Polanski is now free

[HOZ]

Swiss have denied the US extradition request.

I am baffled by the Swiss reasoning.

[Hack&Lube]

I think this should just be water under the bridge now. The victim from 30 years ago and him have reconciled and she's forgiven him as well. So yes, he escaped some justice but I am of the forgiving type.

Polanski's own life has been tragic as well and I've always believed him to be mentally ill at the time. Please read up on those circumstances before passing judgement.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think this should just be water under the bridge now. The victim from 30 years ago and him have reconciled and she's forgiven him as well. So yes, he escaped some justice but I am of the forgiving type.

Drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is never water under the bridge.

[burn_this_city]

He's a creep, I was hoping he'd get extradited and throw in jail. Anyone that has buttsecks with a 13 year old, deserves hard time with a surly cellmate.

[worth]

He was 43 and the girl was 13. Yeah, that's not good.

[Doctordestiny]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think this should just be water under the bridge now. The victim from 30 years ago and him have reconciled and she's forgiven him as well. So yes, he escaped some justice but I am of the forgiving type.

Really, for raping a minor when he's never served time for his crime? Victims can forgive and I give them credit, but he still has a debt to pay to society. Until then, nope.

[Hack&Lube]

I've always believed crime to be between the victim and the perpetrator. Society and the state steps in when the victim needs an advocate or protector and to prevent that crime from happening again to another victim. I've never believed in debt to society. The debt is to the victim unless the crime is against the entire community or society in some way.

[Russic]

C'mon guys. He made some good movies.

[Doctordestiny]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I've always believed crime to be between the victim and the perpetrator. Society steps in when the victim needs an advocate or protector. I've never believed in debt to society. The debt is to the victim.

No bloody way. A criminal has to pay a debt to society. It's not a crime, but what about speeding say at 60 kmh over the limit. It's a 60 zone and someone drives 120. No one is injured so one might argue there is no victim. I look at the speeding ticket a debt to society, or similar thing.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

No bloody way. A criminal has to pay a debt to society. It's not a crime, but what about speeding say at 60 kmh over the limit. It's a 60 zone and someone drives 120. No one is injured so one might argue there is no victim. I look at the speeding ticket a debt to society, or similar thing.

The fine is the deterrent against speeding to protect public safety, it is not the debt to society.

I'm not saying criminals should escape punishment but what is paramount to me is that the most is done to ensure the victim recieves the net benefits or reparations of that punishment which I don't often see happening in our society. Criminal goes to jail on taxpayer's dime, victim recieves "justice" but nothing further. Victim must then resort to civil suit which then, even if successful, the criminal files for bankruptcy and it is difficult to enforce. For breaking the rules of the society/community, the criminal does need to be punished but there should be considerations of time and the victim's wishes. Our criminal justice system focuses too much on punishment and not tangible gain for the victims or the state or for reconciliation as part of genuine rehabilitation.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The fine is the deterrent against speeding to protect public safety, it is not the debt to society.

The jail time is a deterrent so a little French pervert won't drug and rape a 13 year old girl. He skipped out on that, and hasn't served any time for it.

I've always believed crime to be between the victim and the perpetrator. Society and the state steps in when the victim needs an advocate or protector and to prevent that crime from happening again to another victim. I've never believed in debt to society. The debt is to the victim unless the crime is against the entire community or society in some way.

Most victims of these crimes forgive or will forgive their attacker, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The jail time is a deterrent so a little French pervert won't drug and rape a 13 year old girl. He skipped out on that, and hasn't served any time for it.

If a little French pervert wants to drug and rape a 13 year old girl, he will do it anyway regardless of jail time or even a death penalty statute. Psychology studies have shown that jail time or even the existence of capital punishment has little bearing on the thought processes going into criminal acts when they are perpetrated. It may act as a deterrent against repeat offenses however.

I personally believe Polanski was mentally ill at the time due to the murder of his own pregnant wife which was only a few years prior.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Russic

C'mon guys. He made some good movies.

The Pianist?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The fine is the deterrent against speeding to protect public safety, it is not the debt to society.

I'm not saying criminals should escape punishment but what is paramount to me is that the most is done to ensure the victim recieves the net benefits or reparations of that punishment which I don't often see happening in our society. Criminal goes to jail on taxpayer's dime, victim recieves "justice" but nothing further. Victim must then resort to civil suit which then, even if successful, the criminal files for bankruptcy and it is difficult to enforce. For breaking the rules of the society/community, the criminal does need to be punished but there should be considerations of time and the victim's wishes.

