Thoughts on Polanski's arrest?

so, my thoughts on prison are that only people who pose a threat to society should go there. So, Polanski should certainly be evaluated, but if he has gone 32 years with his only crime being avoiding arrest, this eye for an eye shit seems quite out of place.

He should be legally accountable, and there need be restitution, but there is little good in locking up people who pose no risk to society just because it might make us feel better. As far as arresting him and the extradition, I'm in full agreement.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Would anyone object to anyone beating manson with a sharp or blunt instrument?

yes

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Charles Manson, not Marilyn or god forbid Shirley.

Still yes.

I dont know about torturing him with beatings...

Gotta give a guy a chance.

Put them on "The running man".

Lets see Polanski make it past Sub Zero and Chainsaw. 😉

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Here's my two cents. First of all, the victim has said that she doesn't want anything to happen and that she really doesn't give a shit about what happened 32 years ago. What did happen seems to me like a nervous breakdown. Essentially someone who had his family killed in a concentration camp as a child where he spent time and felt powerless and then had the same thing happen to him again when he felt powerless to stop a bunch of drugged out sociopaths from killing his family again broke down and acted out his frustrations in a criminal way. The incident was about power and not necessarily sexual depravity. There hasn't been any repeat crimes that we know about and its pointless having a trial cause he confessed to everything and his escape is pretty self-evident.
I say make him pay a huge financial restitution to the victim, the city of Los Angeles, and RAINN, make him serve a year in prison, make him see anger management counseling regularly, and then make him do community service doing what he does best by making him direct PSA's for RAINN, NOW, and others. Maybe if he has good behavior, let him into Charles Manson's cell with a crowbar.

Her thoughts on what should happen to him are irrelevant, in terms of the law. Would you hold her feelings to carry the same measure of strength if she said "I'd like to have him gang-raped by 50 large inmates and then hanged"? No, you wouldn't.

Drugging and sodomizing a child is not a "nervous breakdown"(read the transcript, he planned the whole thing), it was a sexual-thing; the man is, or at least was a pedophile; it's really that simple. There's also strong hints that he continued his pedophile-ways after he fled to France.

He should serve the time he would have served for his crimes of drugging and raping a child, be it 3, 10 or 30 years, I don't know. Personally, I'd also tack on some more time for the 30 years of being a fugitive.

^ Thats what I was thinking. If it was extenuating cirumstances how come he planned the whole thing, pleased guilty then RAN?

Originally posted by Scythe
Don't have much to add, since I just think what he did was wrong and he should pay his dues and then some, but a girl in class said something stupid today about this. When the topic of Polanski going to jail for statutory rape among many other things, she said:

"I don't think he should go to jail or get in trouble or anything, it's not illegal to have sex with a statue"

And she goes to college with me...

Dude, that's the greatest thing i've heard since my teeth stopped rotting. You should give her my email address.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, my thoughts on prison are that only people who pose a threat to society should go there. So, Polanski should certainly be evaluated, but if he has gone 32 years with his only crime being avoiding arrest, this eye for an eye shit seems quite out of place.

He should be legally accountable, and there need be restitution, but there is little good in locking up people who pose no risk to society just because it might make us feel better. As far as arresting him and the extradition, I'm in full agreement.

And again we see where things get subjective. Who does it and how do we determine if someone is a threat to"society"?

Originally posted by you get thorns
And again we see where things get subjective. Who does it and how do we determine if someone is a threat to"society"?

the justice system already has such mechanisms

something like:

Originally posted by Robtard
There's also strong hints that he continued his pedophile-ways after he fled to France.

would be a good start

i could sing you a tune of what might constitute a valid psychological assessment... but ya, sure its subjective. Propose anything that isn't... /shrug

Originally posted by inimalist
what are the arguments of Poland, France and Hollywood in his defense?

Freemason contacts probably.

He should be hung drawn and quartered the sick pervert.

Originally posted by inimalist
the justice system already has such mechanisms

something like:

would be a good start

i could sing you a tune of what might constitute a valid psychological assessment... but ya, sure its subjective. Propose anything that isn't... /shrug

Agreed.

Why do people always use the word hung improperly? How is increasing someone's penis size a punishment?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why do people always use the word hung improperly? How is increasing someone's penis size a punishment?

The worst is probably: "sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead".

no, that one makes sense because many punishments that haven't been used in most places in the last 150 years involved torture by hanging but not death.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
no, that one makes sense because many punishments that haven't been used in most places in the last 150 years involved torture by hanging but not death.

But you're still not being "hanged by the neck" you're being suspended (hung) by the neck. Hanged until dead is fine, though.

when it applies to hanging a living creature by the neck with a noose for the purpose of execution or torture, it's hanged, not hung.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, my thoughts on prison are that only people who pose a threat to society should go there. So, Polanski should certainly be evaluated, but if he has gone 32 years with his only crime being avoiding arrest, this eye for an eye shit seems quite out of place.

He should be legally accountable, and there need be restitution, but there is little good in locking up people who pose no risk to society just because it might make us feel better. As far as arresting him and the extradition, I'm in full agreement.

Indulge me a little more on this, because while it seems like a logical course of action, where do you draw the line and what punishments do you have in mind when you say "legally accountable"?

Because it would seem that under that scenario, mass murderous could never serve time, given the right setting. E.G. what is Hitler hadn't died 1945, but fled to S. America where he lived a quiet life until say 1979, where he was found/discovered at the ripe of 90. Would you say "let him go, he's too old to be a threat; just make him give back that money he stole from his victims and we'll call it even"?

Originally posted by Robtard
Indulge me a little more on this, because while it seems like a logical course of action, where do you draw the line and what punishments do you have in mind when you say "legally accountable"?

Because it would seem that under that scenario, mass murderous could never serve time, given the right setting. E.G. what is Hitler hadn't died 1945, but fled to S. America where he lived a quiet life until say 1979, where he was found/discovered at the ripe of 90. Would you say "let him go, he's too old to be a threat; just make him give back that money he stole from his victims and we'll call it even"?

My initial thoughts. Too many examples to list but this was one of many that hit me.

Please, guys. Lets not forget that, in fact, having sex with a 13 year old is one of the least crimes one can commit.

There's hardly even a victim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Please, guys. Lets not forget that, in fact, having sex with a 13 year old is one of the least crimes one can commit.

There's hardly even a victim.

I already mentioned how Polanski is a victim of democrofacism. Though I think the crime was less than sex and more the drugging and rape.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I already mentioned how Polanski is a victim of democrofacism. Though I think the crime was less than sex and more the drugging and rape.

Did he slip her the drugs without her knowledge? Did he have sex with her against her will?

If yes, like I said initially, he should be punished for what he did.