Q Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Yeah, my facts were a bit rusty on the facts in this case as well. I didn't know that he had already plead guilty and then skipped out on his sentencing. you are mad, sir, the victim having to live through the whole thing all over again be damned, i want that scoundrel raped back like hammurabi intended You raise a very good point here. Justice can be a double-edged sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well, since he plead guilty to a lesser charge and then skipped town, it may not be necessary to retry him (2x jeapordy probably if they did). Just hit him w/a nice stiff sentence for being a fugitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Yeah, this is more about the long arm of the law finally catching up with someone than it is about revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well, since he plead guilty to a lesser charge and then skipped town, it may not be necessary to retry him (2x jeapordy probably if they did). Just hit him w/a nice stiff sentence for being a fugitive. yeah but my point still stands since blowhard media goons need meat for the grinder and have chosen to get all hot and bothered about him again and she won't be able to turn on a tv without hearing about it and is probably getting hounded for interviews. if justice means sacrificing a victim's emotional and mental well-being with a media circus justice can go **** itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 The media are insatiable arseholes. What else is new... It's not sufficient reason to let him skate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cire992 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The media are insatiable arseholes. What else is new... It's not sufficient reason to let him skate. Wouldn't mind except that the media practically runs this country. (I suck, it took me three tries to not misspell 'practically') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 I agree that they like to think they do. The Fourth Estate is rather taken w/itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 yeah but my point still stands since blowhard media goons need meat for the grinder and have chosen to get all hot and bothered about him again and she won't be able to turn on a tv without hearing about it and is probably getting hounded for interviews. if justice means sacrificing a victim's emotional and mental well-being with a media circus justice can go **** itself That's a media problem--they're the ones she should be railing against. The state has already decided Polanski needs to pay for his crimes. There are no free passes for molesting 13 year old girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ah yes you are of course right one has nothing to do with the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Huh, I must have had my facts wrong. I thought he was simply accused of it and needed to stand trial, not that he actually was found guilty/plead guilty. In that case, yes, lock the bastard up. Ah, what a little clarification won't do to persuade or dissuade. yeah but my point still stands since blowhard media goons need meat for the grinder and have chosen to get all hot and bothered about him again and she won't be able to turn on a tv without hearing about it and is probably getting hounded for interviews. if justice means sacrificing a victim's emotional and mental well-being with a media circus justice can go **** itself I understand freedom of speech and info. Still, I've seen cases where their conniption bitch-fits were stopped immediately b/c the authorities basically poisoned the well enough to make them stfu. I share your hatred for the media. I should know b/c I almost made the mistake of going into media direction. I didn't like the way it smelled in a certain sense. The media are insatiable arseholes. What else is new... It's not sufficient reason to let him skate. Wouldn't mind except that the media practically runs this country. (I suck, it took me three tries to not misspell 'practically') I agree that they like to think they do. The Fourth Estate is rather taken w/itself. It's demeaning, really. This is a nation that is fed off of sensationalism. Bang for buck is in the entertainment or amusement aspects of even serious business like this. At some point all the news outlets just need to stfu and let things run their course in dignity. The legal team should figure out how best to expedite this process. Less time, less opportunity to report on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_polanski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 One of the lawyers, Herve Temime, added that Polanski did not pose a flight risk. :rofl: Oh, the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanir Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If it was a frat boy, CEO, guy down the street, or(as that third article notes) priest, there wouldn't be this level of protection. But so long as they were married, in many nations it was also a legitimate act of consent. In some countries the age of general consent (outside marriage) itself is simply younger. Opinions will vary on the age of consent, nature would have us believe it is simply at sexual maturity regardless of what anyone feels about it, generally about 13yrs. The lowest strict age of consent in a democratic environment, without any restriction, that I'm aware of however is 16 (Japan). In several Muslim nations however girls may become married at 13 (more strictly, "upon womanhood" or sexual maturity on a case by case basis), of course this supposes that sexual intercourse will be practised. So the paedophile concern, which is sexual acts with children, when levelled against sexually mature, but underage individuals is really one of culture shock. Perhaps it is more reasonable that the age of unrestricted sexual consent is 18. Perhaps 45 is better. Perhaps 15. It is an argument. Medically it is not damaging or abusive if those involved are sexually mature, which has little to do with one specific age. Our reasons for the 18 limit for unrestricted consent are cultural, though today one presumes this is due to psychological maturity, historically it is largely one particular religious imposition, where other cultures have different ones and equal rights to them. Personally I have my own suspicions that the girl was already sexually active with her boyfriend (conservatives would be shocked by anonymous state surveys, a local one taken by the Aust.Bureau of Statistics for example suggested some 30-50% of public schoolgirls aged 13-15 were no longer virgins with higher figures for those who would describe themselves as sexually active but still virgins, I see little reason for extreme variation in the US), perhaps this came up in conversation and formed a part of Roman's reasoning at the time. It is irrelevant however if her claim that it was nonconsentual is true. In any case she describes date rape even where no resistance was given, again if her claim is true. Then it is a legitimate case of rape, statutory charges aside. So on this basis, the circumstances of rape as claimed by the victim which are of concern. But it is her perogative to withdraw testimony and thus he could not effectively be prosecuted, without her testimony there is no evidence in the court transcript. And again the statutory charge where the "victim" is sexually mature and consenting, is one of culture and regional law only. It has no bearing outside the United States and is not any measure of humanity or human morality, it is an opinion. Indeed one I happen to agree with for the most part, but not necessarily always and not necessarily everywhere. The outrage deserved of paedophilia is strictly the act of intercourse with sexually undeveloped persons, which is medically unsound. If the argument is nonconsentual sexual exposure then we are discussing sexual assault, nonconsentual intercourse then rape, but paedophilia is sex with children, it is does not describe consentual sex with sexually mature, but underage individuals, that is statutory rape, and like it or not that is a crime of circumstance and cultural imposition (for right or wrong). <snipped> Even our conservative underage sex laws recognise that underage girls are probably having sex anyway, so it's okay if they're both underage, or within two years of each other's age, etc. varies by state/region. And like I said in some countries the blanket age of consent is just plain younger. Meanwhile in other cultures the conservatism is much higher, and sexual contact at 18 and 20 is an offence, or outside of marriage at all, or in public in any way or with any show of affection at all. This part is all culture, circumstantial at best and can have no dominion over human morality, which would be a case by case basis, with all the facts present and in play. As far as I'm aware Roman Polanski has never otherwise been accused of sexual misconduct by any other persons anywhere, so at least the argument of preventing his serial compulsions is quite misplaced, as if the prosecution of this case had anything to do with genuine altruism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 But so long as they were married, in many nations it was also a legitimate act of consent. In some countries the age of general consent (outside marriage) itself is simply younger. Opinions will vary on the age of consent, nature would have us believe it is simply at sexual maturity regardless of what anyone feels about it, generally about 13yrs. The lowest strict age of consent in a democratic environment, without any restriction, that I'm aware of however is 16 (Japan). In several Muslim nations however girls may become married at 13 (more strictly, "upon womanhood" or sexual maturity on a case by case basis), of course this supposes that sexual intercourse will be practised. The national age of consent is 13 in Japan, but depending on jurisdiction it can be 18 years of age, which is dependant on the province. Furthermore, given your examples from Muslim nations I presume you would be delighted that Mohammed married a girl aged 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Personally I find that shocking, but perhaps I should get with the times... <snipped for brevity, the pseudo-scientific poo> I frankly sir, find your entire post both offensive and amoral. Rape is rape, regardless of if someone is sexually active; those guilty of this heinous crime should be charged and locked up. Rape ruins lives, the psychological effects are devastating, and even if someone isn't going to do it again, they should still be punished for their horrific act on another individual. Furthermore if someone is physically ready for sex, does not mean they are ready for the emotional aspects that come along together with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 As far as I'm aware Roman Polanski has never otherwise been accused of sexual misconduct by any other persons anywhere, so at least the argument of preventing his serial compulsions is quite misplaced, as if the prosecution of this case had anything to do with genuine altruism. Frankly, the guy already copped to a reduced charge and was slated for sentencing. He clearly worried that he'd lose on the original offense and agreed to a plea bargain. Guilt not contested. Second, it doesn't matter that he may never have raped someone again since then. If you murdered someone 30 years ago, skipped bail and lived a "virtuous life" after that till caught again, should you not still be punished for the original crime? Polanski is an amoral scumbag that should have done the time 30 years ago. The "artistic community" being what it is, it likely wouldn't have hurt his reputation. Afterall, it's been widely know since then that he couldn't set foot in America b/c of his crime, but was still held in high esteem by that group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The reason the age of consent is set at a certain age involves a number of things. First, it involves physical maturity. If you have relations with a girl who is too young, you can damage her internal organs. Second, boys and girls need to be a certain age in order to have enough brain development to have the mental capacity to make appropriate choices about sex. I would contend that 13 is too young, and Japan is not protecting its females appropriately, but that's something the Japanese would need to address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Debating the age of consent is ridiculous as it completely has no bearing on this case. The only age of consent law that has any relevance in this case is the California law in 1977. If Polanski wanted to debate the age of consent, he should have done so in 1977, instead he pled guilty. Even if you could explain away the act itself, it is impossible to explain away the fact that he fled the United States to avoid sentencing, which is also against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I honestly don't think the age of consent should be debated by people who have not raised a child to adulthood. Not because I don't think they can understand it, but because they haven't gained the perspective. My Ex's daughter is a very smart girl. But smart does not mean that she is mature. Children at those ages do not always make informed decisions. Hormones at that age are going to cause them to make very BAD decisions. Not saying adults are all that much better, but mental development are still taking place at those ages. They're still more worried about popularity than the risks of disease or having to raise a child. Their bodies are also physically developing. Just because another country thinks its ok to damage children like that does not mean it is ok for the child. Other cultures sew women up and cut off parts of the genetalia. It doesn't mean that it isn't damaging or unhealthy to them. But all of this aside. He is GUILTY of a crime. TWO crimes now. He pled guilty to the lesser of the crimes comitted by him with the child. So establishing guilt is not necessary. He IS CONVICTED of statuatory rape. He has yet to serve his sentence. He then comitted another crime by fleeing the country to avoid that sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 If it had been my daughter, The Pianist would never have been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.