• 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
Bodhisattva said:
I can deal with it. Calm down. :lol:

I hadn't read much, because most of what I find isn't fact oriented. I still have not read that she said no, I have read that she was posing topless and drinking at a party with him. From that, "drugged and raped" doesn't fit.

Also, some 13 year-olds certainly look older than 13... not 25 or anything, but they can look 18 to a 40 year-old that is buzzed from drinking easily. Is he a creep? It sounds like it at this point.

She testified after the fact. A lot of things can change from what she wanted to how others made her feel after the fact, and he plead guilty because of arbitrary laws regarding age of consent, not because of anything else. A lot of men get ****ed because of situations like this... even underage guys that are 16 and have sex with their 16 year old GF get accused of sex with a mino and convicted. **** happens all the time and to simply look at a few words 30 years later and say "deal with it" doesn't really cut it, I deal with facts and only ones that are ethical will stick.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of things for which we've gone overboard on. I'm the first to say that the current laws are well too stringent. That wasn't true in the 70's, things were ridiculously lenient. There's no excuse, this isn't a 16 year old with a 14 year old. This was some dude in his, what, late 40's and a 13 year old. If you can't see an ethical problem with some 40 some year old perv ****ing a drugged up 13 year old girl who says no then you're messed up in the head.
 
what is the problem with this case,the poeple who is in charge should be held to acount for not bringing this man to justice a long time ago,i cant understand why this happend,and now the US department of Justice after more or less 30 years desides to call him in,charge them who upholds the law
would that not be better and thro them in sing sing for good,now thats what i call justice.

mikeey
 
mikeey said:
what is the problem with this case,the poeple who is in charge should be held to acount for not bringing this man to justice a long time ago,i cant understand why this happend,and now the US department of Justice after more or less 30 years desides to call him in,charge them who upholds the law
would that not be better and thro them in sing sing for good,now thats what i call justice.

mikeey
Click to expand...

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.
 
Are you daft? He ran away, we had a warrant issued to other countries. That warrant is still active, a country arrested him on that warrant. He never closed out the case.
Click to expand...

See, that sounds like a lot of work and a lot of wasted money that could have been better spent seeking justice for someone who actually wanted justice, or protecting someone who actually needed protecting.

For the love of Christ, I think some people are too willing to defend a pedophile director.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending him. I've already said I think he's a guilty creep. I just don't think he's worth wasting time or money on.

If it were some random dude, they wouldn't be getting all the attention/defense.
Click to expand...

If the random dude got a thread on DP and his victim didn't want him sent to jail, I would still see no reason for tax dollars to support his sorry a$$.

And a random dude running from sentencing would have the same warrant, good for the same amount of time. Except there would be very little defense for the guy.
Click to expand...

If it was a random dude running from sentencing whose victim had requested that he be let go, I think you would still find plenty of people who wanted to respect the wishes of the victim.

He'd already have been brought back to the US to face his crimes.
Click to expand...

I never said that time and money hadn't already been wasted.

The court process involving proving a crime for this is already done. Please read carefully. All that was left was the sentencing. He ran. He has to come back for sentencing and now faces further fleeing charges.
Click to expand...

Please read carefully yourself. I didn't say the court process wasn't done. I didn't say that there was anything left but sentencing, I didn't say he didn't run, and I didn't say he wasn't facing further fleeing charges. Why do you keep addressing points I didn't make?

I said its a waste of time and resources.
 
Akari sorry about my english,but when the US wants anyone they will get them,so i dont believe that in what u say,even in france.

all the best m8.

mikeey
 
Panache said:
She isn't 13 anymore. She is in her 40s and has asked for the case against him to be dismissed.
Click to expand...

The law was broken and the perpetrator pled guilty (then ran away). The law doesn't take into account someone else forgiving the crime. IT'S STILL A CRIME.

Panache said:
I agree that the guy was a creep, and I didn't even like his movies all that well, but I don't see the benefit in seeking justice for the woman against her wishes.
Click to expand...

Justice is blind. It demands a righting of wrongs regardless what others "wish."
 
mikeey said:
Akari sorry about my english,but when the US wants anyone they will get them,so i dont believe that in what u say,even in france.

all the best m8.

mikeey
Click to expand...

You can not believe me all you want. But then you're just not in agreement with reality. That's your business. France did not extradite him, refused to extradite him. There's a reason he fled to France. Don't believe me, read something. Otherwise it's nothing more than ignorant ranting on your part based on your preconceived and uneducated bias.
 
The law was broken and the perpetrator pled guilty (then ran away). The law doesn't take into account someone else forgiving the crime. IT'S STILL A CRIME.
Click to expand...

