rajncajn Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I am just amazed at the misguided support of the French and Hollywood types (sorry for the broadbrush stroke there) and SEC's viewpoint. Really? This is nothing new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) I am just amazed at the misguided support of the French and Hollywood types (sorry for the broadbrush stroke there) and SEC's viewpoint. The guy plead guilty and was convicted of a crime that many of us find heinous (think about your 13 yr old child going through something like this) and fled the country before sentencing. What am I missing that makes this ok, even still today? Paralysis by over analysis methinks... I think that people who are so eager to see this man pay for what he did, even though the victim is all for forgiving him of his transgressions, are at the point of merely seeking revenge. We all know that had this same thing have been perpetrated by one of us common people that we would still be in Leavenworth crossing swords with bubba. Thus, we want this man to pay, we don't want him to seemingly get away with what he did simply because he is famous. Let's face it, there are two sets of standards applied to a populace, those who are wealthy and powerful are granted more leniency... I think that some may need to take a step back and do some introspection... This woman wants the charges dropped, you guys want him prosecuted. Is this because you feel that he needs to pay his debt to society or is it that there is a sense of envy (not necessarilly about being able to get away with a SIMILAR crime) that because he is famous he can go unpunished while knowing that you would have been met with the most severe of penalties? I htink tht most of you will agree that a legal system should not be based on the philosophy of revenge, rather it should be based on rehabilitation. He has not commited any more crimes, he is rehabilitated, let him and her get on with their lives. Edited September 29, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I am just amazed at the misguided support of the French and Hollywood types (sorry for the broadbrush stroke there) and SEC's viewpoint. The guy plead guilty and was convicted of a crime that many of us find heinous (think about your 13 yr old child going through something like this) and fled the country before sentencing. What am I missing that makes this ok, even still today? Paralysis by over analysis methinks... Right on. If it was my 13 year old daughter being raped/sodomized by a 40 something year old man I don't think any amount of money would stop me from killing him. Even thirty years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Wrong! The state is to protect it's citizens. By letting a rapist go is allowing him the opportunity to rap again. well, I think an even greater danger than allowing recitivist rappers the chance to rap again is the precedent you're setting where, if you simply get your accuser to forgive you or not want to deal with revisiting the ordeal, then you can make your crimes disappear. that's not how it works in our system, and for good reason. only the president (or governor) has the power to pardon, not victims of crimes. because that would just open up a hugh can of worms. just rape a forgiving person, or coerce their forgiveness with money or intimidation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 This woman wants the charges dropped, you guys want him prosecuted. wrong. he's already been prosecuted and declared guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 wrong. he's already been prosecuted and declared guilty. Sorry, let me rephrase. THe woman doesn't feel that he should serve any more time in prison, but you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sorry, let me rephrase. THe woman doesn't feel that he should serve any more time in prison, but you do. Again, wrong. This woman just doesn't want to deal with it any further. If that means he stays free, she's OK with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sorry, let me rephrase. THe woman doesn't feel that he should serve any more time in prison, but you do. If it was a crime just against her it would have been a civil trial, and not a criminal trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 If it was a crime just against her it would have been a civil trial, and not a criminal trial. Who else was it a crime against? The state? What, now people are wards of the state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Who else was it a crime against? The state? What, now people are wards of the state? Who's law was broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I htink tht most of you will agree that a legal system should not be based on the philosophy of revenge, rather it should be based on rehabilitation. He has not commited any more crimes, he is rehabilitated, let him and her get on with their lives. I also believe a legal system should not circumvent it's own decisions by one's ability to avoid incarceration. I can only speak for myself, but if the headlines on CNN had been "man convicted of drugging, raping, and sodomizing 13 yr old girl caught in Switzerland 30 years later", I would feel the same. I wonder if the French, Hollywood, etc. type of supporters would be so outspoken then as well. I am aghast at the quotes of comments made, especially the one "he made a little mistake" While I think there is some truth to what you say about people's affluence affecting legal decisions, etc. it doesn't make it right in my mind. Add to that AZ's comments about offenders being able to avoid the law for X amount of years, the accuser being too lenient or forgiving, etc. you just open up a whole new can of worms. Our legal system has evolved over the centuries to where it is today. Maybe there is a good reason why the State can enforce it's own laws/decisions without victim input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Who's law was broken? Jesus'? You know, laws change all the time, some become antiquated, some don't... that is a different argument about the validity of state laws (and no i am not promoting the abolishment of rape laws). What I am arguing is the right of a victim to state that it is their opinion that substantial justice has been meted out to their attacker and to halt actions of the court that futher deteriorate their quality of life. The state is placing an undue burden on this woman by continually revisiting something that she is trying to put behind her. Some people are stronger than others and don't feel the need for revenge at the cost of further peceived harm to themselves. If she is willing to put this behind her, the state of California should be content to drop their charges and allow this woman to be free from the circus that their persistance has created. Thus, California should drop the warrant for failure to appear as well. Kinda like laws surrounding admissability of evidence in a trial. If any piece of evidence is attained illegally any subsequent evidence tied to the illegally obtained material is inadmissable. Thus, if the woman wants the case dropped, the other cases that stem from said case should be dropped. The reason for his rearrest should not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Jesus'? You know, laws change all the time, some become antiquated, some don't... that is a different argument about the validity of state laws (and no i am not promoting the abolishment of rape laws). What I am arguing is the right of a victim to state that it is their opinion that substantial justice has been meted out to their attacker and to halt actions of the court that futher deteriorate their quality of life. The state is placing an undue burden on this woman by continually revisiting something that she is trying to put behind her. Some people are stronger than others and don't feel the need for revenge at the cost of further peceived harm to themselves. If she is willing to put this behind her, the state of California should be content to drop their charges and allow this woman to be free from the circus that their persistance has created. Thus, California should drop the warrant for failure to appear as well. Kinda like laws surrounding admissability of evidence in a trial. If any piece of evidence is attained illegally any subsequent evidence tied to the illegally obtained material is inadmissable. Thus, if the woman wants the case dropped, the other cases that stem from said case should be dropped. The reason for his rearrest should not exist. Who paid for the legal proceedings against Polanski? Do they have rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Who paid for the legal proceedings against Polanski? Do they have rights? Yes and no. The government fairly confiscated that money, what they choose to do with it is their business, besides it belongs to them anyway. Citizens pay taxes for a number of things they agree or disagree with and are not entitled to restitution if they do not like the outcome of what that money is spent on. The recourse the people have in this case is to vote the politicians and judges out of office if they do not like what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sorry, let me rephrase. THe woman doesn't feel that he should serve any more time in prison, but you do. sorry but this is bigger than what the woman wants after all these years......It doesn't matter whether the woman wants to pursue it or not - Polanski is a fugitive from the law and obviously the DA has been, and wants to pursue it. That type of thing happens frequently in sexual assault and rape cases, just bc the woman wants to forget it does not mean that justice won't and will not be served. the justice system was not put in place to let criminals walk to placate the wishes of the defendants or victims. this isn't some minor, awwww let the old guy ride his days out in peace type of crime. He drugged and raped a 13 yr old girl and fled the country - that is as bad as it gets. make the old coot rot in a chitty cell in his final years - he is a scumbag and eff the French for harboring this MF for so long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) Yes and no. The government fairly confiscated that money, what they choose to do with it is their business, besides it belongs to them anyway. Citizens pay taxes for a number of things they agree or disagree with and are not entitled to restitution if they do not like the outcome of what that money is spent on. The recourse the people have in this case is to vote the politicians and judges out of office if they do not like what happens. We might question how fairly the government confiscated the money, but never the less, if what they choose to do with it is their business, then what business is it of yours to question what they choose to do with it now, provided that what they choose to do with it is within their power to do? Edited September 29, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Who else was it a crime against? The state? What, now people are wards of the state? who are the two parties in a criminal trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 sorry but this is bigger than what the woman wants after all these years......It doesn't matter whether the woman wants to pursue it or not - Polanski is a fugitive from the law and obviously the DA has been, and wants to pursue it. That type of thing happens frequently in sexual assault and rape cases, just bc the woman wants to forget it does not mean that justice won't and will not be served. the justice system was not put in place to let criminals walk to placate the wishes of the defendants or victims. this isn't some minor, awwww let the old guy ride his days out in peace type of crime. He drugged and raped a 13 yr old girl and fled the country - that is as bad as it gets. make the old coot rot in a chitty cell in his final years - he is a scumbag and eff the French for harboring this MF for so long It is your position then that the state should take precedent of the will of the people? Or that a court, more specifically a DA should be able to pursue an arrest at whatever cost he deems necessary even if the will of the people is against him pursuing it? What is mor eimportant, the state proving a point in a 30 year old case or the wishes of a victim to have this case dismissed and alow this traumatic saga in her life be put behind her? At this point no good is coming from pursuing the charges against Roman, the only thing it is doing is causing a great deal of turmoil for two individuals. In a sense, the court is assaulting this woman again