Is making Polanski face trial the right thing to do ?

[SpartanDem]

[Nye Bevan]

1. Ooooh, that's a tough one,

Should men who rape pre-pubescent children escape justice because they have been on the lam for a long time? Let me think about that......

[SpartanDem]

5. Given the number of people defending the creep

it is apparently not an easy choice for some.

[Dawson Leery]

210. He should serve his sentence.

[msanthrope]

2. He's already pled. He may not have a trial, unless he attempts plea withdrawal.

He skipped after pleading and before sentencing.

[PSzymeczek]

28. Exactly. There will be no trial,

because he entered a plea. The victim wants to let it go.

[Pavulon]

63. Trial for felony flight, he can serve that sentence after

he is sentenced for child rape. He has a pretty good chance of dying in prison.

[madmusic]

114. The poll is a loaded question and fallacious

The question should be "Should the state honor its part of the plea bargain after the defendant waives his constitutional rights?"

As a matter of law the answer is a resounding YES.

I'd be very interested in knowing how DUers answer it. My bet would be, if terrorists, yes, we should honor our promises; if Polanski, no, because we do not have to keep our promise with evil.

As you argued in another thread, his flight to avoid prosecution is a different matter - different charge, different prosecution, different potential sentence unrelated to the past charges.

[dsc]

3. absolutely

I will say his plea shouldn't be used against him as they did change the sentence but he should be tried.

[Ian David]

4. Yes. But only after we make Bush and Cheney stand trial. n/t

[k agathon]

9. Are you for real?

So if we don't try Bush and Cheney then the justice system must come to a screeching halt. Seriously lay off the bong. The legal system doesn't grind to a halt if you don't get what you want.

[Ian David]

19. I just think our priorities are misplaced. Polanski raped ONE girl.

Dick and Cheney killed over a million, and they're not even on the Ten Most Wanted List.

I say throw the book at all three.

[seabeyond]

25. so fuck the one girl. oh ya, she already was. lets do it again. nt

[Ian David]

35. Baby Jessica fell down a well! n/t

[seabeyond]

38. are you stating a rape is insignificant????? nt

[Ian David]

40. No. I am not. I think the book should be thrown at him. n/t

[MH1]

211. Actually, given that she wants the matter dropped ...

... and probably didn't want the publicity AT ALL ... :shrug:

but as has been pointed out elsewhere, the victim doesn't get a vote. And there are other reasons for prosecuting than simply revenge for the victim.

That said, I wonder how much the extradition and trial will cost and whether the theoretical benefits outweigh spending that money elsewhere, say on fodd and shelter for the homeless, or addiction treatment programs, or health clinics for the poor .... matter of priorities I guess.

[k agathon]

27. a Million? WTF did you get that number.

if you are going to make a claim, at least make it believable. A Million people, WTF?

[Ian David]

32. British Journal Lancet.

Your side lost.

YOUR pResident is a murderer.

Get used to it.

[Pavulon]

47. That number is fake, n size is tiny and not stratified.

basically they just asked people with no proof if someone they knew died. From that they came up with 1/8 of the population was killed.

It was published in the lancet, just like the guy who said vaccines cause autism. Pretty sure they regret that one too.

These stupid numbers only hide the real numbers at IBC and distract from legitimate conversation on the horrible mess that is iraq.

[Ian David]

58. The guy who faked the autism connection only got caught because he admitted faking it. n/t

[Pavulon]

60. No a BBC reporter caught him, then he admitted it.

he still lectures on it and still has a following of suckers who cant come to terms that their kid has a genetic disorder. It is easier to blame someone, he just cashed in on that.

[Ian David]

64. And those morons still come to DU and argue the guy's case. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

44. In 2006 John Hopkins came up with over 600,000

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-10-iraq-dead_x.htm

[k agathon]

181. Those numbers are based on a survey. = ????????????

[mike_c]

51. seriously, are you that clueless...?

And I'd STILL rather see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc get an opportunity to redeem and rehabilitate themselves than simply be punished as revenge for their crimes.

[k agathon]

29. duplication

duplication.

[blondeatlast]

120. The concept of justice escapes you.

that's a pity; it really isn't a difficult concept.

[gleaner]

180. Say what?

How many girls, make that 13 year old girls, does he have to rape before he becomes worthy of law enforcement's attention. Five? Ten? What do you think is an appropriate number?

There is plenty of justice to go around for Bush and Cheney and their motley crew without taking any away from Polanski. Also he already pled guilty, so you don't have any ambiguity about whether or not he's guilty, just that pesky question about how many rapes it takes to make a crime. I wonder what the girl's priorities are? Maybe trying to survive the incident intact and live a life free of fear like other rape victims? Or do you think that is misplaced and a waste of her time?

[sabrina 1]

21. I don't know if you've noticed, but the legal system has ground

to a halt. We are advised to move forward as investigating war crimes, torture, murder, lies etc. that happened pretty recently, will only hold up progress. Looking back, we are told, is not the thing to do, we need to look ahead. So a statute of limitations on crimes that happened as late as one year ago, has been accepted.

This crime happened decades ago. Why should we look back that far, if we cannot look back just a few years ago at crimes that killed hundreds of thousands of people? Or is the argument now that it is okay to have two systems of justice, one for the ruling class and the other for everyone else?

[seabeyond]

26. are you fuckin serious. so.... because of the wrong with bush, lets do another wrong

wth

[sabrina 1]

33. No, that wasn't my point at all. I am FOR bringing those criminals

to justice. But I'm not the president, Congress or the DOJ and I didn't imagine the statements made by the president or the lack of action on the part of Congress and the DOJ.