Laws should exist to protect and seek justice for victims who want it. If the law is going to exist just for the sake of existing, it may as well be an arbitrary law against wearing blue on Tuesdays.

Justice is blind. It demands a righting of wrongs regardless what others "wish."
Click to expand...

Justice should open her eyes a bit then. Justice to the detriment of the wronged party isn't really justice. When the victim and the perpetrator are on the same side, further efforts won't do anyone any good.
 
Ikari said:
There are plenty of things for which we've gone overboard on. I'm the first to say that the current laws are well too stringent. That wasn't true in the 70's, things were ridiculously lenient. There's no excuse, this isn't a 16 year old with a 14 year old. This was some dude in his, what, late 40's and a 13 year old. If you can't see an ethical problem with some 40 some year old perv ****ing a drugged up 13 year old girl who says no then you're messed up in the head.
Click to expand...

If you can't see that I am not talking about some 40 some year old perv ****ing a drugged up 13 year old girl who says no then you're messed up in the head, sista.

That being said, I still see no proof that he "drugged and raped" her. Still sounds like she was drinking and perhaps smoking pot, and then had ill advised sex. Is he perverted for doing that, yeah... 13 is freaking really young even if she is massively developed for her age.
 
Panache said:
See, that sounds like a lot of work and a lot of wasted money that could have been better spent seeking justice for someone who actually wanted justice, or protecting someone who actually needed protecting.
Click to expand...

We waste way more money on well worse stuff. I'm not that disturbed about us keeping open a warrant and if we get information on the criminal, acting on the warrant. Doesn't cost that much, and is proper action in most cases.

Panache said:
I'm not defending him. I've already said I think he's a guilty creep. I just don't think he's worth wasting time or money on.
Click to expand...

If this were a significant percentage of our GDP, I'd probably agree with you. But it's sub percent and thus I don't care. If we want to bitch about money, there's plenty to bitch about. But I want something which makes a difference.

Panache said:
If the random dude got a thread on DP and his victim didn't want him sent to jail, I would still see no reason for tax dollars to support his sorry a$$.
Click to expand...

You're still not listening on this case. There's nothing to dismiss. Had this never made it to court in the first place, maybe I'd be inclined to agree with out. But that's not reality. Reality is that he went to trial and plead guilty. That part of the case is now over, he had to be sentenced (his plea was time served) and then he ran before that. That's where we're at. Now he committed further crime by fleeing.

Panache said:
If it was a random dude running from sentencing whose victim had requested that he be let go, I think you would still find plenty of people who wanted to respect the wishes of the victim.
Click to expand...

Again, not listening. The victim is out of this equation now. Now it's all the State.

Panache said:
I never said that time and money hadn't already been wasted.
Click to expand...

The order of magnitude you're talking about is too small to make a difference. If there was a real impact, then maybe. Still I don't like my sovereignty being made light of.

Panache said:
Please read carefully yourself. I didn't say the court process wasn't done. I didn't say that there was anything left but sentencing, I didn't say he didn't run, and I didn't say he wasn't facing further fleeing charges. Why do you keep addressing points I didn't make?
Click to expand...

Because it's the first time I heard you bring up money. It's previously been that the victim doesn't want charges brought up, so charges shouldn't be brought up. But the victim has very little to do with this anymore.

Panache said:
I said its a waste of time and resources.
Click to expand...

It's not a huge waste of time and resources. It's something that the government has legitimate purpose doing.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If you can't see that I am not talking about some 40 some year old perv ****ing a drugged up 13 year old girl who says no then you're messed up in the head, sista.

That being said, I still see no proof that he "drugged and raped" her. Still sounds like she was drinking and perhaps smoking pot, and then had ill advised sex. Is he perverted for doing that, yeah... 13 is freaking really young even if she is massively developed for her age.
Click to expand...

You can make as many excuses for pedophiles you want. Doesn't change the fact. He gave a minor drugs, he had sex with her, she testified it was against her wishes. 40 some old year guy had sex with drugged up 13 year old. That's the facts. I don't care what you can come up with to excuse this man's pedophilia. He did the crime, he was arrested, he plead guilty, he fled the country. Deal with the facts, not your preconceived notion of pedophilia and rape.
 
Panache said:
She isn't 13 anymore. She is in her 40s and has asked for the case against him to be dismissed.

I agree that the guy was a creep, and I didn't even like his movies all that well, but I don't see the benefit in seeking justice for the woman against her wishes.
Click to expand...

For safety and equality reasons we cannot let a rape victim drop charges. No matter what.

