The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
Sophie B. Hawkins
time to grow up.
The judge from what i have seen did nothing wrong, but I only got this deep in the 20 pages so far.
I look forward to hearing about the old farts colon falling out after being gang raped in prison
and i do not give a **** that the 13 year old may have agreed, wanted it, was a willing participant or anything else
She was 13 = RAPE
if it is allowed, Polanski owes us that sentence
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Congratulations, nothing you say will ever be taken seriously.well they can they do and they did and in this they are wrong and the courts have done more damage to this woman than a gang rape
Not really. It happens quite frequently in cases where the agreed upon penalty is wildly disproportionate to the crime, as it was in this case.Originally Posted by dragondad
It really comes down to this - what do you think is an adequate punishment for the forcible rape of a 13 year old? If you think 42 days is fair, then I don't know what to say to you.
Uh, what? Where are you getting this?In this case, the Judge indicated that he wanted a lengthy prison sentence. The problem with judges doing this is, Judges don't have the facts of the case. They don't have the police reports or the witness interviews. All they have are the charges and any rap sheet.
lol, no, not even close. Hell, I worked on a case this summer where a judge rejected a plea - it's not even remotely "unprecedented." You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.For a judge to take a sentence that was agreed to and change it so drastically is not only extremely rare...it is unprecedented.
You also don't understand the role of the courts.The judge was obviously responding to political pressures and should have let the DA and the Defense who understood the weaknesses in the DA's case work out the deal.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
It also saves money.
After all if a person is willing to confess to a lesser charge why not accept that then have to go through the long, legal, expensive process of setting up three different court dates and proving the suspect innocent/guilty?
In case you don't know the three different court dates are as follows.
First court date is so the suspect can plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead guilty then they are remanded into custody until a sentencing court date can be made. If they plead not guilty it goes to the second process.
Second court date is the actual trial. A trial can last just one day or as long as months. (take a gander at OJ Simpson's murder trial for an example of how long a trial can be made to last)
Third court date is the sentencing of someone that pleads guilty or was found guilty of a crime during their trial.
Making a deal skips two whole court dates.
Pleading guilty at the first hearing skips one court date.
Being found innocent skips one court date.
Being found guilty makes you go through all three court dates.
As far as Polanski goes on why he was offered a deal I have no idea. There could be any number of reasons. Including the above reason.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke