Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case

[Diuretic]

Thanks for that info ncarolinadixie.

Also just another point. I'm not sure of the exact charge and conviction. I hear "statutory rape". Now I don't want to get into a big dust-up about terminology but where I am the offence of having sex with a minor is called unlawful sexual intercourse. Rape is a different and more serious offence. The primary difference is that in a case of rape the consent (properly called "submission") of the victim is gained by - broadly speaking - force, fear, fraud or otherwise overbearing the victim. Unlawful sexual intercourse is having consensual sex with someone who is not legally able to give that consent. The charge is more serious with the younger age of the victim.

None of this detracts from my view that Polanski should be returned to the original jurisdiction and dealt with according to the law.

 

[logical4u]

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?

Read the girl's testimony from the trial and tell me if you think if it was rape. Tell me how you would feel if that happened to Obama's daughter, or your daughter or your mother when she was a child, or your sister or your niece. It was wrong.

Smoking dope is illegal. If you are smoking in the privacy of your home, it is harder to catch you breaking the law, but it does not change the fact that you broke the law. If you get caught and the gov decides to prosecute (goes thru the expense of a trial) and finds you guilty and says jail time, you are going to jail.

This monster (I don't care what man costume he is wearing these days) raped a child after giving her perscription drug and alcohol. She repeatedly (according to her testimony) told him she didn't want to be there. She said she was afraid of him. He was tried and found guilty. He ran away; he did not take responsibility for his actions and has never acknowledged how wrong he was. For all the public knows these actions were done before this girl and continued after he escaped to another country.

He was found guilty and needs to serve time.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

I understand completely Diuretic. And to a point agree 100%. But at this point my opinion is going to be based on what charges they actually bring him back to face. If they're going to charge him with the original crime of "rape" then yeah it's worth it. But if it's ONLY to face charges for fleeing the country to avoid sentencing the money spent to do so is going to be a huge waste.

I in no way condone what he did. He should have never been allowed to plea out in the first place. Rape is a horrific crime, but IMO it's worse by ten fold when it's committed against a child. Physical castration is what comes to my mind in cases involving children.

Have a good day and thank you for a civil discussion. I've got a full day ahead of me and really need to get it started.

 

[logical4u]

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?

Not that you would EVER agree, but both are victims.

The man, it reinforces his opinion that women (or at least some women) are objects to be used and discarded, and therefore not worthy of a serious committment, missing out on emotionally rewarding relationships that would strengthen him as a human and the community.

The woman that accepts she is a "penis receptacle", and nothing more. It takes her humanity and makes her less than an animal (as far as rights goes, dogs are considered more valuable) in society's view. If you ever talked to prostitutes, you would find drug use and mental illnesses are rampant. Those do affect society and deteriorates the community.

I guess that adds more victims: the community.

 

[Diuretic]

Prostitutes, female ones anyway, have various reasons for selling sexual services. Yes, feeding a drug addiction is one reason and society which criminalises some substances is victimising users by so doing. Some female drug addicts turn to prostitution because they can earn a lot of money (as you know drugs can be very expensive) in a fairly short time.

Society victimises prostitutes (of both sexes) because prostitutes earn a living through selling sex. Because some societies have mythologised sex and raised it to the status of a religious sacrament a transgression against the mythology of sex is to be condemned on a moral basis. Those who sell and buy sex in this way are thus immoral. So society victimises prostitutes on the basis of morality.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thanks for that info ncarolinadixie.

Also just another point. I'm not sure of the exact charge and conviction. I hear "statutory rape". Now I don't want to get into a big dust-up about terminology but where I am the offence of having sex with a minor is called unlawful sexual intercourse. Rape is a different and more serious offence. The primary difference is that in a case of rape the consent (properly called "submission") of the victim is gained by - broadly speaking - force, fear, fraud or otherwise overbearing the victim. Unlawful sexual intercourse is having consensual sex with someone who is not legally able to give that consent. The charge is more serious with the younger age of the victim.

None of this detracts from my view that Polanski should be returned to the original jurisdiction and dealt with according to the law.

Yeah it was a straight rape charge, not a statutory rape charge. He was found guilty of both drugging and raping the 13 year old girl before he fled.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for that info ncarolinadixie.

Also just another point. I'm not sure of the exact charge and conviction. I hear "statutory rape". Now I don't want to get into a big dust-up about terminology but where I am the offence of having sex with a minor is called unlawful sexual intercourse. Rape is a different and more serious offence. The primary difference is that in a case of rape the consent (properly called "submission") of the victim is gained by - broadly speaking - force, fear, fraud or otherwise overbearing the victim. Unlawful sexual intercourse is having consensual sex with someone who is not legally able to give that consent. The charge is more serious with the younger age of the victim.

None of this detracts from my view that Polanski should be returned to the original jurisdiction and dealt with according to the law.