I might ask you if you have not notices those statements and actions and the arguments often made in defense of them, right here as a matter of fact. 'We cant' prosecute Bush et al, it would make us look partisan' ~ just one, I can produce a whole list if you like.

[seabeyond]

41. my ass got chewed out by mil for saying laws were broken. my father said cant prosecute past

i told him THAT IS THE ONLY TIME YOU PROSECUTE A CRIME. cant prosecute a crime of the future. the crime has to happen (makes it past) in order to prosecute.

makes NO sense saying cant prosecute a past crime.

not logical at all

[sabrina 1]

59. I agree ~ was just pointing out that this is what we have been told

It made no sense, but it creates an atmosphere where people can now make the argument, as I just did, that we must not look to the past when it comes to crime. It is a completely specious argument and I like you, am pretty outraged by it.

Now we have a crime that was committed over 30 years ago and I would like to hear those same people who claim that we must not look at the past, what THEY think we ought to do about this crime ~ because we can't have it both ways, imo. Either you do or you don't treat every crime in the same way regardless of how long ago it was committed.

[seabeyond]

62. you ever hear me being an

hypocrite, let me know. that is right up there in the worst.

breaking alw is breaking law. goes to court. what happens after is anyones game, but gotta go to court.

[sabrina 1]

86. No, I haven't seen you be a hypocrite ~

but I know that many people who have defended the 'let's not look back' argument we are getting from this administration, will be outraged over this crime. They need to understand what they have defended imho. I guess it's the teacher in me ~ :-)

[Dorian Gray]

129. His second crime happened right up until yesterday

he had fled the country and avoided incarceration. That is a crime in which he continued to live for the past thirty years.

[Hepburn]

191. The plea agreement had NO terms on incarcertion...

...so how do you explain that he fled the country in order to avoid incarcertation?

:shrug:

[Dorian Gray]

216. Because it is widely

accepted that the judge was going to throw out the plea agreement and send him to jail.

Which is why he fled.

[JuniperLea]

145. No, THIS crime has been going on since he split...

He's fugitive, he ran from the law... that is what will be settled first.

I'm really sickened at all the drug/rape apologists on DU... you disgust me.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Excellent point.

All criminals should be exempt from prosecution until Bush and Cheney have been brought to justice. Even child rapists.

[anonymous171]

6. Yes. nt

[kestrel91316]

7. Asserts a fact not in evidence, or whatever. He already entered into

some plea or was found guilty, IIRC. He just needs to show up for SENTENCING.

That said, I am not a big fan of major punishment given the fact that his victim is opposed to such. Perhaps a token prison stay followed by probation for the rest of his life. And sex offender status.

I don't consider him a threat to society. He was a fool all those years ago, thinking with his little head instead of his big head.

[anonymous171]

10. If he was poor he would still be in jail. I say lock the fucker up until he's dead.

[Nye Bevan]

11. How many years does a child rapist have to escape abroad for

before you consider him to be no longer a threat to society, and only in need of a "token" sentence?

Do you have the same philosophy for other crimes such as murder, or bank robbery?

[Selatius]

15. I believe the rape victim said she also no longer wishes to see this go all the way.

A token prison sentence would be something done in deference to the original victim, I would guess.

Personally, I'd simply go by the sentencing guidelines.

[seabeyond]

16. meh... he was just thinking with little head, not big head. what can we expect. nt

[JuniperLea]

146. He drugged and raped a little girl...

And you want to look the other way.

Disgusting... putrid, vile, disgusting.

[Nye Bevan]

151. Did you mean to reply to post #7

or did you misinterpret my post?

I sincerely hope the disgusting creep is extradited and sent to jail for many, many years.

[JuniperLea]

157. I misinterpreted your post...

Apologies!

[seabeyond]

13. thinking with his little head instead of his big head.... what does that say about men. no, stop

well what the fuck, he was thinking with littel head not his big head.

guys cant help it

boys will be boys

biological

dna

cavemen that they are

he was a fool? he raped.

no she said. stop. lets go home. i was afraid. i said no. i said stop. i said lets go home. i was alone with him

well fuck guys

all you haev to do is think with your little head and then you dont have to pay the price

[uppityperson]

20. You forgot, but it was so long ago.....

I mean, really!



:sarcasm: just in case

[seabeyond]

23. i cannot believe, a case of rape of 13 yr old saying no repeated = thinking with little head

i cannot believe anyone .....

oh well

yes i can believe. i have heard as bad and worse on du

[PSzymeczek]

30. She lied about her age and was drunk.

she didn't say no.

[Shell Beau]

36. She didn't say no? Really?

[Ms. Toad]

37. Go read her testimony. She did say no. n/t

[uppityperson]

39. Here is link to testimony. She said no.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html

[quiller4]

200. But she has twice recanted her testimony and provided

Polanski's attorney with a deposition.

[Pavulon]

43. Even if what you said was true (it is not) he KNEW she was underage

as he had to get parental consent to "photograph" her.

[quiller4]

201. Wrong-he got her agent's permission for the photograph'. Mom

was the agent. That fulfilled the obligation. Mom may or may not have revealed her daughter's true age. That matter was not settle in the court documents.

[Odin2005]

65. WRONG!

She repeatedly said "no". That's rape no matter how old he thought she was.

[LisaL]

83. She claims she said "no" and "stop it."

She says she didn't physically resist, but she isn't required to do so. Even if she were an adult, what she is describing would not be considered a consensual situation.

[blondeatlast]

121. She couldn't consent. It was rape. nt

[Dorian Gray]

130. She said no

repeatedly.

[JuniperLea]

158. You are wrong...

She already said she told him no... and he drugged her! And then he pled guilty!! He fucking pled guilty already, and he ran from sentencing!

Thirteen year old girls cannot give consent...

Did you see the pictures of her? She was clearly a little girl.

[grantcart]

8. he pled guilty - there wil be no trial

[SpartanDem]

14. Well he'd probably face trial on the fleeing issue

but your point is taken about the other charge

[proteus_lives]

12. Yes!

He needs to be in prison.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Yes it is

It's sad that his life was so fucked up but that doesn't excuse what he did, nor does the fact that it happened a long time ago.

[Mz Pip]

18. Polanski should have to

go through the Justice system just like anyone else who is accuesd of a crime.

Let the counrts handle it, as they should.

[SpartanDem]

22. I wonder if these people voting no

wouldn't mind him spending time around their underage daughter, niece etc?

[AuntPatsy]

24. exactly

:mad:

[Toucano]

159. That is an interesting assumption and challenge.

It appears to have been an isolated incident wherein, he contends, he did not know the girl was underage.

I am unaware of any other accusations outside of this one incident which is quite a different situation to the offender who knowingly rapes or violates a minor.

People have and do make mistakes in judgment that lead them to committing a crime. It doesn't make them a chronic sexual offender.

[mix]

31. Yes, he needs to pay for his crime.

He is an extraordinary filmmaker nonetheless...Lunes de fiel or Bitter Moon...

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. He raped a child

End of discussion.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Not for many on DU

But...but...but... it's not "proportional"! You're showing a "lust for vengeance"! Polanski is "no longer a threat"! He may not have known she was only 13! Mitigating circumstances! He was "thinking with his little head instead of his big head"! You're showing "base emotion"! And finally, it is simply not fair to put Polanski behind bars given that Bush and Cheney have not yet been brought to justice!

[seabeyond]

50. missed one. it is the puritan mentality that wants to punish this man. nt

[Odin2005]

68. Too many goddamn rape apologists!

:grr:

[mike_c]

46. America's puritan national obsession with punishment continues....

THIS is why Americans imprison more people than any other nation on Earth. It's sick.

[Pavulon]

49. Really, what should we do with child rapists. Or some dude that

rapes your wife or mom?

[seabeyond]

53. hey, guys allowed, those damn prudes. nt

[seabeyond]

yep, here it is. the damn PRUDES that want to punish a rapist. girls are free game

to any male that wants a fuck, wtf

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

66. because we are a puritan nation want to punish rape of 13 yr old. you dont want to punish

i have got to assume, .....

to not punish a rapist is what..... allowing it.

tell me where i am off.

[uppityperson]

Here is what you said, inferring that punishing someone who raped a 13 yr old is "sick" obsessive, p

puritan. Perhaps you might wish to clarify.

"America's puritan national obsession with punishment continues....

THIS is why Americans imprison more people than any other nation on Earth. It's sick."

[girl gone mad]

115. It's pretty much what you said.

You explicitly stated that Americans are "sick", senseless puritans for wanting to put a child rapist in prison. Why not own what you said?

[proteus_lives]

54. Raping a 13-year old is sick.

Most people think that.

Not you apparently.

So what is it, his fame? His talent? Is that why you're giving him a pass?

[seabeyond]

55. some say a girl hits puberty, free game. that could mean as young as 10. nt

[seabeyond]

56. but even at that no still means no and stop means get the fuck away. nt

[Odin2005]

74. Somebody actually posted that!?!

:wow:

[seabeyond]

81. no. twelve yr old stripper thread. just the grossest i have heard yet. but rape is thinking with

little head instead of big head will follow a close second

[TorchTheWitch]

213. where is this thread?

The one about a 12 year old stripper? What kind of shit ass club would hire a 12 year old girl??? UGH! Horrible.

[JuniperLea]

147. Drugging someone at any age...

And then raping them is wrong. It's against the law. It is disgusting.

[mike_c]

76. not at all....

I don't care one way or another about his fame or celebrity. I'm just tired of our national obsession with crime and punishment. America really does incarcerate a larger percentage of its population than any other country on Earth. Do you think that's because Americans are more criminal or more evil than everyone else in the world? I don't-- I think it reflects our inability to free ourselves from our puritan history, where all crimes are equally deserving of punishment, and revenge is the main motive for justice.

Revenge is the worst sort of justice, I think. Polanski's crime was a reprehensible act, but it took place forty years ago. NO justice except revenge can be served now. He has lived his life. It's nearly over. What positive change do you honestly think that exacting revenge against him will serve?

[scarletwoman]

89. So true. It's never really about justice, it's all about judgement and condemnation and revenge.

It's part and parcel of the finely developed art of projection in American culture. *I* could never commit any evil, all the evil resides in *YOU*. Therefore you must be destroyed because that will affirm that there is no evil in *ME*.

I'm sick of it, too, Mike.

sw

[proteus_lives]

93. Child rape is evil.

What's wrong with punishing a rapist?

Why should he get a free pass?

[mike_c]

98. of course it's evil....

Do you honestly think anyone has suggested otherwise?

What's wrong with punishing a rapist? First and foremost, punishment that holds no possibility of creating a positive outcome is just vengeance. Is that what justice is all about? Not for me, it isn't.

[proteus_lives]

103. Oh, horse-shit.

If you think it's evil, why do you want to send Polanski on his way? Would you feel the same way if he was a murderer?

Sending him to jail is the positive outcome. I can't see the negative in sending a child rapist to prison. I don't care if his crimes were today or a 100 years ago. It doesn't change what he did.

[mike_c]

94. I'm especially discouraged by the inability to follow a logical discussion...

...that's on display in this sub-thread (which I half expect to be deleted any moment now for daring to propose that punishment is not the best response to crime). Good GAWD! Suddenly I'm condoning sexual violence for suggesting that revenge justice-- which has NEVER worked, apparently-- is not the pinnacle of civilized behavior. This is crazy.

[scarletwoman]

100. It's clear to me that nothing is so satisfying to the main body here

as being able to raise howls of righteous indignation over the failings of others.

I absolutely agree with your point about the utter failings of "revenge justice", however it's clear that once people get their bloodlust up, there's obviously no reasoning with them.

Thank you for trying, anyway.

sw

[Odin2005]

204. Rape isn't a "failing", it's a brutal crime.

A "failing" is eating too many Twinkies, or forgetting to call your mom on her birthday.

[proteus_lives]

99. There can be justice served.

I don't care if he's on his death-bed, he's a rapist. Justice is not allowing to get away with his crime. That's an all-around positive change to me.

[uppityperson]

109. Just because a criminal has avoided justice for so long...he should simply go free?

Wild.

[Confusious]

160. The NAZIs commited reprehensible acts,

but it took place 70 years ago. NO justice except revenge can be served now. They have lived their lifes. It's nearly over. What positive change do you honestly think that exacting revenge against them will serve?:sarcasm:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

185. You're sicker than any anti-choicer

I've at least heard anti-abortionists grudgingly concede to abortion in cases of rape and incest.

You seem to deprive a woman of her right to not be forcibly and violently penetrated.

When does a woman's body truly become her own?

[mike_c]

193. you've made that up from your own preconceptions....

I've said that criminal justice is currently based on unsuccessful premises and that we should seek solutions that stress behavior modification rather than perpetuating the cycle of violence through punishment. How you get from that to my "depriving a woman of her right to not be forcibly and violently penetrated" is utterly beyond me.

Sheesh. Not to mention you seem incapable of civil discourse.

[Odin2005]

205. Some people can't be "reformed".

Serial killers and child molesters are the kind of people that keep on doing it until they are locked up for the rest of their life.

[geek tragedy]

57. So you think child rape is okay? Give me Puritanism over

Child-rape-is-okay-if-you-are-a-celebrityism.

Sorry, but those who think that child rape is a matter of puritanism are moral idiots.

[mike_c]

71. can you find that ANYWHERE in my response?

I'm really getting sick of people not being able to have a rational discussion without dragging every logical error they can manage to construct into the conversation.

So burning puppy dogs alive is OK with you, huh scumbag? That makes just about as much sense as interpreting "I'm sick of revenge justice" to mean "raping young girls is OK."

[geek tragedy]

78. You think that punishing child rapists is Puritanism.

Poor Roman Polanski--drugged a 13 year old girl, bent her over, and shoved his penis up her rectum, and is now being persecuted for it.

:sarcasm:

Boo fucking hoo.

[mike_c]

80. I think that obsession with punishment for all crimes is rooted in puritanism....

You tell me what positive change will occur if Polanski is punished? Will the world be a better place? What good effects will be served?

[LisaL]

87. Is that the criteria now? For someone to be punished?

World has to be a better place? Really? Is that the new law?
:eyes:

[mike_c]

90. clearly it's not....

It is my perspective and my hope for real justice in this world.

[musicblind]

212. He isn't saying that is the way it IS, he is saying that is the way it should be.

He is proposing that punishment should be acted out if it has a positive benefit to society and that revenge for a crime committed is not positive benefit. For example, if someone was a danger to society then locking them up would be a positive benefit. If someone could learn a lesson than locking them up would be a positive benefit. And so on.

He is not in favor of child-rape, he is merely stating that revenge-justice should not be used in the case of ANY CRIME. And yes, that would include the Nazi's who are still alive from the second world war. Agree with it or not, I actually think he has a rather benevolent opinion that seems to coincide with the opinion of the victim in this particular case.

Saying that he supports child rape is using an argumentative fallacy. That particular fallacy is called a Straw Man Fallacy (Fallacy Of Extension). Here is an example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

To read more about this and other argumentative fallacies just click here: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

[SpartanDem]

92. What good would it do?

It might say you can't avoid punishment by simply hiding out long enough. I'd think not a having rapist out on the streets is a good thing, but that's just the Puritan in me.

[mike_c]

96. he's in his seventies-- do you think he's really "a rapist on the street...?"

Seriously. That's part of what makes this all so ridiculous. Punishment for the sake of revenge will have no positive outcome at all, not even protecting potential future victims.

[LisaL]

97. He could have stayed in US and faced the sentencing.

As far as I am concerned, you are suggesting that since he was able to escape US justice long enough, nothing should be done now.
How does that make sense?

[mike_c]

101. it makes sense to me on multiple levels....

First, from a practical standpoint, there is no possibility that punishing him now will produce any positive outcome for anyone. Second, from a philosophical perspective, revenge justice is one of the worst, basest human motives. Don't you think EVERYONE deserves something better than that?

[LisaL]

104. I've said it before and I will say it again.

The law doesn't require that for someone to face justice, there needs to be a "positive outcome" or world has to "become a better place."

[girl gone mad]

119. Of course it has the potential to produce a positive outcome.

I can see several positive outcomes.

1. The publicity surrounding his prosecution raises awareness among young girls that this kind of act is a serious crime. Perhaps some young victims might come forward, and girls would feel more encouraged to fight rape.

2. Despite his age, Polanski is probably still capable of rape. Putting him in jail will ensure that doesn't happen.

3. Potential upper crust child rapists might be discouraged by the realization that money and fame doesn't always buy you life-long freedom.

4. The poor can feel slightly more comfortable with our justice system, knowing that Polanski is being held to account for his actions in the same way that someone without his money or connections would be.

Those are just a few off of the top of my head.

[seabeyond]

122. AND you arent allowed to run away and hide in plain view to get away with rape. nt

[Odin2005]

206. Good post.

[felon]

136. statute of limitations

i hate to say it, but why did it take the DOJ 30+ years to do their jobs. If they let it go that long then yes he should get away with it. I in no way support what he did. I am a father of an 11 year old girl & would have killed the POS if it were me, but again the law failed here. This is kinda like the gov. changing the rules to save face where they screwed up.

[Pavulon]

173. "felon" funny. SOL does not apply after sentencing.

if you flee prison or court the clock never starts.

[seabeyond]

102. so the goal then, is when raping a person, run and hide until old? oh, and a movie

producer, .... hide in plain site.

[tammywammy]

112. So then people should be just to escape and hide until they're old? n/t

[mike_c]

162. and live good, productive lives...?

Why not? Just so we can punish them for the past? What good will come from that?

[seabeyond]

166. hm. 1 in 3 females raped in military. military does nothing. why not? these men go on

to live good lives. whats a rape here and there

do you think if these rapes were prosecuted it would be 1 in 3. or are our gals so insignificant to you. your whores to fuck and be done with. things for your play

that is why not

[Maru Kitteh]

124. You are suggesting that 70 year-olds cannot be rapists - and you are dead fuckin' wrong.

A person brought to justice for the act of rape is a positive outcome.

[suzie]

182. You don't know much about people who molest children if you

think they stop at a certain age.

They don't. Why should we assume that Polanski is not still a threat to children?

[Odin2005]

207. That's why I'm convinced there are more girls he's victimized.

Child molesters don't change, they keep on doing it.

[Dorian Gray]

217. Are you saying that 70 year old men

are incapable of rape? Or of sexual abuse to an underage girl?

Really?


Plus, he had a relationship with another girl, aged 15, which could show a pattern of behavior.

[geek tragedy]

139. People will learn that you will do your time if you commit the crime.

No matter how rich and famous you are.

The only reason Polanski never did time was because of his privileged status as a rich white guy who could flee the country in the first place.

The word is 'justice.' Polanski has never been held accountable for his crime.

[mike_c]

141. how many MILLIONS of opportunities to learn that have already failed...

...to produce real justice, throughout human history? What makes you think this is any different? How many more times must we pursue a clearly failed course before we change direction and seek REAL justice, rather than perpetuating the cycle of violence over and over and over?

[Zix]

150. Go to the dictionary.

Look up the word "conflation".

[Confusious]

153. So we failed so many times before

We should just give up?

[mike_c]

171. not at all....

We should seek solutions with higher success rates-- and I define success as a POSITIVE outcome for everyone involved, including the perpetrator-- rather than simply repeating the old, unsuccessful prescription again and again.

Revenge justice does not work. It doesn't produce any positive outcomes IMO, not even for the victims. There needs to be another way.

[Zix]

149. It will be clearly observed

That rape is wrong. That is a good thing.

[Confusious]

152. It will show other child rapists

That justice will be served, no matter how long it takes.

[eShirl]

67. You're right, we should be ENCOURAGING child rape by letting the rapists off with a wink and a nod

:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

79. so you condone torturing children to death with drills and ice-picks...?

That makes just about as much sense as interpreting my comments about American justice to mean that I condone child rape.

I'm sick of this shit. Why don't we just bring back trial-by-combat in the coliseum to satisfy the blood lust of ya'll seeking "justice."

[eShirl]

85. Not prosecuting/punishing a crime has the effect of encouraging it.

[mike_c]

88. and THAT is the precise RW talking point used to justify...

...filling the largest prison industrial complex on the planet, three-strikes laws, and our national obsession with punishing "bad guys." Anything less is being "soft on crime."

I don't want to encourage crime-- I want to seek real justice that ends with lives restored, or at least not further damaged in pursuit of revenge, and positive social outcomes-- even positive outcomes for "criminals."

[eShirl]

118. We don't have the largest prison system in the world from over-prosecution of white child rapists.

I think most reasonable adults would agree that child rape is among the crimes that merit being locked away.

[uppityperson]

111. You ARE condoning letting someone take no responsibility if they can avoid it for long enough.

That is what you are advocating here.

[mike_c]

140. no I am not-- I'm saying that we, as a society, need better ways...

...to take responsibility than punishment for crimes. I think there is a place for punishment, but it is currently the backbone of our justice system. It has been the backbone of human justice for millenia. It does not work. If it did, don't you think we would have eradicated crime by now, or at least made some significant inroads against it? But we have not, and I think one of the primary reasons is that punishment justice-- social revenge justice-- simply perpetuates the cycle of violence and utterly fails to create positive social outcomes.

[uppityperson]

142. thank you for clarifying. I would like to see him have to spend time doing some sort community servi

service for a DVSA (domestic violence/sexual assault)group. Make the retribution fit the crime.

[Confusious]

154. So what would you suggest

You keep talking, don't see any alternative being thrown out.

[mike_c]

161. I hear that....

I'm a biologist-- I can see the evidence that our present approach to criminal justice is ineffective and harms as many lives as crime harms, but I don't feel competent to suggest alternatives, at least not in any mechanistic sense.

I can say what my preferred outcomes would look like, however, just not how to get there from here. I'd like to see the perpetrators of crimes "reeducated" and "rehabilitated"-- and I use those terms advisedly because I know how emotionally charged they can be-- so that the outcome of successful justice is not anyone being punished, but perpetrators and victims alike being able to continue with their lives, and more to the point, being able to transcend their pasts to do good later, even if only by being productive, peaceful members of society.

Punishment almost NEVER achieves that. The first thing we need, I think, is a willingness to set aside our desire for revenge when someone innocent is criminally harmed, and to replace it with the desire to return balance and harmony-- two other emotionally charged words with unfortunate woo-woo connotations-- to everyone that was harmed, INCLUDING the perpetrators.

A good outcome is one in which the criminals and those they have harmed can eventually meet on the street as peers, respect one another, and look forward to living productive lives together in the same society.

[Pavulon]

176. What type of biology?

from a systemic approach the only way to neutralize that threat currently involves behavior modification or destruction of a thought process. Primate behavior and society is fraught with violence. I believe a biologist was recently killed over mouse keeping practices. Human society can not function with that level of violence and the ability to modify destructive tendency on a scale that can kill millions.

so on a personal level , say a person who rapes a little kid, the collective response should modify or disable the part of the brain that let to that behavior. A society can not tolerate the behavior and must take steps to prevent it.

Quite a complicated problem.

[mike_c]

194. my doctorate is in entomology, and I'm an ecologist...

...at the cal state u. Pointedly, I'm NOT a sociologist or psychologist. But I think that liberal ideals require us to think about solutions to social problems like crime that have more and broader positive outcomes than our present approach to criminal justice.

[suzie]

183. I think that prosecution of child rapists and child molesters is the area of the

criminal justice system where there is the least focus on revenge.

Most cops and prosecutors who deal with these cases are trying to protect children. Since child molesters are pretty fixated on doing what they do, it seems that incarcerating them is a good way of stopping them from creating more child victims.

As far as rehabilitation goes, they are the least likely felons to be rehabilitable. It's a nice thought to believe in "transcending" the past, and I've seen it happen with some people, but rarely with those who offend against children.

If someone burglarizes my house, I can accept that they may become a productive member of society. And if they don't, someone else may be missing their TV. But child molestation is in a different category of harming another human being with long-lasting results. It's far more difficult to ask victim, family, cops, prosecutors, judges to risk the child predator creating more and more victims.

[mike_c]

184. yet by all accounts, Polanski HAS lived such a transcendent life....

Even the young lady that he victimized has said that he has not been a danger to others.

I do understand that sexual predators are generally the most unlikely felons to rehab, but even among that group there are distinctions that must be made. Some sexual offenders are irredeemable, or as close to it as can be, while others are simply caught in a web of circumstances that might not reflect any real underlying pathology.

Still, as a group, sexual offenders are certainly going to be one of the most difficult to work with, no question.

And what if it turns out to NEVER be possible to "fix" sociopathic tendencies? What would that mean for our concept of criminal justice? If we knew, without doubt, that criminality is an intractable, lifelong condition that cannot be modified?

My point throughout this thread has been that what we do now is so ineffective that it amounts to insanity-- responding the same way over and over while hoping for a different outcome each time, regardless of prior experience to the contrary. The only genuine motive-- that obtains some degree of satisfaction-- is vengeance against perpetrators, and that's the motive that I want nothing to do with.

[Dorian Gray]

218. A Transcendent life?

What, exactly, did he transcend?

[Odin2005]

221. The long arm of the law, obviously!

:eyes:

[Dorian Gray]

223. That's the truth....

[ScreamingMeemie]

123. Well...just as long as they can afford to plead guilty and then skip town

until said 13 year old grows up. Otherwise, throw the book at 'em...unless maybe they've got an Oscar in their closet.

[Odin2005]

69. Punishing RAPE is puritanism?

You sound just like the assholes that blamed my friend for getting raped! :grr:

[mike_c]

165. punishment as justice is DEEPLY rooted in puritanism, yes....

Vengeful, angry god and all that. Not exactly the peak of civilized thinking, IMO.

[Pavulon]

174. What is the best solution to this? What is the best solution if this were you

mom, kid, or your lolcat? What is the proper response?

[mike_c]

175. see #161 above....

I don't know what the correct response is, really. I just know that the usual response-- the one that's all over this thread and way too many others here-- has never been effective for anything but seeking revenge against those who commit crimes.

[Odin2005]

202. So we can't ground misbehaving kids anymore, then?

:eyes:

[mike_c]

203. you can do anything you like...

...but I'm sure you'd agree that punishing your kids is not the best outcome. Sometimes it's probably necessary, but most parents-- or most good ones-- try to have a set of solutions that works better. I sure did when my kid was still "groundable."

On a broader note, why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth? Did you really wonder about the propriety of punishing children for misbehavior or where you just trying to erect a straw man out of my earlier responses? I certainly did not say ANYTHING about grounding children! This thread has been about criminal justice and society.

[SpartanDem]

82. If not being ok with rape makes me a Puritan

then give me a buckled hat and shoes

[Dorian Gray]

131. This is about being prudes?

Anally raping a 13 year old and not stopping when she asked to go home and said NO?

Then fleeing for 30 years to avoid punishment?

Yep, it's all because I'm a freaking prude.

:eyes:

[Zix]

143. Actually, Mike, THIS case ISN'T one of the "America as Heroic Punisher" ones.

It really isn't.

[mike_c]

163. well, as this subthread evidences...

...I do see it that way. I think our whole approach to justice is wrong headed and spectacularly unsuccessful. It satisfies some basic human need for revenge, but otherwise achieves nothing. We've tried that solution for millenia. It has not worked yet. Don't you think it's time to try something else?

[Zix]

169. No, I don't. I think there's a subtle misunderstanding going on here.

The whole point of law is to be unbending. This means that when people whose basic desires are bent towards controlling others they are attracted to law and they pollute the legislation with useless laws that only cause suffering but I don't buy the response to this that simply does away with law as a way of solving problems. Law is supposed to be about where the buck stops (in my country at least) and societies need this.

[mike_c]

170. let me know when it works....

It hasn't yet, and never will.

[JuniperLea]

148. Well, if drugging and raping someone isn't sick...

I don't know what is... but I guess you are all for that action. Enjoy... sick fuck.

[mike_c]

164. I wish I could enshrine your response on a page dedicated to missing the point entirely....

Of course drugging and raping young girls is sick and terrible, even in the circumstances that Polanski participated in. How you made the mental leap to thinking that I'm condoning that behavior is utterly beyond me. I'm talking about the need to create real justice, which benefits EVERYONE touched by violent crime, rather than to simply seek vengeance and punishment. I'd like to see the victims, and the perpetrators, live a better life because of the actions of a just society, rather than using the weight of society to create crushing punishment for criminals.

I've said this repeatedly in this thread, but all I hear back is "you condone raping children," or as you more succinctly put it, I'm a "sick fuck." That's not only incorrect, it's insulting. I don't condone crime-- I want real justice rather than revenge. That's all. Revenge is easy to understand and to achieve-- as I suggested earlier, maybe we should just bring back trial-by-combat in the coliseum to satisfy our bloodlust for vengeance, as that is certainly the easiest response. Justice, on the other hand, is hard and elusive.

[JuniperLea]

168. Punishment isn't revenge...

Unless you're the victim. What I believe most people want is to show other would-be rapists that you can't run, you can't hide, you belong in jail.

You should re-read some of your posts, seriously.

[JerseygirlCT]

179. Where's the puritan part come in here?

You do understand that rape isn't about sex. Rape is about power and violence.

And raping a child?... Puritan obsession my ass. There's no excuse for what he did.

[mike_c]

195. the foundation of puritanism was the notion that mankind confronts...

...an angry and vengeful god that judges one's actions and punishes failure horribly. An eternity submerged in a lake of fire, having ones' entrails perpetually eaten alive by demons-- that sort of thing.

Several folks have misinterpreted "puritanism" to mean "prudish" in this thread. Sexual prudishness was not so much a direct feature of social puritanism as it was an indirect result of underlying protestant Christian dogma, although certainly the puritan interpretation made those strictures more rigid than ever. Nonetheless, there were important social movements before and after the puritans that were even more rabidly squeamish about sexuality, so I don't regard prudishness as a uniquely puritan value. But the obsession with punishment for transgressing social mores and legal rules was deeply rooted in the puritan mindset.

Also, you might read the entire sub-thread before you respond-- I've NEVER said that Polanski's actions were anything but reprehensible. I'm trying to point out that criminal justice that focuses on punishment rather than rehab is wrong headed and has been utterly unsuccessful throughout human history. Recall too that the founders of this nation thought the issue was so important that they enshrined prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment"-- as puritan a notion as any-- in the eighth amendment to the constitution.

[JerseygirlCT]

196. Well, certainly in general terms, there

are situations in which more rehab, and less jailtime, make sense. Drug possession, for instance.

However, the recidivism rate on child rapists is extraordinarily high. So much so that they probably ought to receive treatment somewhere set away from the general population.

I don't think wanting Polanski to finally serve the sentence he ran from years ago is anything approaching vengeance. Justice, perhaps. And an acknowledgment that money and fame ought not determine who serves time and who does not.

[mike_c]

198. I don't think Polanski is going to serve any jail time...

...other then the time he is imprisoned while the extradition matter is settled (and I don't think it has much to do with his fame or his talent-- remember that his plea deal was quite reasonable thirty years ago when his success was considerably less). What discourages me so much is that so many folks here apparently can't accept the judgment of our own justice system UNLESS IT CONTAINS SUFFICIENTLY PUNISHING RETRIBUTION, wich many will feel Polanski's case does not. That alone is enough to convince me that revenge against someone who we perceive as heinous is the primary motive for seeking justice.

See my comments in response #161 and vicinity. And yes, I am a liberal idealist. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it. :evilgrin:

I must say though that I really HATE being called a "sick fuck," "a child rapist," and so on for advocating a liberal alternative to punishment justice.

[Dorian Gray]

219. Perfectly said

Jerseygirl.

[Pushed To The Left]

48. Of course. If Polanski was not a celebrity, this wouldn't even be a question.

It seems that Americans are willing to let popular celebrities get away with doing things they would never tolerate from average citizens.

[Skittles]

52. YES

[Gwendolyn]

70. Nobody minded when they dragged Ira Einhorn back from France.

He seemed to have turned his life around after that little murder episode. Or that CT guy who ran off to Switzerland after raping his classmates. He became a simple ski instructor with a devoted wife, but people still wanted him to face his crimes. Polanski has always known he could be snagged at any moment which is why he didn't show up for his Vanity Fair libel suit in the UK. He deserves to face up to his folly, even though he's a brill film maker.

[seabeyond]

72. face up to his folly.... raping a 13 yr old is a "folly" now. nt

[Gwendolyn]

77. Relax, it's a figure of speech. n/t

[seabeyond]

84. i am relaxed and it is chosen words. not simply a figure of speech.

just a folly.... mere foolishness.

fuckin rape

a folly

geeez

[Gwendolyn]

95. Just for you, the entries for "folly" on thesaurus.com

Please see the first batch of synonyms - you'll note the words "madness" and "vice."

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/folly

Under vice, you will find these words:

carnality, corruption, debasement, debauchery, decay, degeneracy, depravity, evil, evildoing, ill, immorality, indecency, iniquity, lechery, lewdness, libidinousness, licentiousness, looseness, lubricity, lust, maleficence, malignance, offense, perversion, profligacy, rot, sensuality, squalor, transgression, trespass, venality, wickedness, wrong

Works for me!!

[Confusious]

155. Or the fellow who was a NAZI guard in his youth

he was what 80-90 year old.

Justice failed us, so maybe we should have just let it go. :sarcasm:

[Odin2005]

73. Lock the bastard in a cell for the rest of his life, throw away the key.

[BlooInBloo]

75. Is this a trick question or something?

[Crabby Appleton]

91. You might want to read the report at this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6642754

[woo me with science]

105. Of course it is. nt

[TahitiNut]

106. Strange that there are so many "yes" votes since so many seem to think a trial isn't needed.

:shrug: Go figure. Lynch mobs form so easily.

[seabeyond]

108. he already plead guilty, did he not. is that a lynch mob to want him to serve his time? nt

[dysfunctional press]

107. what trial? he already pled guilty.

he's going to do some time.

[tammywammy]

110. There might be a trial over the fleeing of the country

But then that might be settled with a plea deal as well.

[dysfunctional press]

113. i think that they usually just tack time onto your sentence.

i don't think that people who flee after pleading/being found guilty stand trial for it.

[tammywammy]

117. Ahh, thanks for the clarification. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. Polanski already pleaded guilty

What trial?

[depakid]

125. Don't confuse people with the facts...

gets in the way of emotional ranting.

[ScreamingMeemie]

132. "Emotional Ranting"...

Roman Polanski raped a child.

[Pavulon]

133. The one where he gets 5 more years for felony flight..(nt)

[alcibiades_mystery]

134. That won't happen

Book it.

[Juche]

126. yes

He gave a 13 year old alcohol and drugs. And she tried to resist sex with him.

[t0dd]

127. 1 out of every 4 DUers are child rapists!!! I never knew! Time to puke!!

:sarcasm:

[Dorian Gray]

128. Yes

If he hadn't cut and run, this would be all finished by now.

[sendero]

135. I thought he already pled guilty.

... what trial?

[JCMach1]

137. two words: Gary Glitter

so, yes... sentence the guy.

[JVS]

138. They should throw the book at him. He's been on the lam for a long time. If you don't come down...

on people who run away like a ton of bricks, it really encourages other people to try to run away from the law.

[JuniperLea]

144. He already pled guilty... there will be no trial...

He needs to serve his term, pay his dues, etc.

There is no reason to let a man who drugged and raped a little girl be above the law... I don't care if it was 100 years ago.

[Toucano]

156. It probably is, but I don't see it as anyone's compelling priority.

The state does have an interest in enforcing laws, obviously.

One has to face the music, I think.

[DailyGrind51]

167. "Where there is an inequality of power, there can be no consent."

At 13, the girl did not have the emotional maturity to consent to sex with an adult.

[TroglodyteScholar]

172. No. He already faced trial. Making him face his sentencing is the right thing to do. n/t

[JeanGrey]

177. Thank god. I was beginning to lose my faith in humanity

after reading all the defenses of raping.

[JerseygirlCT]

178. Can't believe this is even questioned

Rape of a 13 year old child. There's no excuse, legal or moral, for that.

[redqueen]

186. I can't believe this is being debated.

I can't believe someone minimized statutory rape by calling it 'sex with a minor'... that people are minimizing it by saying basically 'oh that's just how it was back then it's no big deal'... that people are using any of a dozen excuses to minimize statutory rape... or rape of any kind... on this site. I know it's not rare here... I guess this just makes it too obvious to ignore.

[Hepburn]

187. He's pled out ~~ too late to try him.

The issue was the sentence he should receive. The judge went sideways on the deal that the defense and prosecution made and refused to approve their agreement. Thus, Polanski fled the county.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

188. 27% of DU'ers don't believe a woman's body is her own?

To be free from violent penetration?

That is a horrible, horrible admission.

So long women's rights; welcome back "she was asking for it".

I wonder if the RW'ers forums have this margin of sickness?

[Odin2005]

209. Doesn't surprise me. A thread a few months ago showed that many DUers were OK with date-rape.

:puke:

[TorchTheWitch]

214. and why the fuck weren't those people tombstoned?

And why the fuck aren't the ones excreting this evil shit now not getting the ax? It doesn't surprise me that these grotesque attitudes exist, but it certainly does that they're allowed to continue being members here.

[Odin2005]

220. Yep. On a Liberal message board of all things. Disgusting.

Gos to show that just because someone calls themselves progressive doesn't mean that they aren't sexist jerks. I remember reading about some New Left activist in the 60s saying that loyal revolutionary ladies should be "supine" or some-such. :puke:

[earth mom]

215. I didn't realize either there are so many twisted people here on DU who would defend this.

:puke:

[Odin2005]

222. It's outrageous!

PS: Sorry about ranting at you in that vaccine thread the other day, I was in a bad mood. :hi:

[earth mom]

225. Apology accepted and I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

:hi:

[slackmaster]

189. He already had his chance for a trial

Making him serve his sentence is the right thing to do.

[Hepburn]

190. But the plea agreement was NOT accepted by the court ~~

~~ therefore, he has NOT had his chance at a trial.

[subcomhd]

192. Polansky

[izzybeans]

197. Trial for what?

He was convicted. For fleeing? Sure. Why not?

[Taverner]

199. I have a better question: should he be re-tried or not?

[JNelson6563]

208. Other: Who gives a flying fuck??

Plagues, pestilence, famine and war in the world and you people sit here obsessing about something none of you can do a single fucking thing about. You all are worse than the corporate media with this shit.

Julie

[mike_c]

224. the poll numbers changed overnight!

I checked this thread last night before going to bed, and the number of yes votes was about 170 and the number of no votes was about 89 or so. This morning the yes votes are 210 (or so) and the number of no votes has GONE BACKWARD to 74. How did that happen?!