Roman Polanski

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[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 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.)[/quote]

There is some truth to this, but there is also a reason for statutes of limitations.

30 years, when she no longer wants him in jail?

62

On a more general level, we had some interesting discussions on this board about administrations that have very likely violated more laws in a day than Polanski in a lifetime and yet nobody indicts them, not even the opposition is interested in the rule of law.

At the same time I had a hard time defending that two Austrian politicians were sentenced because they denigrated religious teachings. My basic argument was that yes, the law was BS, but we expect those people that make the laws, and especially them, to follow those laws.

So, since in the US politicians are already above the law and not even those who make or execute laws have to obey those laws, why not make exceptions for celebrities? Why not for anyone with enough public support?

Let us face it there are people on this board who shat all over the rule of law when it came to the Bush administration and there are some who would defend Obamas similar actions.

Well, you cannot just bury the rule of law for some people and uphold it for others.

It was party politics vs a nation of laws and not of men and America has made a decision.

Might as well go through with it and hold trials by public acclamation.

Kind of like American Idol.

edited

63

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If he’s not famous, then why does everyone know his name?[/quote]

Sharon Tate

64

[quote]orion wrote:
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 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.)

There is some truth to this, but there is also a reason for statutes of limitations.

30 years, when she no longer wants him in jail?

[/quote]

Murder and rape, I am assuming with rape, stay with a victim forever, why would there be a statute of limitations on such violent and life altering crimes?

Rape = Crime = Jail…I’m not really sure what the debate is about. He raped a girl, he should go to jail like every other rapist.

I mean come on we aren’t talking about identity theft here.

65

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean come on we aren’t talking about identity theft here.
[/quote]

In a way identity theft is worse than rape.

66

[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 I can offer a sum to have sex with your underaged daughter?

67

[quote]orion wrote:
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.

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]

You’re forgetting the element of punishment that is a deterrant to others. If money were the only punishment, what stops well heeled men from having sexual relations with underage girls?

68

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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 I can offer a sum to have sex with your underaged daughter?

[/quote]
Inferring that from what I have said shows what a moron you are.

If it were my daughter you would be sans head for even suggesting it. I would not wait 30 years.

69

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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.

You’re forgetting the element of punishment that is a deterrant to others. If money were the only punishment, what stops well heeled men from having sexual relations with underage girls?

[/quote]

If punishment were a deterrant people wouldn’t commit crimes ever.

Most people do not think they are going to get caught.

You are a moron.

70

[quote]orion wrote:
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 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.)

There is some truth to this, but there is also a reason for statutes of limitations.

30 years, when she no longer wants him in jail?

[/quote]

Statute of limitations does not apply for a fugitive from the law. You cannot simply pick up and leave and hope to “wait it out”.

71

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TheBodyGuard 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 I can offer a sum to have sex with your underaged daughter?

Inferring that from what I have said shows what a moron you are.

If it were my daughter you would be sans head for even suggesting it. I would not wait 30 years.[/quote]

I understand your points after reading the entire thread. I agree with some, disagree with others. You of course are assuming everyone is capable of metting out “justice”. There are many holes in what I admit are attractive solutions proposed by you.

72

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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.

You’re forgetting the element of punishment that is a deterrant to others. If money were the only punishment, what stops well heeled men from having sexual relations with underage girls?

If punishment were a deterrant people wouldn’t commit crimes ever.

Most people do not think they are going to get caught.

You are a moron.[/quote]

I don’t have the time or desire to deconstruct some of your oversimplistic conclusions about crime and punishment. Punishment is most certainly a deterrant to most of society - not much a deterrant to sociopathic types. The system is flawed and imperfect for sure, but to suggest there is no deterrance is false. People restrain themselves daily for fear of prosecution and spending time in jail. It certainly fails for that segment of society that does not care as much about going to jail.

73

Lifticvs I know you’re trying to be edgy and totally in-your-face, but you’re actually an asshat. I’m guessing you were indoctrinated by some professor at your local community college and now you’re on a personal crusade to ‘fix’ the system. Polanski is a creep who needs to thrown in jail, mostly just to prove that no one’s above the law, not even Hollywood.

74

[quote]charlotte49er wrote:
Lifticvs I know you’re trying to be edgy and totally in-your-face, but you’re actually an asshat. I’m guessing you were indoctrinated by some professor at your local community college and now you’re on a personal crusade to ‘fix’ the system. Polanski is a creep who needs to thrown in jail, mostly just to prove that no one’s above the law, not even Hollywood. [/quote]

Ok, sweetheart…

75

[quote]charlotte49er wrote:
Lifticvs I know you’re trying to be edgy and totally in-your-face, but you’re actually an asshat. I’m guessing you were indoctrinated by some professor at your local community college and now you’re on a personal crusade to ‘fix’ the system. Polanski is a creep who needs to thrown in jail, mostly just to prove that no one’s above the law, not even Hollywood. [/quote]

LOL!!

76

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
orion wrote:
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 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.)

There is some truth to this, but there is also a reason for statutes of limitations.

30 years, when she no longer wants him in jail?

Statute of limitations does not apply for a fugitive from the law. You cannot simply pick up and leave and hope to “wait it out”.

[/quote]

But maybe you should be able to?

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
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 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.)

There is some truth to this, but there is also a reason for statutes of limitations.

30 years, when she no longer wants him in jail?

Murder and rape, I am assuming with rape, stay with a victim forever, why would there be a statute of limitations on such violent and life altering crimes?

Rape = Crime = Jail…I’m not really sure what the debate is about. He raped a girl, he should go to jail like every other rapist.

I mean come on we aren’t talking about identity theft here.

[/quote]

While I do agree that people have a legitimate interests that rapists do not run free who is to say how a victim has to feel after 30 years?

They have reached some sort of agreement, he does not run around raping 13 year old constantly so what good do laws like that do?

78

[quote]orion wrote:
u

They have reached some sort of agreement, he does not run around raping 13 year old constantly so what good do laws like that do?[/quote]

Well, i really woundn’t count my chickens before they have hatched in re to whether he has raped other 13 years olds, give it a bit of time and see what else turns up in the wash.

Perhaps there was other 13 years olds that maybe don’t ‘‘have some sort of agreement’’.

Every dog has it day.

79

[quote]charlotte49er wrote:
Lifticvs I know you’re trying to be edgy and totally in-your-face, but you’re actually an asshat. I’m guessing you were indoctrinated by some professor at your local community college and now you’re on a personal crusade to ‘fix’ the system. Polanski is a creep who needs to thrown in jail, mostly just to prove that no one’s above the law, not even Hollywood. [/quote]

LOL. Well said. That’s about my take on lifty as well.

80

Have they extradited the pervert yet?