Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case

[Sunni Man]

Years ago I was on jury duty.

One of the cases I heard was a guy who was charged with Assault & Battery on his girl friend.

When the girl took the stand, she said: "My boy friend and I are back living together and I do not want to testify against him". "We are fine now, plus I am pregnant with his baby".

The prosecuter told the jury, that her not wanting to testify against him made NO difference.

He said that the state was prosecuting him, and then produced pictures taken by the police of her black eye.

So we deliberated and found him guilty. But we recommended the minimum fine and probation.

 

[logical4u]

This case is interesting because it puts the Libertarians in an untenable position.
The victim wants the case to go away. Polanski wants the case to go away. So what business is it of the gov't to go enforce the judgment?

If it is the law, it SHOULD be enforced. If there is a statute of limitations you think should be put on rape/murder cases, change the law, don't ignore it.
I am all for smaller gov, but if it is the law and it only pertains to certain groups (like republicans), it is not much of a law. Change it or void it, but do not assist in the breaking of the law.

 

[Megan_Fad]

This case is interesting because it puts the Libertarians in an untenable position.
The victim wants the case to go away. Polanski wants the case to go away. So what business is it of the gov't to go enforce the judgment?

Its called the Law, we all live under it and the man was found guilty then fled the country. Sucks for him maybe he should have stayed out of a country that would extradite him for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.

So if the gov't passes a law making homosexuality illegal, that's OK? Making smoking marijuana illegal, that's OK?

Not the same thing. Two adults consenting to sex, whether gay nor not does not harm an unwilling party (whether it is legal or not). Smoking pot is retarded (whether legal or not). Raping someone who is drugged and 13 years old is harming a child who is barely pubescent and is sick and twisted whether it is legal or illegal.

Luckily in this country it is illegal so…I say hang the guy by his testicles.

 

[The Rabbi]

Its called the Law, we all live under it and the man was found guilty then fled the country. Sucks for him maybe he should have stayed out of a country that would extradite him for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.

So if the gov't passes a law making homosexuality illegal, that's OK? Making smoking marijuana illegal, that's OK?

Not the same thing. Two adults consenting to sex, whether gay nor not does not harm an unwilling party (whether it is legal or not). Smoking pot is retarded (whether legal or not). Raping someone who is drugged and 13 years old is harming a child who is barely pubescent and is sick and twisted whether it is legal or illegal.

Luckily in this country it is illegal so…I say hang the guy by his testicles.

In essence the same woman today is consenting to what happened 30 years ago. Does that mean the state now has no interest in prosecuting him?
Or do we say that the state has a duty to society to enforce laws, regardless of the victim's status?
If you say the former, then so-called victimless crimes shouldn't be prosecuted.
If you say the latter, then they should, because the state is the victim in all of them.

Polanski has now committed essentially a "victimless" crime.

Personally I take the view the state has an interest in enforcing societal standards and a certain level of morals. I'm all for taking Polanski out back and eliminating him.
But I am of the same mind for drug dealers, pimps and the like.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm all for taking Polanski out back and eliminating him.
But I am of the same mind for drug dealers, pimps and the like.

To that, I would also add homosexuals and other sexual deviants.

 

[Intense]

The victim, now in her 40s, is happy to let the whole thing go. The perp is happy to let the whole thing go. A lot of his friends and supporters think something that happened 30+ years ago ought to be water under teh bridge.
So why should the gov't prosecute?

a) because he pleaded guilty to the original crime and then fled before being sentenced.
b) because he is a fugitive from justice . see a) above.
c) it is the government's job to prosecute criminals, including rich pedophiles who pay off their victims and then flee.

this really isn't that complicated. what part baffles you?

Oh I agree. They need to haul his sorry ass back here and stick it in jail. Lapse of time doesn't diminish the crime, nor does the attitude of the victim.
But it is a problem for Libertarians who think the gov't has no business enforcing morality, which is basically what they are doing in this case.

These were Statutes Too.

 

[Intense]

Rabbi did.

But in his defense, I don't think he meant for it to come out as it did...I THINK he was TRYING to say just because something is a law doesn't make it right or something to that affect, but who really knows?

Well now if he just said that to me in response you know I would have responded in the following way:

In that case I do understand your point rabbi, that something being a law doesnt make it right.

However, I dont think that the rapist should get off the hook just because of the time since the crime or because the raped girl forgave him. I do think that the child rape laws are valid and are being justly applied in this case.

I am not personally disagreeing with you. I already posted that I think Polanski deserves to sit in jail for a very long time.
That isnt the point.
The point is whether the state can really be an offended party here.