by making her relive this nightmare in the most public of venues. We all saw what happened to a certain DA in Durham that was pursuing a case against people, dragging their names through the gutter. Maybe this DA will get what's coming to him by forcing this poor woman to go through this torturous moment again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 This guy is a pedophile what makes you think he doesn't continue to live this lifestyle? He's got money, fame and it's apparent that the French don' give a poopy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 who are the two parties in a criminal trial? The state and the accused. In this case, though if you read my earlier post, the prosecution was based on a complaint by a woman, a citizen who is still alive and functioning. She wants this case dropped, since the state is pursuing this case on her behalf, I feel that she should have the right to decide whether she wants them to pursue it on her behalf or not. Further, since the arrest for fleeing is attache dto this case, much like laws regarding evidence, I feel that since she wants the initial case dropped that led to the fleeing that the fleeing charges should be dropped as well.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It is your position then that the state should take precedent of the will of the people? Or that a court, more specifically a DA should be able to pursue an arrest at whatever cost he deems necessary even if the will of the people is against him pursuing it? What is mor eimportant, the state proving a point in a 30 year old case or the wishes of a victim to have this case dismissed and alow this traumatic saga in her life be put behind her? At this point no good is coming from pursuing the charges against Roman, the only thing it is doing is causing a great deal of turmoil for two individuals. In a sense, the court is assaulting this woman again by making her relive this nightmare in the most public of venues. We all saw what happened to a certain DA in Durham that was pursuing a case against people, dragging their names through the gutter. Maybe this DA will get what's coming to him by forcing this poor woman to go through this torturous moment again. This isn't the will of the people, this is the will of a person. Big freaking difference. If our little sample size is any indication, the will of the people is that this rapist get tossed in the slammer. Again, as has been been mentioned, the state doesn't need her to press charges, the charges have been brought and a ruling has been made. The crime he has committed now is not rape but that of fleeing the country to avoid sentencing. That is very much a state v polanski issue and one that she should not have the opportunity to get involved with. The trial involving her already happened. She's gonna get dragged into the headlines whether or not we do anything anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 This guy is a pedophile what makes you think he doesn't continue to live this lifestyle? He's got money, fame and it's apparent that the French don' give a poopy. There is no evidence to prove that he continues to live this life style. YOu have no proof in the affirmative that he does, the only proof that I have that he doesn't is that no charges relating to statutory rape have been filed against him since 1977. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It is your position then that the state should take precedent of the will of the people? Or that a court, more specifically a DA should be able to pursue an arrest at whatever cost he deems necessary even if the will of the people is against him pursuing it? What is mor eimportant, the state proving a point in a 30 year old case or the wishes of a victim to have this case dismissed and alow this traumatic saga in her life be put behind her? At this point no good is coming from pursuing the charges against Roman, the only thing it is doing is causing a great deal of turmoil for two individuals. In a sense, the court is assaulting this woman again by making her relive this nightmare in the most public of venues. We all saw what happened to a certain DA in Durham that was pursuing a case against people, dragging their names through the gutter. Maybe this DA will get what's coming to him by forcing this poor woman to go through this torturous moment again. The DA is sworn to uphold the law, not the will of the people. Juries are what were meant to give legal proceedings latitude, not DA's. The DA is doing what he or she was sworn to do. Would you have he/she break their sworn oath? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 This isn't the will of the people, this is the will of a person. Big freaking difference. If our little sample size is any indication, the will of the people is that this rapist get tossed in the slammer. Again, as has been been mentioned, the state doesn't need her to press charges, the charges have been brought and a ruling has been made. The crime he has committed now is not rape but that of fleeing the country to avoid sentencing. That is very much a state v polanski issue and one that she should not have the opportunity to get involved with. The trial involving her already happened. She's gonna get dragged into the headlines whether or not we do anything anyway. All the more reason for the state not to pursue the charges, they are placing their ego ahead of the will of the affected. Hell, CA can't afford to house the prisoners thye have now, I don't think throwing an old man in the slammer for something he did 30 years ago is going to make the populace any safer. Also, I will go back to the idea that this case against him currently stems directly from her case that she was raped. I feel that since this is the fruit of that case that she should have more weight in determining whether these current charges get dropped and that she be allowed to resume her life of normalcy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 We all saw what happened to a certain DA in Durham that was pursuing a case against people, dragging their names through the gutter. Maybe this DA will get what's coming to him by forcing this poor woman to go through this torturous moment again. Aples and oranges he already admitted guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.