• 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
Panache said:
Didn't Samantha Geimer ask for the charges to be dismissed? That should be basis enough to dismiss the charges.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with that is that the charges are over and done with. He had plead guilty. He was merely awaiting sentencing when he fled. There's no trial to be had on that front.
 
Panache said:
Didn't Samantha Geimer ask for the charges to be dismissed? That should be basis enough to dismiss the charges.
Click to expand...

No they should not.

In cases of domestic violence for example, often the injured party will want to drop any charges later on (spouse or girl/boyfriend) in that case it is to late and the state can press charges.

Violent crimes should not be forgiven because of "time" that is why on most forcible felony's no expiration date now exists.
 
Anima said:
So past trauma = no punishment for raping a child? Being victimised should not entitle one to victimise others. I've no doubt Polanski has suffered in his life, but that's no excuse for the sufering he inflicted on that poor girl. Do you think the knowledge that his wife had been murdered (and I fail to see how her's being a high profile case makes the slightest bit of difference to the punishment this child rapist deserves) made her trauma even the slightest bit easier to deal with?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Polanski should receive no punishment. Truth is, had the judge in Los Angeles upheld the plea agreement that was reached back in the 70's, Polanski would have been sentenced to time served - 42 days.

Now, does a six-week sentence for raping a child seem fair to you? It doesn't seem just to me, but I'm not the prosecutor, defense counsel, or the judge. However, that was the agreement that was supposedly reached, and - whether I like it or not - that is what Polanski should, in all fairness, be sentenced to for raping the girl.

Insofar as the unlawful flight to avoid prosecution charge - sentence him to a month in jail, then deport him from the United States and mark his passport persona non grata for travel to the United States.
 
SpotsCat said:
Insofar as the unlawful flight to avoid prosecution charge - sentence him to a month in jail, then deport him from the United States and mark his passport persona non grata for travel to the United States.
Click to expand...

He should get what any other person would get for fleeing from the law for so long. And it would be much more than a month in jail. He's not special just because of who he is, he should face the same justice. Had the judge not upheld the original plea, there were things he could have done instead. Fact remains, had he manned up and taken his medicine; the lot of the problem would have been resolved rather quickly and he would today be totally free to come to America. But he didn't, that was his choice. He made a plea and fled the country. He gets what he has coming to him.
 
I think the problem with that is that the charges are over and done with. He had plead guilty. He was merely awaiting sentencing when he fled. There's no trial to be had on that front.
Click to expand...

That is perhaps how it is. I was speaking of how it should be.
 
Panache said:
That is perhaps how it is. I was speaking of how it should be.
Click to expand...

How it should be is that Polanski should have showed up for his sentencing. If there was any funny business they could have gotten it cleared up rather quickly. Then we wouldn't even have to be concerned with anything now as it would have all been over 30 years ago.
 
How it should be is that Polanski should have showed up for his sentencing. If there was any funny business they could have gotten it cleared up rather quickly. Then we wouldn't even have to be concerned with anything now as it would have all been over 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that how it should have been. I am saying how I think it should be now.

Certainly I agree that if she hadn't requested that the sentence be dropped that he should go to jail, but it seems silly to send someone to jail for raping someone who has requested that he not be sent to jail.
 
No they should not.

In cases of domestic violence for example, often the injured party will want to drop any charges later on (spouse or girl/boyfriend) in that case it is to late and the state can press charges.

Violent crimes should not be forgiven because of "time" that is why on most forcible felony's no expiration date now exists.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't the injured party be allowed to drop charges later on? If some kid steals my car, and I want to press charges at first because I am pissed off, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a change of heart if I later on decide that sending him to prison will just teach him how to be a better criminal?
 
Panache said:
Perhaps that how it should have been. I am saying how I think it should be now.

Certainly I agree that if she hadn't requested that the sentence be dropped that he should go to jail, but it seems silly to send someone to jail for raping someone who has requested that he not be sent to jail.
Click to expand...

What should happen now is that he is brought back to America and brought up on charges of fleeing the country.
 
What should happen now is that he is brought back to America and brought up on charges of fleeing the country.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree with that. I think those are the only charges he should be punished for though. Sentencing for charges against Geimer should be dismissed.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Just out of curiosity; what does supporting Roman Polanski have to do with voting for Obama? :confused:
Click to expand...

Very simple; because I believe that the same mental gymnastics that it takes someone to elect an inexperienced "post turtle" like Obama to the Presidency are similar to the farcical mental gymnastics it takes to argue that Polanski should be forgiven his past pedophilia and escape from justice; in other words, people who voted for Obama are highly likely to be the same people arguing for Polanski’s freedom.

I am hardly surprised to see you would not make the connection.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just don't understand why some people keep saying "a crime he might not have done" (or some such).

1: The guy is rich. Which means he could afford damn good lawyers. Ones that would have used every trick in the book to get him off the hook. (hey! that rhymes!)

2: If he hadn't really commited rape then he would not have accepted a plea bargain. No matter what. For the simple fact that there would have been NO evidence that it was true.

3: He did accept a plea bargain and confessed to the crime. No innocent person would do that. Especially a rich person for the simple fact that their reputations mean everything to them.

It also does not matter weather the judge changed his mind about accepting the plea bargain or not. That is his perogative as a judge. Fact is that Polanski ran away to avoid being sentenced. Even though he was guilty, by his own words.
Click to expand...

There you go again trying to make too much sense. :2wave:
 
Panache said:
Didn't Samantha Geimer ask for the charges to be dismissed? That should be basis enough to dismiss the charges.
Click to expand...

There are no charges to dismiss; he pleaded guilty then ran from sentencing and has never paid his debt to society for his child rape. :doh
 
There are no charges to dismiss; he pleaded guilty then ran from sentencing and has never paid his debt to society for his child rape.
Click to expand...

How is that a debt to society and not instead a debt to Miss Geimer? Are you the victim, or is she?
 
Breaking society's laws means you owe society. And this is a particularly heinous debt.
 
Breaking society's laws means you owe society. And this is a particularly heinous debt.
Click to expand...

Then why do we let the victims drop charges initially?

If a dude finds that his car is stolen, and the police track it down and discover that his son went joyriding in it, doesn't the son owe a debt to society? Why should his dad be allowed to drop the charges just because it was his car?
 
Panache said:
Then why do we let the victims drop charges initially?

If a dude finds that his car is stolen, and the police track it down and discover that his son went joyriding in it, doesn't the son owe a debt to society? Why should his dad be allowed to drop the charges just because it was his car?
Click to expand...

There are some charges that can be dropped by the victim. Then there are other charges which the State can pursue regardless of what the victim wants. Rape is one of those.

Stealing your dads car for a joyride and raping someone is two totally different things anyways.
 
Panache said:
Why shouldn't the injured party be allowed to drop charges later on? If some kid steals my car, and I want to press charges at first because I am pissed off, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a change of heart if I later on decide that sending him to prison will just teach him how to be a better criminal?
Click to expand...

Because people can be coerced. Think about it. Some person gets a mob boss convicted for beating them up. A week later the guy shows up and decides that he wants to drop the charges. What no official knows is that the the guy and his family was threated with death if they didn't drop the charges.

How many people that deserve to be in prison would be out if dropping the charges was allowed to the victim of any violent crime?
 
Truth Detector said:
Very simple; because I believe that the same mental gymnastics that it takes someone to elect an inexperienced "post turtle" like Obama to the Presidency are similar to the farcical mental gymnastics it takes to argue that Polanski should be forgiven his past pedophilia and escape from justice; in other words, people who voted for Obama are highly likely to be the same people arguing for Polanski’s freedom.

I am hardly surprised to see you would not make the connection.
Click to expand...

Translation: "Democrats are idiots." What a surprise. :roll:
 
Panache said:
How is that a debt to society and not instead a debt to Miss Geimer? Are you the victim, or is she?
Click to expand...

We have laws for a reason and we need to follow them or change em.
 
Panache said:
Then why do we let the victims drop charges initially?
Click to expand...

For some crimes. For others, the state has the option of pursuing charges regardless. This is one.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are some charges that can be dropped by the victim. Then there are other charges which the State can pursue regardless of what the victim wants. Rape is one of those.
Click to expand...

You should substitute "can" by "must", then it's correct.

I do not see a problem that a child rapist has to face a trial, I rather see problems that many European countries seem to support child rapists at escape.
 
Can anyone tell me his/her problems that a child rapist who escaped has to face a trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom