[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.
He already settled with her out of court and she doesn’t back him being locked up.
That said, he raped a 13 year old girl.[/quote]
Why punish taxpayers for something that happened over 30 year ago?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.
He already settled with her out of court and she doesn’t back him being locked up.
That said, he raped a 13 year old girl.
Why punish taxpayers for something that happened over 30 year ago?[/quote]
Whoopi Goldberg said that it wasn’t “rape rape.” He should be prosecuted for it, you don’t mess with our kids like that. I hate chesters and I hope he gets convicted, they sure would like his ass in prison.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.
He already settled with her out of court and she doesn’t back him being locked up.
That said, he raped a 13 year old girl.
Why punish taxpayers for something that happened over 30 year ago?
So we let him off?[/quote]
He has not been let off. He paid the victim. That is all that matters. The state does not need to intervene further.
Lifticus, you’ve had some “interesting” propositions before this, but your take on imprisonment of criminals is that it is punishment of taxpayers and therefore dollar payment should be the only punishment is perhaps your most, let’s say, Lifticus-esque idea yet.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
As I understand the story, he fled to France which does not extradite its citizens and he’s been very careful with his travels since that time, especially to countries where there is extradition. As I understand it, he was never off the US radar but probably wasn’t a top priority. I’m assuming they had some intelligence he would be somewhere and they acted on it.
I think the question, “why now” is a bit misplaced. The man was a FUGITIVE. There is no “why now” when it comes to a fugitive. It can be 50 years later. He has to answer for what he did. And although I understand why he fled (claimaing the judge wasn’t going to honor the deal - which by the way is within his judicial discretion), he was still guilty of drugging and having sex with a 13 year old girl - and that is indefensible.
I think it’s terribly disappointing that the hollywood types want to give this monster a pass. I knew the average person was blinded by celebrity, but their own peers? I think their conduct in this affair is horrific and very troubling. What message does this send? That if you’re talented you can rape 13 year old girls? That if enough time has passed while you were a fugitive from the law that all is forgiven for raping a 13 year old girl? I mean really, where is the logic behind defending this man? How do you defend raping a 13 year old girl?
He needs to be sentenced for his crime and for fleeing and he needs to serve his time. Period.[/quote]
I agree. Man should do hard time. It just seemed odd to me that it’s taken 30+ years to get a highly visible celebritry director nailed to the wall.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Lifticus, you’ve had some “interesting” propositions before this, but your take on imprisonment of criminals is that it is punishment of taxpayers and therefore dollar payment should be the only punishment is perhaps your most, let’s say, Lifticus-esque idea yet.[/quote]
That idea is actually pretty old and was part of Roman law-
Since no court could actually order a free man around there were only punishments in money.
Not entirely true, not in a lot of cases, and yes Roman laws changed, but the principle is hardly that radical.
She was the rape victim, she got compensated, she says its enough.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.
He already settled with her out of court and she doesn’t back him being locked up.
That said, he raped a 13 year old girl.
Why punish taxpayers for something that happened over 30 year ago?
So we let him off?
He has not been let off. He paid the victim. That is all that matters. The state does not need to intervene further.[/quote]
So if I have enough money I can pay off the victims to my crimes and avoid jail whereas if I am poor I go to jail?
Most ideas are not new; having been done by the Romans, or any other persons past or present, does not mean that a given thing is best, whether the matter is punishment of felons or any other matter.
There is more than one reason why the vast majority of persons today consider a money-only system to be a corrupt and immoral system for punishment of felony crimes.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Most ideas are not new; having been done by the Romans, or any other persons past or present, does not mean that a given thing is best, whether the matter is punishment of felons or any other matter.
There is more than one reason why the vast majority of persons today consider a money-only system to be a corrupt and immoral system for punishment of felony crimes.[/quote]
Yeah, a lot of people think a lot of things and they all have a vote.
However, the victim feels she has been compensated as far as that was possible.
Then, the idea was to show that LMs ideas are not that far out there even if they not not fit in the American mainstream right now.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Lifticus, you’ve had some “interesting” propositions before this, but your take on imprisonment of criminals is that it is punishment of taxpayers and therefore dollar payment should be the only punishment is perhaps your most, let’s say, Lifticus-esque idea yet.[/quote]
Well, I never said he shouldn’t have gotten a bullet in the head if he is guilty. I just think 30 years is too late to wait to “punish” someone. And no, I don’t want to pay for it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know how jail solves any problems for the victim; not only that but we innocent taxpayers have to pay for it. Why not just take all of his money from him, give it to the victim, and pay all the legal fees with it?
Then he can go back to living a broke existence with the kiddie raper sympathizers where he belongs.
He already settled with her out of court and she doesn’t back him being locked up.
That said, he raped a 13 year old girl.
Why punish taxpayers for something that happened over 30 year ago?
So we let him off?
He has not been let off. He paid the victim. That is all that matters. The state does not need to intervene further.
So if I have enough money I can pay off the victims to my crimes and avoid jail whereas if I am poor I go to jail?[/quote]
No. You get a bullet in your head once your “antics” become tiresome. Which is why I think people should be armed. Problem solved.
I know he committed a crime but hasn’t since and he has made amends to the victim which is all that matters.
No. You get a bullet in your head once your “antics” become tiresome. Which is why I think people should be armed. Problem solved.
I know he committed a crime but hasn’t since and he has made amends to the victim which is all that matters.
Vindictiveness is pointless in his case though.
Sorry, but the way it’s done 'round here and rightfully so is the criminal doesn’t get to choose his punishment. This would especially be true in the utopia of an anarchistic society.[/quote]
No. You get a bullet in your head once your “antics” become tiresome. Which is why I think people should be armed. Problem solved.
I know he committed a crime but hasn’t since and he has made amends to the victim which is all that matters.
Vindictiveness is pointless in his case though.
Sorry, but the way it’s done 'round here and rightfully so is the criminal doesn’t get to choose his punishment. This would especially be true in the utopia of an anarchistic society.[/quote]
It’s not supposed to be punishment. It is supposed to be making amends to the victim. This man owes no one anything. He has paid the victim. People do not get punished in free society; however, if I were the parent this man would have been dead a long time ago and we would not be having this discussion.
He is not a toddler awaiting a spanking from daddy. He is a grown adult. Making him rot in a cage for the rest of his life hardly does anything accept make people like you feel better about yourself.
No. You get a bullet in your head once your “antics” become tiresome. Which is why I think people should be armed. Problem solved.
I know he committed a crime but hasn’t since and he has made amends to the victim which is all that matters.
Vindictiveness is pointless in his case though.
Sorry, but the way it’s done 'round here and rightfully so is the criminal doesn’t get to choose his punishment. This would especially be true in the utopia of an anarchistic society.
It’s not supposed to be punishment. It is supposed to be making amends to the victim. This man owes no one anything. He has paid the victim. People do not get punished in free society; however, if I were the parent this man would have been dead a long time ago and we would not be having this discussion.
He is not a toddler awaiting a spanking from daddy. He is a grown adult. Making him rot in a cage for the rest of his life hardly does anything accept make people like you feel better about yourself.[/quote]
It doesn’t have anything to do with making anyone feel better about themselves. People like Polanski should never get the idea that they can buy their way out of their crimes. That only encourages more crimes of the same kind. Punishment discourages more crimes of the same type, thereby making our whole society safer to live in. See how that works? No, probably not.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Punishment discourages more crimes of the same type, thereby making our whole society safer to live in. See how that works? No, probably not.[/quote]
No. You get a bullet in your head once your “antics” become tiresome. Which is why I think people should be armed. Problem solved.
I know he committed a crime but hasn’t since and he has made amends to the victim which is all that matters.
Vindictiveness is pointless in his case though.
Sorry, but the way it’s done 'round here and rightfully so is the criminal doesn’t get to choose his punishment. This would especially be true in the utopia of an anarchistic society.
It’s not supposed to be punishment. It is supposed to be making amends to the victim. This man owes no one anything. He has paid the victim. People do not get punished in free society; however, if I were the parent this man would have been dead a long time ago and we would not be having this discussion.
He is not a toddler awaiting a spanking from daddy. He is a grown adult. Making him rot in a cage for the rest of his life hardly does anything accept make people like you feel better about yourself.[/quote]
No its not supposed to be about compensation. Its about rehabilitation.
Traveling Europe and making movies is not rehabilitation. He has not answered for what he has done.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Punishment discourages more crimes of the same type, thereby making our whole society safer to live in. See how that works? No, probably not.
And yet we have more criminals than ever.
You are wrong.
Only death prevents more crimes.[/quote]
Duh, thats because we label them criminals for breaking the law.
If there was no laws to be broken, there would be no “criminals”. The number of “criminals” is dependent on what we consider to be “criminal” not how we punish or don’t punish them.