Roman Polanski

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

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]

Rehabilitation? I never said that.

If someone does something to hurt someone then he needs to make amends.

In a free society victims would actually be compensated. As it is now criminals just become a burden on society. I shouldn’t be burdened by someone else’s bad behavior; and if I am a victim I will get recompense with or without the state’s help.

42

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

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]

Rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation.

Oh yeah, let us teach him a craft like mechanics and maybe he can reintegrate into society…

What?

He is 70 something!

44

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Wrong. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. You said punishment stops criminals but yet we have more criminals. If punishment actually worked then there would not be more crimes committed. So, why is it not working to prevent more crimes?

45

[quote]orion wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

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.

Rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation.

Oh yeah, let us teach him a craft like mechanics and maybe he can reintegrate into society…

What?

He is 70 something![/quote]

that is the idea behind US prisons. not act like some sort of dungeon where people stay until the king gets tired of hearing their cries. the merits that idea, or lack of, is a different discussion.

I don’t want pedophile rapists walking around my neighborhood. Since i can’t keep him from walking around on public property, society agrees to lock these people up until deemed safe to mingle with society again. Yes it costs money, most people would agree on a tax to keep rapists/murderers locked up. This isnt about the guy getting locked up for having one to many joints in his bag, or passing out drunk in the park one too many times.

what force is there to stop this guy from continuing to rape? hes wealthy enough that just buying off victims is no burden, who cares if hes 70. People who flee war crimes shouldn’t get off because they are geezers. Neither should he.

46

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
society agrees to lock these people up…[/quote]

No, society does not agree to anything. Society is not capable of acting.

[quote]
until deemed safe to mingle with society again.[/quote]

and then they commit an other crime and end up back in jail.

So, where is the “rehabilitation” you speak of?

Punishment does not stop criminals from committing crimes later on.

The goal should not be to punish or to rehabilitate but to seek justice for the victim by just compensation – not make the victim and non-victims pay to house these scum.

In a free society there would hardly be violent criminals because moral people would not put up with them and certainly would not use their own resources to take care of them like pets.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
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.

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.

Wrong. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. You said punishment stops criminals but yet we have more criminals. If punishment actually worked then there would not be more crimes committed. So, why is it not working to prevent more crimes?[/quote]

A crime is not universal, its defined by a man made law. I never said punishment stops crime. If we did away with all laws against “x-action” we would have no crime. The number of criminals is dependent on the number of laws.

Punishment is still individual. One man getting arrested for theft means nothing to anyone else so long as they continue to get away with it. Punishment isn’t some collective learning behavior. The vast majority of crime is based off risk vs reward, or its psychological. Eliminating the risk certainly won’t help to reduce the action. Unless you just kill all criminals.

If a court shouldn’t be able to punish a free man, whose to even say a “criminal” would even compensate the victim, remember the court can’t touch him if he doesn’t, hes a free man. Putting the burden of compensation on the criminal is a crapshoot, hes a criminal, why do you expect him to deliver fair compensation?

The cops catch a bank robber, “you should pay that money back, but its up to you, youre free to go” ???

48

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
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.

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.

Wrong. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. You said punishment stops criminals but yet we have more criminals. If punishment actually worked then there would not be more crimes committed. So, why is it not working to prevent more crimes?

A crime is not universal, its defined by a man made law. I never said punishment stops crime. If we did away with all laws against “x-action” we would have no crime. The number of criminals is dependent on the number of laws.

Punishment is still individual. One man getting arrested for theft means nothing to anyone else so long as they continue to get away with it. Punishment isn’t some collective learning behavior. The vast majority of crime is based off risk vs reward, or its psychological. Eliminating the risk certainly won’t help to reduce the action. Unless you just kill all criminals.

If a court shouldn’t be able to punish a free man, whose to even say a “criminal” would even compensate the victim, remember the court can’t touch him if he doesn’t, hes a free man. Putting the burden of compensation on the criminal is a crapshoot, hes a criminal, why do you expect him to deliver fair compensation?

The cops catch a bank robber, “you should pay that money back, but its up to you, youre free to go” ???

[/quote]
If there is no victim there is no crime. It is indeed universal.

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
society agrees to lock these people up…

No, society does not agree to anything. Society is not capable of acting.

until deemed safe to mingle with society again.

and then they commit an other crime and end up back in jail.

So, where is the “rehabilitation” you speak of?

Punishment does not stop criminals from committing crimes later on.

The goal should not be to punish or to rehabilitate but to seek justice for the victim by just compensation – not make the victim and non-victims pay to house these scum.

In a free society there would hardly be violent criminals because moral people would not put up with them and certainly would not use their own resources to take care of them like pets.[/quote]

Yes, laws are voted on. There has yet to be proposed law to not lock up murderers and rapists, this is not because society can’t collectively do anything, its because society wants it that way.

Well yea thats the goal, that within a correctional facility they can show they can behave “normally.” Im not arguing that its effective or right, thats just how it is.

Ask the victim what they think. Do you really think they’d say, yea sure he raped before but that was between him and the other person, it was certainly acceptable to let him walk around until he raped me.

Being able to kill anyone you feel as a wrong doer is a terrible road to go down.

50

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
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.

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.

Wrong. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. You said punishment stops criminals but yet we have more criminals. If punishment actually worked then there would not be more crimes committed. So, why is it not working to prevent more crimes?

A crime is not universal, its defined by a man made law. I never said punishment stops crime. If we did away with all laws against “x-action” we would have no crime. The number of criminals is dependent on the number of laws.

Punishment is still individual. One man getting arrested for theft means nothing to anyone else so long as they continue to get away with it. Punishment isn’t some collective learning behavior. The vast majority of crime is based off risk vs reward, or its psychological. Eliminating the risk certainly won’t help to reduce the action. Unless you just kill all criminals.

If a court shouldn’t be able to punish a free man, whose to even say a “criminal” would even compensate the victim, remember the court can’t touch him if he doesn’t, hes a free man. Putting the burden of compensation on the criminal is a crapshoot, hes a criminal, why do you expect him to deliver fair compensation?

The cops catch a bank robber, “you should pay that money back, but its up to you, youre free to go” ???

If there is no victim there is no crime. It is indeed universal.
[/quote]

No, if there is no law there is no crime. Victim just means something happened to you against your will. You can be the victim of a shark attack. there is no crime of shark attack.

51

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

Yes, laws are voted on. There has yet to be proposed law to not lock up murderers and rapists, this is not because society can’t collectively do anything, its because society wants it that way.
[/quote]

That is a basic fact that anarchists like Lifticus refuse to believe. Of course those in power can become corrupt and oppressive, but most laws are created by popular will. Rape and murder is illegal and perpetrators are put in jail because that is what 99% of society wants. But anarchists believe we all live in a magic fairy land where an evil wizard created all these oppressive laws just because he wanted to be mean, and we’d all live happily ever after if we just got rid of the evil wizard and all his bad old laws.

52

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:

Yes, laws are voted on. There has yet to be proposed law to not lock up murderers and rapists, this is not because society can’t collectively do anything, its because society wants it that way.

That is a basic fact that anarchists like Lifticus refuse to believe. Of course those in power can become corrupt and oppressive, but most laws are created by popular will. Rape and murder is illegal and perpetrators are put in jail because that is what 99% of society wants. But anarchists believe we all live in a magic fairy land where an evil wizard created all these oppressive laws just because he wanted to be mean, and we’d all live happily ever after if we just got rid of the evil wizard and all his bad old laws. [/quote]

Anarchy has nothing to do with it. He just thinks society is benign, when its not.

Society will punish people in a path of least resistance. Laws make it difficult to carry out “street justice” since those dishing out the justice becomes criminals themselves.

53

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:

Yes, laws are voted on. There has yet to be proposed law to not lock up murderers and rapists, this is not because society can’t collectively do anything, its because society wants it that way.

That is a basic fact that anarchists like Lifticus refuse to believe. Of course those in power can become corrupt and oppressive, but most laws are created by popular will. Rape and murder is illegal and perpetrators are put in jail because that is what 99% of society wants. But anarchists believe we all live in a magic fairy land where an evil wizard created all these oppressive laws just because he wanted to be mean, and we’d all live happily ever after if we just got rid of the evil wizard and all his bad old laws.

Anarchy has nothing to do with it. He just thinks society is benign, when its not.
[/quote]

No, the problem is that he doesn’t realize that government is a creation and extention of society. He is an anarchist and anarchists believe that people are inherently good, and will behaive better if the oppression of authority were removed.

54

[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, with that logic, I can go out and ass rape a pre teen and as long as I have enough money to buy her off it’s okay? You seriously need to check your values.

55

[quote]orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

He would not. The victim would.

And the victim has spoken.
[/quote]

So let’s see.

You want the victim to, after having been raped, then have the burden of probably feeling PERSONALLY responsible every day for whether the perpetrator is in prison or is free, or is dead from execution. Probably feeling that way because she could have decided differently: her decision on it was THE decision.

You don’t realize, or don’t care, that in many cases the victim will not “have the heart” to be the one making the decision to put the perpetrator in jail, particularly if a little time has passed? Even let’s say a year? Or in many cases even right at the time, especially because right at the time the victim is traumatized.

What about when the perpetrator is a family member or an “important person” in the community? You want the victim to have the pressure, and deal with the outcomes, of being the one making the decision in these situations?

And you don’t want the others collectively, as society, to have the right to impose punishment that has deterrence effect upon other potential criminals (please don’t argue that imprisonment has no deteterrence effect.)

57

Oh well…

58

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

He would not. The victim would.

And the victim has spoken.

So let’s see.

You want the victim to, after having been raped, then have the burden of probably PERSONALLY responsible every day for whether the perpetrator is in prison or is free, or is dead from execution. Probably feeling that way because she could have decided differently: her decision on it was THE decision.

You don’t realize, or don’t care, that in many cases the victim will not “have the heart” to be the one making the decision to put the perpetrator in jail, particularly if a little time has passed? Even let’s say a year? Or in many cases even right at the time, especially because right at the time the victim is traumatized.

What about when the perpetrator is a family member or an “important person” in the community? You want the victim to have the pressure, and deal with the outcomes, of being the one making the decision in these situations?

And you don’t want the others collectively, as society, to have the right to impose punishment that has deterrence effect upon other potential criminals (please don’t argue that imprisonment has no deteterrence effect.)[/quote]

I don’t give a fuck about victims. If I become a victim I am gonna take my own vengeance and I will not let a criminal become a burden on society.

Deal with it, bitches!

60

Honestly, after everything I have seen in my legal escapades, I think you need to be hard as hell on people like this. There is no such thing as rehabilitation within the correctional system, and that is after being in different prisons and jails. They don’t offer anything rehab, if anything it is more like crime school. These people need to have a hammer dropped on them (legally) because many have no remorse at all.