So if your saying that the crime and debt should be between the criminal and the victim then your also saying that instead of having pre-defined punishments at should be up to the victim as far as the sentence is concerned, you would reduce the judge to basically investigating if a crime had occured and prescribe innocence or guilt.

So if the victim hadn't been so forgiving and had said that the only thing that would pay the crime off is if RP had his junk ripped off by pigs, then you would be fine with that?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If a little French pervert wants to drug and rape a 13 year old girl, he will do it anyway regardless of jail time or even a death penalty statute. Psychology studies have shown that jail time or even the existence of capital punishment has little bearing on the thought processes going into criminal acts when they are perpetrated. It may act as a deterrent against repeat offenses however.

so if he's going to do it regardless of the consequence then shouldn't we be protecting society from these deviants by removing them from it permanently?

I mean if he's willing to cross that line once no matter the consequence why wouldn't he do it multiple times.

In that case then shouldn't the justice system switch its focus from rehabilitation to public safety?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if the victim hadn't been so forgiving and had said that the only thing that would pay the crime off is if RP had his junk ripped off by pigs, then you would be fine with that?

That's just cruel and uneccessary punishment out of a desire for vengeance. I haven't quite worked out my ambigiously gay legal system yet but compensation should be constructive.

Look, I'm just saying that paying a debt to society by throwing a guy away to sit and rot in jail seems counterintuitive to me when that guy should be spending every day of his rest of his life working to improve the life of his victim.

I don't remember details of the dealings between Polanski and the girl very clearly but I believe they've reconciled and he's tried to compensate her. I could be wrong.

Polanski is not just some rich french snob who got away with a crime and laughs at it everyday while flaunting his freedom. He has expressed extreme remorse, reached out to the victim, and has been on the run for 30 years.

Remember that his own life is pretty tragic and must have affected him psychologically. His pregnant wife was brutally tortured, raped, and murdered by the Manson family in Los Angeles only a few years prior. I believe he was greatly mentally disturbed by all this and was mentally ill himself for a long period of time after his wife's murder. His wife begged for the life of their child but the Mansons killed it first before killing her.

What happened to Polanski's wife tempers my anger at his own actions. That is just me. The rest of you may not be so forgiving.

I encourage you all to read up on the circumstances of this case and his own life before passing judgement.

[Top_Prospect]

So let me get this straight. Some people and celebrities think it's water under the bridge, yet there are other celebrities who haven't even been found guilty of being a pedo and they are the scum of the earth lol.

Love how the world works.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I encourage you all to read up on the circumstances of this case and his own life before passing judgement.

In this thread you've now twice said everyone should read up on the case and Polanski's life before passing judgment... you should take some of your own medicine.

He is also accused of raping then 16 year old actress Charlotte Lewis in 1983. She has only recently come forward but her story is credible. There are other victims who have also come forward.

If you read up as you've suggested, you'll probably come to the conclusion Polanski is a pedofile and a rapist.

I don't buy the, "my wife and child were murdered so now I have a compulsion to diddle little girls" excuse you seem to be making up for him.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Delgar

In this thread you've now twice said everyone should read up on the case and Polanski's life before passing judgment... you should take some of your own medicine.

He is also accused of raping then 16 year old actress Charlotte Lewis in 1983. She has only recently come forward but her story is credible. There are other victims who have also come forward.

If you read up as you've suggested, you'll probably come to the conclusion Polanski is a pedofile and a rapist.

I don't buy the, "my wife and child were murdered so now I have a compulsion to diddle little girls" excuse you seem to be making up for him.

I'm saying he's probably mentally ill. In the end, what I think his punishment should be is irrelevant. Interntional courts have chosen to protect him. He continues to work and is celebrated in an industry that seems to turn a blind eye to his actions. I don't know what to think of that whether it is statement of acceptance of his actions, ignorance, something that is reprehensible, or that people have forgiven him also.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is never water under the bridge.

I 99% agree but from memory this case wasn't handled very well.

The girls mother said she was 16 or 17 and dropped her off for a modeling gig.

The Judge originally sentenced Polanski to a light sentence for having sex with a minor (not actual rape in the truest form) but then reneged the plea bargain because of public and political pressure ( an election was coming )

The 1% of me says forget it. He had the toughest of life's, survived a concentration camp that his family died in, his wife and baby were brutally murdered, he has been a model citizen for the last 30 years including lots of charity work, plus the woman has long forgave him ($2 million might have something to do with it)

I think just leave the old man alone, would it do any good to have this man die in jail?