Yeah it was a straight rape charge, not a statutory rape charge. He was found guilty of both drugging and raping the 13 year old girl before he fled.

I'll get my coat....I'd happily go and get the bastard.

 

[logical4u]

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?

It was a law that needed changed. Due to the "breaking" of those laws, they were changed, voided, or ignored.

Are you saying it should be legal to give alcohol to middle school aged children?
Are you saying it should be legal to give someone else's perscription drugs to middle school aged children?
Are you saying it should be legal to rape middle school aged children?

Please answer these questions. I have a feeling if the perp had been George Bush, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin, the same people saying, forget about it, would be screaming and demanding that "those people" be locked up (even without a trial) and serve the remainder of their lives in prison. Why should this "person" get special rights?

 

[The Rabbi]

Your first sententce is contradictory.
At the time of the lunch counter protests what they were doing was illegal. Was the state right to lock them up and charge them?

As to your questions, my answers are:
yes
probably yes
depending on how you want to define rape, no.

And I dont care whether we're talking about Dick Cheney or Dick van Dyke.

 

[Intense]

Your first sententce is contradictory.
At the time of the lunch counter protests what they were doing was illegal. Was the state right to lock them up and charge them?

As to your questions, my answers are:
yes
probably yes
depending on how you want to define rape, no.

And I dont care whether we're talking about Dick Cheney or Dick van Dyke.

Obviously the Jury defined Rape different from You!

 

[The Rabbi]

Your first sententce is contradictory.
At the time of the lunch counter protests what they were doing was illegal. Was the state right to lock them up and charge them?

As to your questions, my answers are:
yes
probably yes
depending on how you want to define rape, no.

And I dont care whether we're talking about Dick Cheney or Dick van Dyke.

Obviously the Jury defined Rape different from You!

Brilliant response.
tool.

 

[Intense]

Your first sententce is contradictory.
At the time of the lunch counter protests what they were doing was illegal. Was the state right to lock them up and charge them?

As to your questions, my answers are:
yes
probably yes
depending on how you want to define rape, no.

And I dont care whether we're talking about Dick Cheney or Dick van Dyke.

Obviously the Jury defined Rape different from You!

Brilliant response.
tool.

Why do You defend Him?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not.
I'm questioning the morality of prosecuting someone for a crime that occurred 30 years where the victim just wants to let it go and where the perp has lead, by all accounts, an exemplary life since.
As I've made plain, I think personally he should have the book thrown at him. But that's just me.
The Libertarian view ought to be much different.

 

[Diuretic]

The victim usually has no say in the decision of the state to prosecute (or not to prosecute). The interests of the state are in play, not those of the individual. In order to maintain the integrity of the justice system the law must be applied equally to all. Celebrity is no immunity. Nor is time (save for any limitations in statute).

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not asking what the state of the law is. I know that very well.
I'm asking a moral/ethical question.

 

[del]

Thanks for that info ncarolinadixie.

Also just another point. I'm not sure of the exact charge and conviction. I hear "statutory rape". Now I don't want to get into a big dust-up about terminology but where I am the offence of having sex with a minor is called unlawful sexual intercourse. Rape is a different and more serious offence. The primary difference is that in a case of rape the consent (properly called "submission") of the victim is gained by - broadly speaking - force, fear, fraud or otherwise overbearing the victim. Unlawful sexual intercourse is having consensual sex with someone who is not legally able to give that consent. The charge is more serious with the younger age of the victim.

None of this detracts from my view that Polanski should be returned to the original jurisdiction and dealt with according to the law.

Yeah it was a straight rape charge, not a statutory rape charge. He was found guilty of both drugging and raping the 13 year old girl before he fled.

I'll get my coat....I'd happily go and get the bastard.

i'll go with you, but the charge he pleaded out to was having a sex with a minor- he was originally charged with rape.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not asking what the state of the law is. I know that very well.
I'm asking a moral/ethical question.

You're asking an "ought" question? Ought Polanski be returned to the original jurisdiction where he pleaded guilty to rape so that he can be sentenced by a competent court? Of course he should. There's a simple reason for it. The next famous film director who drugs and anally rapes a 13 year old girl will shoot through to Europe to take advantage of the laws in the country of his birth to avoid due process in the jurisdiction where he committed the crime. That should not be allowed to happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the only reason to return Polanski to prison is to prevent the next (unlikely) identical case?

 

[hjmick]

So the only reason to return Polanski to prison is to prevent the next (unlikely) identical case?

First, there is no "returning" him to prison as he never went to prison in the first place. Second, he should be returned to California because he committed a crime, pled guilty, then fled to avoid sentencing. It is time for him to pay his debt.

 

[Contumacious]

Seems like a waste of energy to me.......

No, it isn't a waste of energy.

If everything goes according to plan the US prison population will jump from 2.200,000 inmates to 5 million by year's end. Eventually 1/2 the US population will be in jail. Welcome to the USSR.

.