• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Roman Polanski be punished for his crime?

Should Roman Polanski be punished for his crime?


  • Total voters
    100
I understand how it is. I don't understand why.

Because anything dealing with her is over. Everything else falls within proper realm of judicial powers.

Only if the victim requests that that it be so. Once the victim takes the creep's side, it seems to me that it may as well be a victimless crime.

The victim has no say in running. When someone runs, the "victim" isn't the person. It's the State. The State has the power granted by the authority and sovereignty of the People. Running and fleeing the country is against the State, not the person.
 
Because anything dealing with her is over. Everything else falls within proper realm of judicial powers.

Ok. I get that. I still don't see who benefits.

The victim has no say in running. When someone runs, the "victim" isn't the person. It's the State. The State has the power granted by the authority and sovereignty of the People. Running and fleeing the country is against the State, not the person.

That's fine. I don't really mind him being tried for fleeing the country, and I won't mind seeing the creep go to jail.

My whole point was the nonsensicalness of seeking 'justice' for someone who didn't want it.
 
Translation: "Democrats are idiots." What a surprise. :roll:

Idiots happens to be YOUR word; the word I had in mind was naive or wallowing in uininformed ignorance for the most part.

By the way, who did you vote for again?

:2wave:
 
Ok. I get that. I still don't see who benefits.

It's a tricky line to walk. Because on one hand, maybe no one (individual) really benefits. But on the other hand, the government has a duty to us to uphold our sovereignty and authority.

That's fine. I don't really mind him being tried for fleeing the country, and I won't mind seeing the creep go to jail.

My whole point was the nonsensicalness of seeking 'justice' for someone who didn't want it.

The justice part was the original trial/plea deal. Now it's just state power and such. But I don't quite take so kindly to my sovereignty being trashed upon by some pedophile scum.
 
Fair enough, but there is evidence galore about what went down. The only contention can come in on the mothers side. Did she know what was going to happen and offer up her daughter or not. But the drugs, the non-consensual sex, the ages; those are all facts.

To expand on this, I went back and reread some posts to quote and such. I found that I had misread some of what you had written. That's my fault, I should have been more careful before resorting to emotional outburst. So I apologize to Bodhisattva for that one.
 
It's a tricky line to walk. Because on one hand, maybe no one (individual) really benefits. But on the other hand, the government has a duty to us to uphold our sovereignty and authority.

Maybe. I tend to think that the government's duty is to protect whoever it can without overstepping its bounds, and to seek justice for those it fails to protect.

The justice part was the original trial/plea deal. Now it's just state power and such. But I don't quite take so kindly to my sovereignty being trashed upon by some pedophile scum.

I disagree. The justice part is the sentencing and carrying out of the sentence. The trial/plea was the "figuring out what really happened" part.
 
Fair enough, but there is evidence galore about what went down. The only contention can come in on the mothers side. Did she know what was going to happen and offer up her daughter or not. But the drugs, the non-consensual sex, the ages; those are all facts.

quaaludes... that is a serious drug and simply alcohol. Yeah, found what I was looking for. Never said he was not a pedophile or a creep, he is both.

To those that keep arguing that we should just let this go... what? The state acts regardless of the personal feelings of those involved since they are upholding laws and not backing peoples opinions. It matters not how long ago it was, for he was convicted already.
 
To expand on this, I went back and reread some posts to quote and such. I found that I had misread some of what you had written. That's my fault, I should have been more careful before resorting to emotional outburst. So I apologize to Bodhisattva for that one.

Thanks... all good.
 
I think you may be a bit misinformed. Rape victims already can drop charges prior to the trial. Why they can drop them prior to the trial but not after the trial yet before sentencing baffles me.

If they are adult rape yes. For child rape no.
 
If they are adult rape yes. For child rape no.

Yes. If victim has reached the age of majority, they can drop the charges for sexual misconduct committed against them before they reached the age of majority.
 
The period is not your enemy. Proper punctuation and spelling go a long way into making an argument.

The reason why it took so long was because he ran to France and France refused to extradite him. The US heard that Polanski would be at this event and it was in a country that would extradite him to the US. Thus they got in contract with law enforcement and had him arrested, and now awaits extradition in jail.

Nobody puts Mikeey in a corner :lol: Back the **** off my boy

Mikeey rules
 
Yes. If victim has reached the age of majority, they can drop the charges for sexual misconduct committed against them before they reached the age of majority.

It is up to the DA to determin if they will pursue a case. the individual has no say in the matter. The DA can pursue charges regardless of what the victim wants since the DA represents society and not that individual. The vicitim can appeal to the court, and that appeal can be dismissed.
 
I think I've made my opinion clear on where I stand on the Polanski case over the past few days. Some may agree with me, some may not - I guess that's what makes us all unique individuals.

I'm not going to re-visit this topic again, other than to leave you a parting video --

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJPa45uO0-A"]YouTube - Joe Friday Schools Roman Polanski[/ame]

:2wave:
 
Well yes, to thinking that a consequence is unreasonable, that a consequence must be revenge (making all parents seekers of revenge on their little 2 year-olds revenge seekers), that ethics are ridiculous and that psychological damage doesn't affect peoples outlook... yes, yes it certainly does make you far less reasonable than I remember.
Why? The individual clearly wants this dropped. She was the victim, not you or I. Neither you nor myself have degrees in psychology or the ability to analyze and evaluate the victim's mental state, so to say that she is psychologically damaged and imply that her desires are therefore skewed is absurd.

The consequence for speeding is a ticket. The consequence for murder is to be arrested and have a trial, etc. I have never EVER heard a person say that a consequence to an action is ridiculous. That is one of the most bizarre things that I have literally ever heard.
If the victim wanted to press charges, I would be on board.

That is just the first one... I simply remember you as one that held keen analytical skills and it seems that you have traded in impartial reasoning with a massive socialist agenda. That is what I have seen and may not be correct though... but this is more evidence. All good. Just an observation. Doesn't make you less of a person or anything... fret not.
I do not even know how to respond to such an ill-informed accusation. What "socialist agenda" am I pushing?
 
I didn't expect anything; I was merely curious. So who did you vote for and why?

I would and do consider that a very rude question to ask. We in this nation have a secret ballot for a reason.
 
I didn't expect anything; I was merely curious. So who did you vote for and why?
We have been over this many times. I voted for Ron Paul. I voted for him because, like many people who vote for candidates, I felt that he was the best man for the job. Any other questions?
 
We have been over this many times. I voted for Ron Paul. I voted for him because, like many people who vote for candidates, I felt that he was the best man for the job. Any other questions?

Write-in? Or was he on the ballot in your state?
 
I think Roman Polanski is a great film maker and if he has truly great talent he can make great films from his prison cell be they on film or on little flip books or tattoos.
 
I would and do consider that a very rude question to ask. We in this nation have a secret ballot for a reason.

This is fascinating because I could swear I asked EgoffTib and not you.

But then, we know who you voted for and I cannot blame you for being too emebarrased to admit it.

Carry on. :rofl
 
We have been over this many times. I voted for Ron Paul. I voted for him because, like many people who vote for candidates, I felt that he was the best man for the job. Any other questions?

I keep forgetting; thank you for refreshing my mind. :2wave:
 
This is fascinating because I could swear I asked EgoffTib and not you.

But then, we know who you voted for and I cannot blame you for being too emebarrased to admit it.

Carry on. :rofl
Remind everyone who you voted for... Just for ****s and giggles.
 
Back
Top Bottom