Options

Roman Polanski: he made a thriller

16567697071

Posts

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think there's any benefit to extraditing roman polanski

    if you want to talk about a hypothetical invasion of french pedophiles, you should probably start a new thread

    it will be like that zombie survival thread from a while ago

    What makes Polanski's case any different from any other pedophile that's fled America to avoid prosecution?

    He's like... old now, man. And it was sooooo long ego. It's like, who cares? You know?

    I guess I just missed the part where if there aren't hordes of foreigners raping children then there's not really any point in extraditing any them. Also they should get to decide what their restitution is.

    Silly me.

    Quid on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    What reason do we have to extradite any other pedophile that's fled America to avoid prosecution? It's not like they're coming back. They fled because of what would happen if they were here.

    That's what we're saying, guy.

    Yes I get that you are okay with people being able to come to America to rape children so long as they leave afterward and never come back. It's pretty disgusting that you think that.

    How far can you see from that highground you had to manufacture to make a point?

    Can you see my house?

    I think he's got a pretty goddamn good point.

    And what point would that be? That child rape is bad? That we have an imperative to enforce justice that doesn't serve a purpose?

    He's arguing a moot point. It doesn't matter how I feel about extradition, it doesn't matter how he feels about extradition. If a rapist flees to their non-extradition country of origin, there's literally nothing that can be done about it until they leave said country and enter one with a treaty.

    Contorting that into "being okay with child rape" is the act of a willing moron.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    What reason do we have to extradite any other pedophile that's fled America to avoid prosecution? It's not like they're coming back. They fled because of what would happen if they were here.

    That's what we're saying, guy.

    Yes I get that you are okay with people being able to come to America to rape children so long as they leave afterward and never come back. It's pretty disgusting that you think that.

    How far can you see from that highground you had to manufacture to make a point?

    Can you see my house?

    I think he's got a pretty goddamn good point.

    And what point would that be? That child rape is bad? That we have an imperative to enforce justice that doesn't serve a purpose?

    He's arguing a moot point. It doesn't matter how I feel about extradition, it doesn't matter how he feels about extradition. If a rapist flees to their non-extradition country of origin, there's literally nothing that can be done about it until they leave said country and enter one with a treaty.

    Contorting that into "being okay with child rape" is the act of a willing moron.

    You guys argued against his extradition because apparently "there is no point."

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If a rapist flees to their non-extradition country of origin, there's literally nothing that can be done about it until they leave said country and enter one with a treaty.

    Which he did, so something was done about it. And you seem to be taking exception to that.

    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
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2009
    Seriously. This is getting into "rape doesn't hurt" levels of stupid here. Ross and Dyscord are forever going to be the guys that don't think it's worth pursuing and punishing people that commit child rape.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Only if they didn't pay restitution that they've decided on.

    Quid on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    You guys argued against his extradition because apparently "there is no point."

    You guys admonish Polanski.

    So then you admit since sequestration and retribution have already been met, all you really want is punishment?

    And here we are, talking in circles. Punishment doesn't deter willing pedophiles, Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't encourage law-abiding pedophiles, there's no link to Polanski's flight and a 30-year increase in Californian child rape, yada yada yada . . .


    I know, I know, "rape is bad."

    Atomika on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If a rapist flees to their non-extradition country of origin, there's literally nothing that can be done about it until they leave said country and enter one with a treaty.

    Which he did, so something was done about it. And you seem to be taking exception to that.

    Not entirely. I've also espoused purposes which his extradition serves. I'm just not going to spit my chaw and straighten my Dale Jr. cap every time the hoi polloi go lookin' fer a good set of torches and pitchforks. If you feel someone deserves imprisonment, the onus is on you to prove it beyond an embarrassing display of maudlin handwringing.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    You guys argued against his extradition because apparently "there is no point."

    You guys admonish Polanski.

    So then you admit since sequestration and retribution have already been met, all you really want is punishment?

    And here we are, talking in circles. Punishment doesn't deter willing pedophiles, Polanski's non-apprehension doesn't encourage law-abiding pedophiles, there's no link to Polanski's flight and a 30-year increase in Californian child rape, yada yada yada . . .


    I know, I know, "rape is bad."

    You mean rape of a minor isn't reason enough? I guess that's where you lose us.

    sportzboytjw on
    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You mean rape of a minor isn't reason enough? I guess that's where you lose us.

    Then you're easily lost when justifying a utilitarian demand for incarceration.

    Plus, you're not paying attention. Please read the gist of the thread (or at least the last few pages) before derailing it.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    You mean rape of a minor isn't reason enough? I guess that's where you lose us.

    Then you're easily lost when justifying a utilitarian demand for incarceration.

    Plus, you're not paying attention. Please read the gist of the thread (or at least the last few pages) before derailing it.

    No, I've seen you ignoring the fact that rape of a minor can be excused in your odd world. None of the things you have said excuse what he did or mean that he should not be held accountable for his actions by our criminal justice system. He did not evade taxes, launder money, or do something else that "doesn't hurt anyone". He raped/sodomized a young girl. This has consequences. Why do you need any more reason than that?

    sportzboytjw on
    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • Options
    sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    excused maybe isn't the right word, I should have said "ignored" or "can go away after a while" I guess.

    sportzboytjw on
    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • Options
    Donkey KongDonkey Kong Putting Nintendo out of business with AI nips Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    107 pages of rape should be enough for anybody.

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    No, I've seen you ignoring the fact that rape of a minor can be excused in your odd world.

    I've never said such a thing. I merely (and repeatedly) have questioned the utility of bringing Polanski to justice.

    If your visceral reaction to that enables you to be that myopic and unable to reasonably discuss things, that's hardly my fault.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If a rapist flees to their non-extradition country of origin, there's literally nothing that can be done about it until they leave said country and enter one with a treaty.

    Which he did, so something was done about it. And you seem to be taking exception to that.

    Not entirely. I've also espoused purposes which his extradition serves. I'm just not going to spit my chaw and straighten my Dale Jr. cap every time the hoi polloi go lookin' fer a good set of torches and pitchforks. If you feel someone deserves imprisonment, the onus is on you to prove it beyond an embarrassing display of maudlin handwringing.

    He has been convicted of a crime. He has admitted to multiple pending charges. He is wanted for failure to appear. All of those acts carry penalties which serve several purposes, including punishing the offender for his transgression. While exceptions can be made, the integrity of the system demands that it is the state, not the defendant, that dictates when and why those exceptions should be made.

    In other words, in order for the system to work, it has to be seen to work; the people have to have faith in its operations. Bringing Polanski in goes a long way towards that goal. It shows that not even the rich and famous are above it (if you think that Polanski's ridiculous bail conditions were not a result of his wealth and fame, I would love to hear your arguments why), and they can't escape the consequences of their actions by making it inconvenient to punish them.

    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
    Don't be too hard on Ross, sportzboytjw. It's not that he doesn't think rape is bad, he just doesn't think rape is so bad that we should deter it from happening and being acceptable in society to the greatest degree possible.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2009
    No, I've seen you ignoring the fact that rape of a minor can be excused in your odd world.

    I've never said such a thing. I merely (and repeatedly) have questioned the utility of bringing Polanski to justice.

    If your visceral reaction to that enables you to be that myopic and unable to reasonably discuss things, that's hardly my fault.

    Oh, okay. So it's not okay to rape a child, you're just not going to actually do anything when it happens.

    That's totally okay then.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    CorbiusCorbius Shepard Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    No, I've seen you ignoring the fact that rape of a minor can be excused in your odd world.

    I've never said such a thing. I merely (and repeatedly) have questioned the utility of bringing Polanski to justice.

    If your visceral reaction to that enables you to be that myopic and unable to reasonably discuss things, that's hardly my fault.

    Oh, okay. So it's not okay to rape a child, you're just not going to actually do anything when it happens.

    That's totally okay then.

    He's just saying if we could all get past this overly emotional reaction to the whole raping a child thing, we would understand how dumb it is to enforce justice in every case. It's not like faith in the justice system is a good thing.

    Corbius on
    wrexsig1.jpg
    PSN: Corbius
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Plus, don't forget, he doesn't want a media circus. You wouldn't want a media circus showing potential pedophiles just what sort of shame we can heap on 'em.

    I mean cause media. It's bad.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    As far as restitution goes, you do not get to pay a large sum of money to get to commit felonies.

    Though somehow judges still hand it down as part of sentencing.

    Yes, the judges, not the perpetrators. Those are different people. Don't be stupid.

    I could have sworn restitution was part of the civil proceedings against criminals from their victims and not part of the criminal proceedings.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Don't be too hard on Ross, sportzboytjw. It's not that he doesn't think rape is bad, he just doesn't think rape is so bad that we should deter it from happening and being acceptable in society to the greatest degree possible.

    Atomic Ross is also apparently skeptical that deterrence exists at all, at least for sex offenders. To me it seems that Ross's problem isn't with the handling of the Polanski case specifically but actually with the entire structure of the criminal justice system. This opposition seems to be based on a deficient, armchair variety of utilitarianism.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    As far as restitution goes, you do not get to pay a large sum of money to get to commit felonies.

    Though somehow judges still hand it down as part of sentencing.

    Yes, the judges, not the perpetrators. Those are different people. Don't be stupid.

    I could have sworn restitution was part of the civil proceedings against criminals from their victims and not part of the criminal proceedings.

    You can face fines in a criminal proceeding, although yes in this case Polanski's settlement with the victim was a civil matter.

    Edit: And yeah in criminal trials the fine you pay goes to the state, not the victim.

    Hachface 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: »
    Restitution is often part of criminal sentencing. That's not a value judgment, I'm just saying that it would be a reason extradition would be necessary.
    So you think criminals should get to decide their restitution?

    Cause I'd say a judge is better equipped for that.

    you're really just twisting my words here, which is a fun game to play, but it's getting a little tired after a page and a half.
    I have already said that I don't think that a hypothetical criminal who flees the country necessarily needs to be pursued if that criminal cannot feasibly return.

    What is not feasible about returning Polanski?

    We can of course feasibly pursue polanski. Polanski can't feasibly return to the country on his own, which is the point I was making.

    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: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    As far as restitution goes, you do not get to pay a large sum of money to get to commit felonies.

    Though somehow judges still hand it down as part of sentencing.

    Yes, the judges, not the perpetrators. Those are different people. Don't be stupid.

    I could have sworn restitution was part of the civil proceedings against criminals from their victims and not part of the criminal proceedings.

    You can face fines in a criminal proceeding, although yes in this case Polanski's settlement with the victim was a civil matter.

    Edit: And yeah in criminal trials the fine you pay goes to the state, not the victim.

    Criminal judges can order economic restitution in criminal cases. It's a component of sentencing (common in white collar crime; probably bank robberies, too.) You have to go to civil court to recover noneconomic damages, though.

    Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to talk about deterrence, but my responses to you keep getting lost in a sea of "so why do you love child rape so much?"

    Between the stuff you've linked and the study I cited way back when, it seems fairly clear to me that the specifics of a criminal's sentence aren't particularly relevant to whatever deterring effect the criminal system has. Which should make one wonder, why does any deterrent effect exist at all? It seems likely to me that the main consequences criminals are afraid of are social, not directly economic. i.e. it's not the prison term, but the social stigma associated with being a criminal and the various other problems it creates (like the sex offender registry, in this case.)

    This is conjecture on my part; but given that the specific sentence a criminal receives seems not to matter, I have a hard time seeing how bringing polanski back to the states to receive one would have any more deterrent effect than his trial and flight have already had.

    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
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    The point is that the only part of this case that was different from the thousands of other criminal trials and plea bargains that happen was that polanski wasn't sentenced (and he even essentially was sentenced, per the plea bargain.) Since all the data we have seems to indicate that the sentence is irrelevant or near-irrelevant to the goal of deterrence, it's not clear to me what the virtue of sentencing him is.

    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
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    The point is that the only part of this case that was different from the thousands of other criminal trials and plea bargains that happen was that polanski wasn't sentenced (and he even essentially was sentenced, per the plea bargain.) Since all the data we have seems to indicate that the sentence is irrelevant or near-irrelevant to the goal of deterrence, it's not clear to me what the virtue of sentencing him is.

    Uh. Sentencing is not irrelevant, it's just less crucial than consistency. Consistency of punishment is more important than severity of punishment, but the key factor is still the punishment.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    The point is that the only part of this case that was different from the thousands of other criminal trials and plea bargains that happen was that polanski wasn't sentenced (and he even essentially was sentenced, per the plea bargain.) Since all the data we have seems to indicate that the sentence is irrelevant or near-irrelevant to the goal of deterrence, it's not clear to me what the virtue of sentencing him is.

    ...

    ...

    ...

    Really?

    Why would you want to bother with sentencing a child rapist?

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

    Savant on
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    The point is that the only part of this case that was different from the thousands of other criminal trials and plea bargains that happen was that polanski wasn't sentenced (and he even essentially was sentenced, per the plea bargain.) Since all the data we have seems to indicate that the sentence is irrelevant or near-irrelevant to the goal of deterrence, it's not clear to me what the virtue of sentencing him is.
    Dyscord wrote:
    It seems likely to me that the main consequences criminals are afraid of are social, not directly economic. i.e. it's not the prison term, but the social stigma associated with being a criminal and the various other problems it creates (like the sex offender registry, in this case.)

    Roman Polanski has not faced any of the social stigma nor various other problems that the sex offender registry would normally provide. He finds work easily, he is not shunned by his social circles, etc etc.

    He also is still pro-child rape, he doesnt think what he did was wrong at all.

    If ending up in Roman Polanski's situation (even without the wealth) is a consequence of child rape, then there is no deterant at all. And the California State laws against child molestation and rape become a bit more toothless.

    Sending Roman Polanski to prison corrects those issues.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • 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: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    The point is that the only part of this case that was different from the thousands of other criminal trials and plea bargains that happen was that polanski wasn't sentenced (and he even essentially was sentenced, per the plea bargain.) Since all the data we have seems to indicate that the sentence is irrelevant or near-irrelevant to the goal of deterrence, it's not clear to me what the virtue of sentencing him is.

    Uh. Sentencing is not irrelevant, it's just less crucial than consistency. Consistency of punishment is more important than severity of punishment, but the key factor is still the punishment.

    It didn't seem like it from skimming over the stuff you linked earlier (or at least, not that it was a consistent opinion.) And the study in florida found the sentence almost completely irrelevant to likelihood of committing a crime.

    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
    Dyscord wrote: »
    But your ignoring that the more consistently the law is applied, the greater the deterance effect. So any time you have a chance to apply the law, you should. Since there are cases that do not get solved, or the criminal gets off on a technicality due to shoddy investigating or something like that.

    The point is that the only part of this case that was different from the thousands of other criminal trials and plea bargains that happen was that polanski wasn't sentenced (and he even essentially was sentenced, per the plea bargain.) Since all the data we have seems to indicate that the sentence is irrelevant or near-irrelevant to the goal of deterrence, it's not clear to me what the virtue of sentencing him is.
    Dyscord wrote:
    It seems likely to me that the main consequences criminals are afraid of are social, not directly economic. i.e. it's not the prison term, but the social stigma associated with being a criminal and the various other problems it creates (like the sex offender registry, in this case.)

    Roman Polanski has not faced any of the social stigma nor various other problems that the sex offender registry would normally provide. He finds work easily, he is not shunned by his social circles, etc etc.

    He also is still pro-child rape, he doesnt think what he did was wrong at all.

    If this part hasn't changed so far, it wouldn't have changed had he been imprisoned. Side-effect of a celebrity obsessed society, I guess.
    If ending up in Roman Polanski's situation (even without the wealth) is a consequence of child rape, then there is no deterant at all. And the California State laws against child molestation and rape become a bit more toothless.

    Sending Roman Polanski to prison corrects those issues.

    I don't really agree that this is true. For one, his situation is hardly one that your average criminal could wind up in, even if they were a french citizen. For two, I don't really think the law has been devalued here, any more than it would be by him accepting the ninety day sentence he was supposed to get originally.

    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
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    If ending up in Roman Polanski's situation (even without the wealth) is a consequence of child rape, then there is no deterant at all. And the California State laws against child molestation and rape become a bit more toothless.

    Sending Roman Polanski to prison corrects those issues.

    I don't really agree that this is true. For one, his situation is hardly one that your average criminal could wind up in, even if they were a french citizen. For two, I don't really think the law has been devalued here, any more than it would be by him accepting the ninety day sentence he was supposed to get originally.

    Newsflash: there's no sentence that he was supposed to get, because the judge never handed him one. His plea bargain only amounted to getting charges dropped for him and having a recommendation from the prosecutor, and he stated repeatedly in the court records that he understood the limitations of his plea deal and was given opportunities to back out of it if he refused to agree to those terms.

    He fled the country, so any plea deal he entered into before is null and void by his own actions, though his testimony can still be used against him.

    A high profile child rapist fleeing punishment for a good chunk of his life seems like a pretty big violation of justice to me, but apparently you just don't give a fuck. Added with Ross's nonsensical musings about some sort of arcane utilitarian metric known only to him that makes getting him extradited so he can face justice just too hard so we shouldn't bother, and it feels like this whole thing is getting into pants-on-the-head crazytown.

    Savant on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    you're really just twisting my words here, which is a fun game to play, but it's getting a little tired after a page and a half.
    I'm not twisting your words at all. no restitution determined acceptable by a judge has been paid. So again, what makes this case any different from any other pedophile that's fled America to avoid prosecution?
    We can of course feasibly pursue polanski. Polanski can't feasibly return to the country on his own, which is the point I was making.

    He very feasible could return to America of his own volition and face his sentence. But that's neither here nor there since extraditing usually isn't about bringing someone back willingly.

    So again, please, explain what is different about Polanski's case. Plenty of pedophiles would be more than happy to just give the victim some money for their trouble and never come back to America. What's the point of extraditing people that rape American children?

    Quid on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I have already said that I don't think that a hypothetical criminal who flees the country necessarily needs to be pursued if that criminal cannot feasibly return.

    What is not feasible about returning Polanski?

    We can of course feasibly pursue polanski. Polanski can't feasibly return to the country on his own, which is the point I was making.

    o_O Polanski cannot feasibly return (and therefore should not be extradited) because he would be arrested if he came to the US? Then what criminals who flee the country should be extradited? I mean they all face prison time for the flight on top of whatever caused them to flee, so, by your definition, isn't their return just as infeasible? O_o

    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
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't really agree that this is true. For one, his situation is hardly one that your average criminal could wind up in, even if they were a french citizen. For two, I don't really think the law has been devalued here, any more than it would be by him accepting the ninety day sentence he was supposed to get originally.

    Right, it's just an option available to rich French people really. Good thing none of them would commit a crime.

    Quid on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    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

    If wanting criminals held accountable to the laws they break in whatever country they break them in makes me a vengeful little badger, well, I guess I'm fine with that.
    angrybadger.jpgEXTRADITION!
    Motion to nominate "Vengeance Badger" as thread mascot
    You mean rape of a minor isn't reason enough? I guess that's where you lose us.

    Then you're easily lost when justifying a utilitarian demand for incarceration.

    Plus, you're not paying attention. Please read the gist of the thread (or at least the last few pages) before derailing it.

    Ross?

    Ross?

    Not everyone believes that Utilitarianism is the best moral framework.

    You don't get to say "No, your ideas are terrible and do not work" Because they do not adhere to a utilitarian framework.

    Perhaps we have some Kantians in here who believe that Justice should be followed at all times, with the protection and growth human dignity and rights as it's driving purpose. I would say extraditing and following out a sentence on Polanski would accomplish that.

    But then we have another thread for that whole mess

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    PataPata 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?

    No just pointing out a fact.

    If you are against Polanski's extradition, then you are supporting a child rapist going free.

    Just figured I'd remind people of that little fact.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • 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: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    so are you running for office or something?

    No just pointing out a fact.

    If you are against Polanski's extradition, then you are supporting a child rapist going free.

    Just figured I'd remind people of that little fact.

    I don't think anyone has forgotten about it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    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
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Pata wrote: »
    ITT Atomic Ross supports letting a child rapist go free.

    so are you running for office or something?

    No just pointing out a fact.

    If you are against Polanski's extradition, then you are supporting a child rapist going free.

    Just figured I'd remind people of that little fact.

    I don't think anyone has forgotten about it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    So why do you question what Pata has to say then?

    Henroid 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: »
    you're really just twisting my words here, which is a fun game to play, but it's getting a little tired after a page and a half.
    I'm not twisting your words at all. no restitution determined acceptable by a judge has been paid. So again, what makes this case any different from any other pedophile that's fled America to avoid prosecution?
    We can of course feasibly pursue polanski. Polanski can't feasibly return to the country on his own, which is the point I was making.

    He very feasible could return to America of his own volition and face his sentence. But that's neither here nor there since extraditing usually isn't about bringing someone back willingly.

    So again, please, explain what is different about Polanski's case. Plenty of pedophiles would be more than happy to just give the victim some money for their trouble and never come back to America. What's the point of extraditing people that rape American children?

    I don't think that plenty of pedophiles would be willing to do that, actually, since most of them can't emigrate to france (or for that matter, any other first world country.) If all the pedophiles want to ship out to somalia, that is an outcome I would be happy with.

    We can continue going around and around about this if you like, but I don't think I've been unclear:

    If a criminal can't return to this country to re-offend and there are no other extenuating issues at play, I don't think there is any point to extraditing them.

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.