial discretion exists because prosecutors seek to provide justice to the community, and sometimes justice often involves taking into account a person's individual situation.

    Once a decision has been made to prosecute and enforce criminal law, it applies to everyone equally and defendants have the same rights and obligations as any other defendant. I guess you could argue that the discretion that exists in the system means someone should decide Polanski doesn't have to answer a court summons like any other defendant would, but I don't really buy it.

    I think it serves justice to have a defendant who fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment for his admitted crime be forced to return and finish his proceeding, but not everyone has the same idea of justice.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Prosecutorial discretion exists because prosecutors seek to provide justice to the community, and sometimes justice often involves taking into account a person's individual situation.

    Once a decision has been made to prosecute and enforce criminal law, it applies to everyone equally and defendants have the same rights and obligations as any other defendant. I guess you could argue that the discretion that exists in the system means someone should decide Polanski doesn't have to answer a court summons like any other defendant would, but I don't really buy it.

    I think it serves justice to have a defendant who fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment for his admitted crime be forced to return and finish his proceeding, but not everyone has the same idea of justice.

    Discretion exists because applying the letter of the law doesn't always serve the public interest. Which is why most of the argument in this thread has been focused on how or if polanski's extradition would serve the public interest.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I'm not against extradition as a practice, I'm against extraditing polanski because I don't think it accomplishes anything.

    Then what makes it useful in other cases?

    If restitution was at issue, or if the extraditing country feared that the criminal might return to re-offend? There are probably a bunch of situations where it's useful, which is why it exists.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Prosecutorial discretion exists because prosecutors seek to provide justice to the community, and sometimes justice often involves taking into account a person's individual situation.

    Once a decision has been made to prosecute and enforce criminal law, it applies to everyone equally and defendants have the same rights and obligations as any other defendant. I guess you could argue that the discretion that exists in the system means someone should decide Polanski doesn't have to answer a court summons like any other defendant would, but I don't really buy it.

    I think it serves justice to have a defendant who fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment for his admitted crime be forced to return and finish his proceeding, but not everyone has the same idea of justice.

    Discretion exists because applying the letter of the law doesn't always serve the public interest. Which is why most of the argument in this thread has been focused on how or if polanski's extradition would serve the public interest.
    Sure, I just think you and I would disagree on what's in the public interest here. I don't take that much of a utilitarian view of it. /shrug

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Prosecutorial discretion exists because prosecutors seek to provide justice to the community, and sometimes justice often involves taking into account a person's individual situation.

    Once a decision has been made to prosecute and enforce criminal law, it applies to everyone equally and defendants have the same rights and obligations as any other defendant. I guess you could argue that the discretion that exists in the system means someone should decide Polanski doesn't have to answer a court summons like any other defendant would, but I don't really buy it.

    I think it serves justice to have a defendant who fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment for his admitted crime be forced to return and finish his proceeding, but not everyone has the same idea of justice.

    Discretion exists because applying the letter of the law doesn't always serve the public interest. Which is why most of the argument in this thread has been focused on how or if polanski's extradition would serve the public interest.
    Sure, I just think you and I would disagree on what's in the public interest here. I don't take that much of a utilitarian view of it. /shrug

    right, you seem to be assuming that "justice" is an autonomous thing that has interests

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »

    right, you seem to be assuming that "justice" is an autonomous thing that has interests

    What is that supposed to mean?

    I have a personal opinion of what I think would be just in this situation. I think a person should be accountable for their actions, especially a crime they've admitted to and then arranged to be sentenced on. I think it's an insult to our system of justice that a person with money and fame can avoid being accountable in the system due to the fact he has money and fame.

    I don't give a shit whether it would deter future pedophiles or not, really.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm sure our criminal system's feelings must be hurt, yes

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I'm not against extradition as a practice, I'm against extraditing polanski because I don't think it accomplishes anything.

    Then what makes it useful in other cases?

    If restitution was at issue, or if the extraditing country feared that the criminal might return to re-offend? There are probably a bunch of situations where it's useful, which is why it exists.

    He never came back to America because he would have been arrested.

    Quid on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I'm sure our criminal system's feelings must be hurt, yes

    Honestly I don't understand what you're trying to do here, except be a dick.

    So It Goes on
Sign In or Register to comment.