If we allowed a rape victim to drop charges then we would have to let them all drop the charges (equality). This would lead to those that don't care about laws to try and coerce the victims into dropping the charges. (Safety) Rape is too serious of a crime to let this happen. Particularly child rape. Hell it's such a major no no that child rapists have to be put in a different section of prison just to keep them away from everyone else...cause even a murderer would string up a child rapist.
 
It is a serous case Ikari, and i thought that the US would have done everyway
they could to bring him to justice like as they do today, know to ways about that if they wanted,and as for reality what they the US want they will get as i have said before,dont kid yourself what they cant do,they can do anything if the want the USA

mikeey
 
Panache said:
Laws should exist to protect and seek justice for victims who want it. If the law is going to exist just for the sake of existing, it may as well be an arbitrary law against wearing blue on Tuesdays.
Click to expand...

:doh I'm not even sure how to address such nuttery.

Let's try this... say Random Dude A murders Random Dude B. Are you seriously suggesting that, because the victim is dead and cannot "seek justice," the murder should not be considered a crime and the murderer should not be prosecuted? Seriously?

Wow.

Panache said:
Justice should open her eyes a bit then.
Click to expand...

So, now you're suggesting that true justice belongs only to some. That goes against our entire judicial and legislative history. Hell, it goes against everything our country was founded upon and stands for. WTF?

Panache said:
Justice to the detriment of the wronged party isn't really justice.
Click to expand...

How is holding Polanski responsible for his crime "a detriment" to the wronged party? Freaking SOCIETY is wronged when criminals are not held responsible for their actions. What planet do you live on?

Panache said:
When the victim and the perpetrator are on the same side, further efforts won't do anyone any good.
Click to expand...

So we should just toss out any pretense of justice, all together. Brilliant argument.

:roll:
 
mikeey said:
It is a serous case Ikari, and i thought that the US would have done everyway
they could to bring him to justice like as they do today, know to ways about that if they wanted,and as for reality what they the US want they will get as i have said before,dont kid yourself what they cant do,they can do anything if the want the USA

mikeey
Click to expand...

Poor grammar aside. The US can't force France to extradite. If they won't, they won't. You can think the US is all powerful if you like, but the US can't legitimately infringe upon the sovereignty of another State merely due to their extradition laws.

As I said, if you care to educate yourself, go read something about this case and international extradition laws. Otherwise, you have nothing of value to add.
 
Ikari said:
You can make as many excuses for pedophiles you want. Doesn't change the fact. He gave a minor drugs, he had sex with her, she testified it was against her wishes. 40 some old year guy had sex with drugged up 13 year old. That's the facts. I don't care what you can come up with to excuse this man's pedophilia. He did the crime, he was arrested, he plead guilty, he fled the country. Deal with the facts, not your preconceived notion of pedophilia and rape.
Click to expand...

You are not hearing me at all and making ridiculous assumptions about what I am talking about. Your attempt to smear me about making excuses for pedophiles is disgusting and pathetic. It doesn't say much about you as a person, one that I thought better of prior to this crap.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are not hearing me at all and making ridiculous assumptions about what I am talking about. Your attempt to smear me about making excuses for pedophiles is disgusting and pathetic. It doesn't say much about you as a person, one that I thought better of prior to this crap.
Click to expand...

No, it's you who are not hearing. You keep saying she looked this way and that way. But the facts of the case are very clear. People want to avoid the facts of the case to put forth their own interpretation. There are court documents, police reports, etc. on this case. The girl was on drugs, Polanski gave them to her. The girl was underage by a lot. The girl said no. That's it. Furthermore, he plead guilty to a lesser charge and was going to be given time served. He fled instead. That's it. I mean, it doesn't matter if a 16 year old gets caught up with a 14 year old, or any of that. I understand that currently (not as they were in the 70's) laws are overboard and with the lists and automatic sentencing we've taken the system well to far to the other side. But this has nothing to do with this. This is a man who thumbed his nose at our sovereignty and ran from punishment. That's that. There's no excuse for what Polanski did, none at all. It doesn't matter. The man was in his 40's, he knew better. Hell, I ain't even that old yet and I know not to get caught up in that situation. It's a bad choice and illegal. He threw the dice and rolled a 1. Epic fail. We can try to displace blame as much as we want; but in the end of the day Polanski made a choice, the action of that choice was and still is illegal, he was caught and brought to justice, he plead guilty to lesser charges and was to be given time served, he fled the country to France where we knew he wouldn't be extradited.

Time caught up with him, that's all.
 
We waste way more money on well worse stuff. I'm not that disturbed about us keeping open a warrant and if we get information on the criminal, acting on the warrant. Doesn't cost that much, and is proper action in most cases.

If this were a significant percentage of our GDP, I'd probably agree with you. But it's sub percent and thus I don't care. If we want to bitch about money, there's plenty to bitch about. But I want something which makes a difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that this is the worst expenditure known to man, but as I see it, our duty is to the victim. Once the victim switches sides, any further effort or expenditure is counterproductive to the whole aim of justice.

You're still not listening on this case. There's nothing to dismiss. Had this never made it to court in the first place, maybe I'd be inclined to agree with out. But that's not reality. Reality is that he went to trial and plead guilty. That part of the case is now over, he had to be sentenced (his plea was time served) and then he ran before that. That's where we're at. Now he committed further crime by fleeing.
Click to expand...

We are clearly having communication difficulties here. I really feel like I am listening, but I must not be communicating well. The trial is over, he plead guilty, he ran away before sentencing. That part of the case is over. I agree with all that, and I don't recall ever disagreeing. Processing him and sentencing him and carrying out the sentence are all parts of the case that aren't over though, and could be abandoned.

Again, not listening. The victim is out of this equation now. Now it's all the State.
Click to expand...

Still listening. I agree that the victim is out of the equation now. I just don't see what interest the state should have once the victim removed from the equation. Isn't the whole point to seek justice for the victim?

Because it's the first time I heard you bring up money. It's previously been that the victim doesn't want charges brought up, so charges shouldn't be brought up. But the victim has very little to do with this anymore.
Click to expand...

Well, the two are related. If the victim has no interest in seeing him sentenced, why waste money on it? If she wanted to see him pay for what he did, we would have a legitimate interest in helping her get justice. If she doesn't want our help, why should we be involved further? It seems like a waste to me.

All that said, if Polanski got hit by a bus, I wouldn't shed any tears for him. Aside from being a perverted creep, he's a talentless director.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For safety and equality reasons we cannot let a rape victim drop charges. No matter what.

If we allowed a rape victim to drop charges then we would have to let them all drop the charges (equality). This would lead to those that don't care about laws to try and coerce the victims into dropping the charges. (Safety) Rape is too serious of a crime to let this happen. Particularly child rape. Hell it's such a major no no that child rapists have to be put in a different section of prison just to keep them away from everyone else...cause even a murderer would string up a child rapist.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Panache said:
I'm not claiming that this is the worst expenditure known to man, but as I see it, our duty is to the victim. Once the victim switches sides, any further effort or expenditure is counterproductive to the whole aim of justice.
Click to expand...

You're not listening. The victim no longer has say, she's out of the picture. This is now about the sovereignty of our judicial system and their ability to punish people after due process of law. You think that if someone runs, that should be it? Oh well, **** it? There isn't much money being spent, this is actually legitimate purpose of the government (for once), that's it. The victim no longer applies. This is all up to our court system, if they feel they should pursue it then fine. If there was something fundamentally wrong with what the government was doing, I'd probably be more inclined to agree with you. But this is legitimately their power. I don't think we should ignore people thumbing their nose at our sovereignty, nor do I believe we should reward running from our courts.

Panache said:
We are clearly having communication difficulties here. I really feel like I am listening, but I must not be communicating well. The trial is over, he plead guilty, he ran away before sentencing. That part of the case is over. I agree with all that, and I don't recall ever disagreeing. Processing him and sentencing him and carrying out the sentence are all parts of the case that aren't over though, and could be abandoned.
Click to expand...

But you base that abandonment on the basis of what the victim wants. The victim is out of the picture now. Besides, we do this all the time, for instance domestic abuse. This is now all about our court system and our law. The wishes of the victim are irrelevant now.

Panache said:
Still listening. I agree that the victim is out of the equation now. I just don't see what interest the state should have once the victim removed from the equation. Isn't the whole point to seek justice for the victim?
Click to expand...

No, it's theoretical point is to enforce punishment of law breaking; the law of which is based on the rights and liberties of the individual. But laws aren't always of that base and I'll agree with getting rid of bad laws or limiting what the courts can punish for them. But the courts enforce punishment of law breaking. The courts operate on our authority and our sovereignty. Running from it, pretending to be a victim; that's just insulting.

Panache said:
Well, the two are related. If the victim has no interest in seeing him sentenced, why waste money on it?
Click to expand...

Because that is the JOB of the judicial branch.

Panache said:
If she wanted to see him pay for what he did, we would have a legitimate interest in helping her get justice. If she doesn't want our help, why should we be involved further? It seems like a waste to me.
Click to expand...

