Thoughts on Polanski's arrest?

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"?

well, ok, lets pretend in this case, there were no suspicions he kept up being a pedophile, and it was without question that he would not commit a crime again. How can the state justify taking away his rights? We may wish to see him hang, but does the state have the right to take away his freedom if he isn't going to harm anyone again?

philosophically, I might say no, and that is sort of where I was coming from

I think I mentioned initially that even evading arrest for 30 years would disqualify him from that classification, and if there are allegations of further abuse, clearly he does pose a risk.

Thats a long winded dodge, so, more to the point, I think he should probably lose his freedom. I don't think 30 years in f-you-in-the-butt prison would be of any use, but maybe restricting his mobility around schools and other places where young people chill. Even then, he has proven to be a flight risk and non-compliant with legal orders in the past...

Originally posted by Robtard
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"?

I don't personally recognize a legal body that would have the authority to "arrest" Hitler, bar maybe the Germans. I'm sure there are technicalities that I would grumble over, but ya, I'd say shoot him in the jungle, avoid any of this mess.

no, though, I wouldn't say "just let him be". I guess I do believe in some sense of justice, however, in a lot of cases, people seem to let their emotions dictate how they feel we should treat criminals rather than logic or empirical evidence.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think 30 years in f-you-in-the-butt prison would be of any use

But how else would he learn that what he did was wrong, which would then lead him on the path to redemption? Isn't that what spending time in prison is for.

Originally posted by Robtard
But how else would he learn that what he did was wrong, which would then lead him on the path to redemption? Isn't that what spending time in prison is for.

That seems silly.

Originally posted by Robtard
But how else would he learn that what he did was wrong, which would then lead him on the path to redemption? Isn't that what spending time in prison is for.

I thought it was where you go to learn how to smuggle drugs...

has Hollywood lied to me again?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That seems silly.

Which part, the 30 years of anal-rape he'd receive (though he's 70ish now, so he's likely not going to get ass****ed, maybe he'll be forced to suck dicks and toss salad), or that prison is a place where an inmate should learn his wrongs and reconstitute himself while on the inside?

Originally posted by inimalist
I thought it was where you go to learn how to smuggle drugs...

has Hollywood lied to me again?

If you watch HBO's series OZ, it's where you learn about life, love and loss.

Also ample portions of anal-rape and murder. In fact, most plots ended in one or the other; sometimes both.

ha, I used to watch that show when I was 12

Originally posted by Robtard
Which part, the 30 years of anal-rape he'd receive (though he's 70ish now, so he's likely not going to get ass****ed, maybe he'll be forced to suck dicks and toss salad), or that prison is a place where an inmate should learn his wrongs and reconstitute himself while on the inside?

The idea that only 30 years of badly run prison could teach him his wrongs. Why not five years? Or 2? Or a week of civil service? Or making him watch Michael Bay movies for two days? Or a long debate about the pros and cons of child molestation?

Not to forget whether he even did something wrong beyond consensual sex with a 13 year old.

Oh dear the gates of hell have been opened.

Why is there a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that if this girl was an immediate family member of some posters their feelings might change. Easy to say I'm wrong til you actually live something like it. Ask Joseph Kopechne's family how that works.

Unfortunately Joseph passed away 12-31-2003 without ever seeing anything similar to justice done, although Joe might have squared the deal recently.

Originally posted by you get thorns
Why is there a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that if this girl was an immediate family member of some posters their feelings might change. Easy to say I'm wrong til you actually live something like it. Ask Joseph Kopechne's family how that works.

actually, the fact that people react emotionally and this clouds the rational way that justice must be done has been brought up, at least twice.

yes, I would want the skin of someone who did something to my family. My desire for physical revenge does not dictate the way justice is done.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the fact that people react emotionally and this clouds the rational way that justice must be done has been brought up, at least twice.

yes, I would want the skin of someone who did something to my family. My desire for physical revenge does not dictate the way justice is done.

I think I might agree with you to en extent but what are you arguing for that Roman should be punished or not? I do agree though with justice people are too emotional in general, people don't actually think about crime on a deep enough level they just want to punish.

Originally posted by you get thorns
Why is there a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that if this girl was an immediate family member of some posters their feelings might change. Easy to say I'm wrong til you actually live something like it. Ask Joseph Kopechne's family how that works.

Unfortunately Joseph passed away 12-31-2003 without ever seeing anything similar to justice done, although Joe might have squared the deal recently.

Maybe, maybe not. Should it matter? No.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I think I might agree with you to en extent but what are you arguing for that Roman should be punished or not? I do agree though with justice people are too emotional in general, people don't actually think about crime on a deep enough level they just want to punish.

so, worst scenario, lets say everything in the "confession" is true, he pre planned the rape, druged her and sodomized her against her objections. I'd say the most effective punishment would be that he have to do some form of supervised community service while having other rights restricted subsequently. For instance, it should be illegal for him to be anywhere that young people normally congregate. He should also be fully liable in civil court. Also, if he is deemed at risk to sexually assault children again, he should be in prison.

It would probably be too dangerous to have his service be directly related to the crime, re: don't put him near underage girls, but something. I don't mean a slap on the wrist either, no 5 talks at a public school BS.

The fact that he fled the country, probably buys him some min security jail time, if for no other reason than his threat as a flight risk needs to be reduced to zero.

Bardock has brought up the point that the confession might be doctored, so, I'd say he should have a real trial before we decide his fate.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, worst scenario, lets say everything in the "confession" is true, he pre planned the rape, druged her and sodomized her against her objections. I'd say the most effective punishment would be that he have to do some form of supervised community service while having other rights restricted subsequently. For instance, it should be illegal for him to be anywhere that young people normally congregate. He should also be fully liable in civil court. Also, if he is deemed at risk to sexually assault children again, he should be in prison.

It would probably be too dangerous to have his service be directly related to the crime, re: don't put him near underage girls, but something. I don't mean a slap on the wrist either, no 5 talks at a public school BS.

The fact that he fled the country, probably buys him some min security jail time, if for no other reason than his threat as a flight risk needs to be reduced to zero.

Bardock has brought up the point that the confession might be doctored, so, I'd say he should have a real trial before we decide his fate.

Hmm not sure if I agree with the community service. Yeah he should have a real trial.

what alternative would you suggest if he is deemed guilty, though of no risk to society?

Originally posted by inimalist
what alternative would you suggest if he is deemed guilty, though of no risk to society?

He goes to jail.

Prison has three functions- to keep the dangerous away from society (via separation and rehabilitation), to give a sense of social justice to the victims, and to act as punishment and deterrent for the crime even if the offender is not a repeat risk.

He still qualifies, even if not on the first, and he should be put away. The amount of risk he poses is utterly irrelevant, especially as it was demonstrated during of years being free that he had no legal right to. Plenty in jail that would like that chance.

Not that he will do much as the whole thing is a plea bargained nightmare he got as a result of being a celebrity. He buggered off when he was worried he might actually reecieve a vaguely appropriate sentence. There's no amount of time that lessens that.

There is no way in hell that anyone should think that it is a good thing to encourage the idea that you can get virtually clean away with raping a minor if you bugger off to another country and wait, whilst still having a good life.

^ Damn straight.

What's going to happen to him anyways now?