Statutes, The Rule of Law were Violated. The Courts were violated. The Victim was Violated Criminally, not Civilly. STD's, HIV, Aid's, were factors at some point.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well now if he just said that to me in response you know I would have responded in the following way:

In that case I do understand your point rabbi, that something being a law doesnt make it right.

However, I dont think that the rapist should get off the hook just because of the time since the crime or because the raped girl forgave him. I do think that the child rape laws are valid and are being justly applied in this case.

I am not personally disagreeing with you. I already posted that I think Polanski deserves to sit in jail for a very long time.
That isnt the point.
The point is whether the state can really be an offended party here.

Statutes, The Rule of Law were Violated. The Courts were violated. The Victim was Violated Criminally, not Civilly. STD's, HIV, Aid's, were factors at some point.

HIV and AIDS weren't factors in the 1970s when this happened.
So you are a "the law says" guy? OK, so you would no problem enforcing say anti sodomy statutes, still on the books in some place?

 

[Megan_Fad]

So if the gov't passes a law making homosexuality illegal, that's OK? Making smoking marijuana illegal, that's OK?

Not the same thing. Two adults consenting to sex, whether gay nor not does not harm an unwilling party (whether it is legal or not). Smoking pot is retarded (whether legal or not). Raping someone who is drugged and 13 years old is harming a child who is barely pubescent and is sick and twisted whether it is legal or illegal.

Luckily in this country it is illegal so…I say hang the guy by his testicles.

In essence the same woman today is consenting to what happened 30 years ago. Does that mean the state now has no interest in prosecuting him?
Or do we say that the state has a duty to society to enforce laws, regardless of the victim's status?
If you say the former, then so-called victimless crimes shouldn't be prosecuted.
If you say the latter, then they should, because the state is the victim in all of them.

Polanski has now committed essentially a "victimless" crime.

Personally I take the view the state has an interest in enforcing societal standards and a certain level of morals. I'm all for taking Polanski out back and eliminating him.
But I am of the same mind for drug dealers, pimps and the like.

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

In this case the victim is not really "consenting" to the crime because NO ONE can consent to statutory rape. I have also noticed that when people bring up the idea that the victim does not want to prosecute, they never bring up her reasoning. It is not because she doesn’t want him punished, but because she doesn’t want to go through the media storm of it all.

If you think about it, how many criminals are out there where their victims would say they don’t want them to go to jail? Teenagers who overdose on drugs sold to them by 30 year old dealers, child prostitutes who cater to 40 year old men, battered wives who claim they “love” their husbands...

The list can get quite long... weird psychology can get a hold of a lot of different people, that does not mean they are not still victims who deserve justice.

 

[Intense]

I am not personally disagreeing with you. I already posted that I think Polanski deserves to sit in jail for a very long time.
That isnt the point.
The point is whether the state can really be an offended party here.

Statutes, The Rule of Law were Violated. The Courts were violated. The Victim was Violated Criminally, not Civilly. STD's, HIV, Aid's, were factors at some point.

HIV and AIDS weren't factors in the 1970s when this happened.
So you are a "the law says" guy? OK, so you would no problem enforcing say anti sodomy statutes, still on the books in some place?

STD's were. What year did this happen? Aids was out when early 80's?.

 

[Intense]

Not the same thing. Two adults consenting to sex, whether gay nor not does not harm an unwilling party (whether it is legal or not). Smoking pot is retarded (whether legal or not). Raping someone who is drugged and 13 years old is harming a child who is barely pubescent and is sick and twisted whether it is legal or illegal.

Luckily in this country it is illegal so…I say hang the guy by his testicles.

In essence the same woman today is consenting to what happened 30 years ago. Does that mean the state now has no interest in prosecuting him?
Or do we say that the state has a duty to society to enforce laws, regardless of the victim's status?
If you say the former, then so-called victimless crimes shouldn't be prosecuted.
If you say the latter, then they should, because the state is the victim in all of them.

Polanski has now committed essentially a "victimless" crime.

Personally I take the view the state has an interest in enforcing societal standards and a certain level of morals. I'm all for taking Polanski out back and eliminating him.
But I am of the same mind for drug dealers, pimps and the like.

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

In this case the victim is not really "consenting" to the crime because NO ONE can consent to statutory rape. I have also noticed that when people bring up the idea that the victim does not want to prosecute, they never bring up her reasoning. It is not because she doesn’t want him punished, but because she doesn’t want to go through the media storm of it all.

If you think about it, how many criminals are out there where their victims would say they don’t want them to go to jail? Teenagers who overdose on drugs sold to them by 30 year old dealers, child prostitutes who cater to 40 year old men, battered wives who claim they “love” their husbands...

The list can get quite long... weird psychology can get a hold of a lot of different people, that does not mean they are not still victims who deserve justice.

No doubt what He did was predatory, and could have been repeated on others. This was non consentual.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not the same thing. Two adults consenting to sex, whether gay nor not does not harm an unwilling party (whether it is legal or not). Smoking pot is retarded (whether legal or not). Raping someone who is drugged and 13 years old is harming a child who is barely pubescent and is sick and twisted whether it is legal or illegal.

Luckily in this country it is illegal so…I say hang the guy by his testicles.

In essence the same woman today is consenting to what happened 30 years ago. Does that mean the state now has no interest in prosecuting him?
Or do we say that the state has a duty to society to enforce laws, regardless of the victim's status?
If you say the former, then so-called victimless crimes shouldn't be prosecuted.
If you say the latter, then they should, because the state is the victim in all of them.

Polanski has now committed essentially a "victimless" crime.

Personally I take the view the state has an interest in enforcing societal standards and a certain level of morals. I'm all for taking Polanski out back and eliminating him.
But I am of the same mind for drug dealers, pimps and the like.

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

In this case the victim is not really "consenting" to the crime because NO ONE can consent to statutory rape. I have also noticed that when people bring up the idea that the victim does not want to prosecute, they never bring up her reasoning. It is not because she doesn’t want him punished, but because she doesn’t want to go through the media storm of it all.

If you think about it, how many criminals are out there where their victims would say they don’t want them to go to jail? Teenagers who overdose on drugs sold to them by 30 year old dealers, child prostitutes who cater to 40 year old men, battered wives who claim they “love” their husbands...

The list can get quite long... weird psychology can get a hold of a lot of different people, that does not mean they are not still victims who deserve justice.

OK, so the guy who smokes a joint on his couch Fri night after work deserves all the punishment the state can mete out. Is that what you're saying?

 

[manifold]

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

So who's the victim when a man pays for sex with a prostitute?

 

[Megan_Fad]

In essence the same woman today is consenting to what happened 30 years ago. Does that mean the state now has no interest in prosecuting him?
Or do we say that the state has a duty to society to enforce laws, regardless of the victim's status?
If you say the former, then so-called victimless crimes shouldn't be prosecuted.
If you say the latter, then they should, because the state is the victim in all of them.

Polanski has now committed essentially a "victimless" crime.

Personally I take the view the state has an interest in enforcing societal standards and a certain level of morals. I'm all for taking Polanski out back and eliminating him.
But I am of the same mind for drug dealers, pimps and the like.

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

In this case the victim is not really "consenting" to the crime because NO ONE can consent to statutory rape. I have also noticed that when people bring up the idea that the victim does not want to prosecute, they never bring up her reasoning. It is not because she doesn’t want him punished, but because she doesn’t want to go through the media storm of it all.

If you think about it, how many criminals are out there where their victims would say they don’t want them to go to jail? Teenagers who overdose on drugs sold to them by 30 year old dealers, child prostitutes who cater to 40 year old men, battered wives who claim they “love” their husbands...

The list can get quite long... weird psychology can get a hold of a lot of different people, that does not mean they are not still victims who deserve justice.

OK, so the guy who smokes a joint on his couch Fri night after work deserves all the punishment the state can mete out. Is that what you're saying?

I know a loaded question when I see one, and to be honest I think loaded questions are just a way to take a debate out of context. I find them intellectually cowardice. But let me try to provide some sort of rebuttal...

Everyone knows the laws pertaining to smoking pot. Everyone knows that if they break a law, there can be consequences. Everyone has the ability to say no to buying and smoking pot. If they do not like the law, they should go about the proper ways of getting it changed.

What is the old saying? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" Good fit for this situation. Responsibilities for your actions may not be a popular idea, but it should be. Adults making adult decisions should face adult consequences. If they feel those consequences are not just, then let them serve as martyrs for their case. It is that simple. Either do the right thing and obey the law or get it changed or pay the price. Things are not perfect and everyone knows that.

 

[Megan_Fad]

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

So who's the victim when a man pays for sex with a prostitute?

See above post.

 

[The Rabbi]

I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

In this case the victim is not really "consenting" to the crime because NO ONE can consent to statutory rape. I have also noticed that when people bring up the idea that the victim does not want to prosecute, they never bring up her reasoning. It is not because she doesn’t want him punished, but because she doesn’t want to go through the media storm of it all.

If you think about it, how many criminals are out there where their victims would say they don’t want them to go to jail? Teenagers who overdose on drugs sold to them by 30 year old dealers, child prostitutes who cater to 40 year old men, battered wives who claim they “love” their husbands...

The list can get quite long... weird psychology can get a hold of a lot of different people, that does not mean they are not still victims who deserve justice.

OK, so the guy who smokes a joint on his couch Fri night after work deserves all the punishment the state can mete out. Is that what you're saying?

I know a loaded question when I see one, and to be honest I think loaded questions are just a way to take a debate out of context. I find them intellectually cowardice. But let me try to provide some sort of rebuttal...

Everyone knows the laws pertaining to smoking pot. Everyone knows that if they break a law, there can be consequences. Everyone has the ability to say no to buying and smoking pot. If they do not like the law, they should go about the proper ways of getting it changed.

What is the old saying? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" Good fit for this situation. Responsibilities for your actions may not be a popular idea, but it should be. Adults making adult decisions should face adult consequences. If they feel those consequences are not just, then let them serve as martyrs for their case. It is that simple. Either do the right thing and obey the law or get it changed or pay the price. Things are not perfect and everyone knows that.

So as long as the law says something is illegal, it is illegal and if people get punished, fine?
How would that have gone down with Negroes eating at White lunch counters in the early 1960s?

 

[Megan_Fad]

OK, so the guy who smokes a joint on his couch Fri night after work deserves all the punishment the state can mete out. Is that what you're saying?

I know a loaded question when I see one, and to be honest I think loaded questions are just a way to take a debate out of context. I find them intellectually cowardice. But let me try to provide some sort of rebuttal...

Everyone knows the laws pertaining to smoking pot. Everyone knows that if they break a law, there can be consequences. Everyone has the ability to say no to buying and smoking pot. If they do not like the law, they should go about the proper ways of getting it changed.

What is the old saying? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" Good fit for this situation. Responsibilities for your actions may not be a popular idea, but it should be. Adults making adult decisions should face adult consequences. If they feel those consequences are not just, then let them serve as martyrs for their case. It is that simple. Either do the right thing and obey the law or get it changed or pay the price. Things are not perfect and everyone knows that.

So as long as the law says something is illegal, it is illegal and if people get punished, fine?
How would that have gone down with Negroes eating at White lunch counters in the early 1960s?

Did I not say that if people disagree with the law, they should go about getting it changed? Did I also not say that things are not perfect? Please don't pull the tactics of others on this board of ignoring half of someone's reply to you.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Megan is correct in what she said. The victim has not forgiven Polanski. She is just fully aware of the ensuing media storm this is going to bring and doesn't want herself or her family subjected to that again. She doesn't want to be forced to have to relive what happened. There is no "forgiveness" angle here. My questions about the matter are, how much is the state of California going to shell out to extradite, house, and try him? Is he going to be brought back to spend maybe a year in jail to either be parolled or released because he's "to sick to serve the rest of his sentence"? hmmmmm didn't that just happen with a mass murderer? Is this just a "revenge" thing now because he got away from them all those years ago. You have to remember, it was the state that stupidly, IMO, let him out and gave him the opportunity to flee the country in the first place.

Cut off his royalties! Void his Visa. He's already restricted to where he can travel because he knows that this kind of thing can happen. Without his US issued Visa he would be cut off even more. They can destroy him financially. Think about it. Our government has allowed him to collect royalties all this time even though he was a wanted fugitive. They've had to know where he was and how to get him all these years. The checks were going somewhere! They can effectively tap into OUR bank accounts and tell us every dime we spend and where we spend it, how was it they couldn't do that with him all these years?

But, again, Megan is correct. It's not about "forgiveness" in regards to the victim's feelings on the matter. She was traumatized then and this will cause it to happen all over again for her and her family. In a way, I can understand what she's feeling. She's been able to pull her life together and move on and now she's facing having to relive the nightmare all over again.

 

[Diuretic]

If Polanski has been convicted (I think he pleaded guilty?) then the victim may not have to front court. It should be a process of extradition to the state that requests it and then the sentencing process should proceed from there. There may be a victim impact statement or similar to be produced but I don't think the victim will be required to testify.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Diuretic, I don't think she would have to face a trial unless they're actually going to reinstitute the charge of rape. I would think in that case they would need her testimony. But not having to go to the trial herself won't stop the media from invading her and her family. That is what I believe to be her biggest fear. What this is going to do to her life and her family's lives. She spoke very eloquently about how it was then and how she doesn't want to see her family now have to go through all of that. I'm just really curious to see just what charge he's going to be brought back (if he is extradited) to face. If they bring him back to face the charges of rape I hope they throw the key away, if it's only to face the alluding justice thing, IMO it's a waste of time. I guess we'll all just have to wait and see how this plays out. He very well may be able to walk away from this as easily as he walked away from the US to avoid sentencing. They should have never allowed him to collect royalties from his movies all these years to begin with. I have a big problem with that. He' been collecting a check all these years yet they never seemed to be able to "find" him to bring him back to face the charges.....whatever they would have been.