It's not a waste. First off, not a lot of resources go towards this. Second, it's their job. Third, the victim has no say in the case anymore. Continually bringing her up does nothing for your point. She's not a factor anymore. The courts still have to do their job.
 
:doh I'm not even sure how to address such nuttery.

Let's try this... say Random Dude A murders Random Dude B. Are you seriously suggesting that, because the victim is dead and cannot "seek justice," the murder should not be considered a crime and the murderer should not be prosecuted? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Obviously it is reasonable to assume that any wronged party would want justice until they state otherwise. If by some miraculous means a murder victim rose from the dead to drop charges against their murderer, then yes, I think the charges should be dropped. As I understand it, assault charges and attempted murder charges can be dropped by the victim.

So, now you're suggesting that true justice belongs only to some. That goes against our entire judicial and legislative history. Hell, it goes against everything our country was founded upon and stands for. WTF?
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'true justice' only belongs to those who don't specifically request not to have it. Why should 'true justice' be forced down the victims' throats?

How is holding Polanski responsible for his crime "a detriment" to the wronged party? Freaking SOCIETY is wronged when criminals are not held responsible for their actions. What planet do you live on?
Click to expand...

I live on a planet where the actual victim is the wronged party, and their interests should be taken under heavy consideration.

Suppose my sister had a drug problem and in a drug induced rage she stabbed me with a knife while I was trying to help her. I wouldn't want her to go to jail for trying to kill me, I would want her to get help getting clean so I could have my sister back. Thus I would drop any assault or attempted murder charges.

Sending my little sister to jail for trying to kill me anyway wouldn't be any kind of real justice. It would hurt me at least as much as the actual stabbing.

So we should just toss out any pretense of justice, all together. Brilliant argument.
Click to expand...

Justice for who? The victim whose interests you are ignoring?
 
Ikari said:
No, it's you who are not hearing. You keep saying she looked this way and that way. But the facts of the case are very clear. People want to avoid the facts of the case to put forth their own interpretation. There are court documents, police reports, etc. on this case. The girl was on drugs, Polanski gave them to her. The girl was underage by a lot. The girl said no. That's it. Furthermore, he plead guilty to a lesser charge and was going to be given time served. He fled instead. That's it. I mean, it doesn't matter if a 16 year old gets caught up with a 14 year old, or any of that. I understand that currently (not as they were in the 70's) laws are overboard and with the lists and automatic sentencing we've taken the system well to far to the other side. But this has nothing to do with this. This is a man who thumbed his nose at our sovereignty and ran from punishment. That's that. There's no excuse for what Polanski did, none at all. It doesn't matter. The man was in his 40's, he knew better. Hell, I ain't even that old yet and I know not to get caught up in that situation. It's a bad choice and illegal. He threw the dice and rolled a 1. Epic fail. We can try to displace blame as much as we want; but in the end of the day Polanski made a choice, the action of that choice was and still is illegal, he was caught and brought to justice, he plead guilty to lesser charges and was to be given time served, he fled the country to France where we knew he wouldn't be extradited.

Time caught up with him, that's all.
Click to expand...

This answer demonstrates that you are, in fact, not hearing me at all. I am not attempting to displace blame. I did not say that she looked this way or that (indicating that she was part of the problem or partly to blame). I am asking for more detail. I am asking for clear and concise facts. I am asking for people to also attempt to understand that things are not always as black and white as they might appear in situations like this. Nobody has shown how she was drugged or what the drugs were either. There is a lot of running around with pitchforks and torches and shouting down people attempting to see this clearly though. There is a lot of hatred regarding him, and that is fine.

You still accused me of something as ****ty as making excuses for pedophiles, indicating that I am some piece of crap apologist and that is pretty ****ing stupid and childish.

You keep shouting out that he did this and she did that and have fun...
 
You're not listening. The victim no longer has say, she's out of the picture.
Click to expand...

I understand how it is. I don't understand why.

You think that if someone runs, that should be it? Oh well, **** it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bodhisattva said:
This answer demonstrates that you are, in fact, not hearing me at all. I am not attempting to displace blame. I did not say that she looked this way or that (indicating that she was part of the problem or partly to blame). I am asking for more detail. I am asking for clear and concise facts. I am asking for people to also attempt to understand that things are not always as black and white as they might appear in situations like this. Nobody has shown how she was drugged or what the drugs were either. There is a lot of running around with pitchforks and torches and shouting down people attempting to see this clearly though. There is a lot of hatred regarding him, and that is fine.

You still accused me of something as ****ty as making excuses for pedophiles, indicating that I am some piece of crap apologist and that is pretty ****ing stupid and childish.

You keep shouting out that he did this and she did that and have fun...
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom