Thirith on 28/9/2009 at 16:40
Quote Posted by raph
What I'm interested in is the sudden interest of Switzerland for a guy who'd been there quite a bit in the last 30 years already,
to the point of owning a house there. What the fuck is going on behind the scenes?
I'm pretty sure it's because Switzerland was in the US' sights with respect to the bank/tax haven thing. This is the Swiss legal system showing the US that they're co-operating as much as possible.
Quote Posted by Thief13x
In that case, why do we prosecute any child rapists?
Because they're a risk to others? Because they've committed a crime? However, there is no statute of limitations for child rape in the US, and that may be so for very good reasons, but these reasons should still be up for discussion.
demagogue on 28/9/2009 at 17:01
Apparently the reason he was detained now and not before is that now the L.A. DA's office knew with specific knowledge exactly when and where he'd be in the country to make the extradition appeal, and in past times they couldn't be that specific.
As for the case, I think the main issue is the actual legal issue on hand. People shouldn't get distracted by issues that aren't actually at issue.
Nobody is debating his guilt nor the appropraite punishment because he's already plead guilty (to reopen what he's guilty of would be double jeopardy) and what punishment he "deserves" isn't a real debate. The only issue is whether the plea bargain he agreed to was legitimate (or at least the breaking of it an official abuse) -- If it is, then he's already done his time in jail; if not then a judge could decide he should do more time. And it should be noted that assurances that plea bargains will be respected by both parties is a fundamental part of criminal law. If people plead guilty under assurances that aren't respected by the state, that's a serious problem for the whole system.
And the judge now on the case (iirc) has given indications that he understands and even sympathizes with RP's case, but wouldn't decide in his favor while he's in abstentia. So to me it's not as sensational an ordeal as the media is playing it up to be, nothing to do with high minded issues of what anybody deserves (at this point; those questions were already answered long ago), but rather more mundane issues of proper procedure.
Thirith on 28/9/2009 at 17:12
Quote Posted by demagogue
And the judge now on the case (iirc) has given indications that he understands and even sympathizes with RP's case, but wouldn't decide in his favor while he's in abstentia. So to me it's not as sensational an ordeal as the media is playing it up to be, nothing to do with high minded issues of what anybody deserves (at this point; those questions were already answered long ago), but rather more mundane issues of proper procedure.
IMO this kind of levelheadedness is what is needed in this case. There's entirely too much baying for Polanski's blood on the one side and "He's a poor guy, his wife got slaughtered, his parents died in the Holocaust, can't you give him a break for anally raping a 13-year old?" Neither position is entirely helpful, as far as I'm concerned.
242 on 28/9/2009 at 17:35
Quote Posted by SD
What is with all this shock and outrage over the arrest of the fugitive sex criminal Roman Polanski?
I acknowledge I'm prejudiced because he is one of 5-10 directors I really like, but I have only one question: how do you know he is a sex criminal ?
van HellSing on 28/9/2009 at 17:37
All else aside, this reeks of politics. He frequently visited Switzerland for years. Heck, he has a house there. But he gets arrested just when
a) Switzerland's trying hard to suck up to the US to keep them from putting their noses into their banks.
b) Poland passes controversial legislation for forcible chemical castration of pedophiles (and the prime minister says human rights don't apply since they're not human)
Queue on 28/9/2009 at 17:46
Quote Posted by van HellSing
... for forcible chemical castration of pedophiles ...
Who wouldn't want to have that job? "So, Fred, what do you do for a living?"
...plus it'd look awesome on a resume.
SD on 28/9/2009 at 17:47
Quote Posted by Queue
does it not matter that the girl in question forgave him and didn't want to see him jail?
No, because her opinion on the matter is just as irrelevant to the course of justice as mine, yours or Strawberry Shortcake's. The crime he committed is totally independent of any "forgiveness" on the part of the victim. It is not her place to say when the law should and should not be applied. Emotion has no place in the application of justice.
Quote Posted by Thirith
And frankly, SD, I think that people who believe they are the ones who know exactly what justice is are fairly close to people who believe in God *and* they're the ones who know exactly what His opinion is on morality. Either justice is a metaphysical notion that no one has direct, immediate access to, or it's a social construct, in which case it's most definitely open for discussion. "Justice will only be done when..." is
Daily Mail-type rhetorics.
LMAO.
You know, I'm willing to bend a little way this way or that way on morality, which as you point out, can be subjective. But there is no way on this Earth that getting a 13-year-old girl off her face on drink and drugs, then raping her vaginally and anally, is
ever justifiable.
He is a sex predator of the very foulest kind, and if someone like you or I did something like this, we would be looking at 15-20 in prison.
Quote Posted by 242
I acknowledge I'm prejudiced because he is one of 5-10 directors I really like, but I have only one question: how do you know he is a sex criminal ?
Because he plead guilty? :weird:
Aerothorn on 28/9/2009 at 17:48
And, all else aside, can we please stop calling him a pedophile? Pedophilia is (or was, until the lazy media started throwing it around everywhere) what you call someone who is sexually interested in pre-pubescent children. There is no evidence that Roman Polanski is, or was, a pedophile. The correct term would be hebephilia, which is sexual attraction to those going through puberty. Apart from the general "precision of language" thing, there is a legit distinction. One makes a certain degree of sense from an evolutionary standpoint, the other does not. Ephebophilia (attraction to mid-to-late adolescents, i.e. post-pubescents) is not classified as a mental disorder: pedophilia is. Hebephillia is somewhere in the middle, and society is still trying to figure out exactly how bad it is, but it certainly isn't the same as wanting to bang eight-year-olds.
Stitch on 28/9/2009 at 17:49
Quote Posted by 242
I acknowledge I'm prejudiced because he is one of 5-10 directors I really like, but I have only one question: how do you know he is a sex criminal ?
Polanski plead guilty.
Although I'm not in the sanctimonious "lock him up and chuck the key" camp, I really don't see the controversy here. Polanski raped a 13 year old girl and fled the States instead of facing the justice system. This simplification ignores the minor details, yeah, but hopefully those can all shake out during a fair trial.
Edit: SD beat me to the punch.
SubJeff on 28/9/2009 at 17:53
I'm with SD on this.
Makes no difference if the victim forgives him, he still needs to stand trial.
