• 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
You would be wrong again which is typical for you. Your idiotic assertions about me are what are absurd. But then, you knew that, you just want to run from your foolish comments and claims; I cannot say that I blame you.

Carry on. :doh
Then stop posting nonsense like this and start explaining why my position is absurd.
 
Then stop posting nonsense like this and start explaining why my position is absurd.

You have got to be kidding me; you want me to explain what is so farcical about this statement:

QUOTE=EgoffTib; All I said was that perpetuating the more that "more convictions = safer streets" sends the message that you could care less about a fair trial, you are simply concerned with convicting as many people as possible.

The notion that my arguments suggest that I could care less about a fair trial or that I just want to convict as many people as possible are idiotic and hyperbolic to say the least.

But then, since when have you ever been able to see your own hyperbolic nonsense for what it is.

A better question would be how do you defend such idiotic conclusions and come to such idiotic conclusions based on my arguments on this thread? But please do not answer that, there truly is no defense for such hyperbolic BS.

You are truly the KING of nonsense when you engage in such hyperbolic nonsense, how ironic you claim it is others. Carry on. :doh
 
You have got to be kidding me; you want me to explain what is so farcical about this statement:

QUOTE=EgoffTib; All I said was that perpetuating the more that "more convictions = safer streets" sends the message that you could care less about a fair trial, you are simply concerned with convicting as many people as possible.

The notion that my arguments suggest that I could care less about a fair trial or that I just want to convict as many people as possible are idiotic and hyperbolic to say the least.

But then, since when have you ever been able to see your own hyperbolic nonsense for what it is.

A better question would be how do you defend such idiotic conclusions and come to such idiotic conclusions based on my arguments on this thread? But please do not answer that, there truly is no defense for such hyperbolic BS.

You are truly the KING of nonsense when you engage in such hyperbolic nonsense, how ironic you claim it is others. Carry on. :doh

Again, you completely misunderstand my post. I should be used to this by now, yet it boggles the mind that you fail to grasp posts in context. The "you" in that post was referring to the DA, not to you personally. But instead of asking for clarification, you fly off the handle with your condescending and amusing posts.

I guess I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink, eh? :shrug:
 
you say this knowing that the woman involved has said she wants it over that it is ruining her life. interesting. i guess no one really does care about this woman. it is a shame.

Irrelevant.

Polanski was convicted of a crime, and skipped bail.

Period.

Now he's caught.

ALL criminals should serve their time....in prison.
 
Perhaps you might want to get the facts straight before you render an opinion on this matter:

First of all, Polanski entered into a plea agreement with the District Attorney which the judge reneged on. It is extremely rare for a judge to interpose themselves in matters such as this. The Judge does not have the same breadth of information regarding the case that the defense and the prosecutor have. Had the judge not reneged, Polanski would have received a "time served" offer. The judge wanted him to serve multiple years in prison.

Yes they do. They have full access to everything, and it's always up to the judge's discretion to reject a plea agreement.

Welcome to the law.

The punishment agreed to in the plea was completely inadequate for the nature of the crime. The only mistake the judge made was allowing Polanski to remain on bail pending sentencing.

Do you believe that "time served" was sufficient punishment for confessed baby-raper?
 
This I can agree with. If he had worked out a deal with the district attorney, it was very unprofessional for the judge to renege. He should be brought to justice with whatever terms to which he originally agreed.

No, it was very unprofessional for the DA to make such a deal.

It was very professional for the judge to ensure the punishment is sufficient to the crime, thereby correcting the error of the DA....whose job it is to get the criminals convicted and serving the maximum time possible for their crime.
 
What's wrong with the diseased ****s that voted anything other than "yes"?

I really wonder this also. The guy has admitted to it. If that wasn't enough his DNA was found on the girls panties. The woman was 13 at the time. And yet just because some people think that the judge should have accepted the deal they think that this pervert should get off on the charge. It's down right disgusting.

This SOB should be strung up and made a eunuch.
 
Again, you completely misunderstand my post. I should be used to this by now, yet it boggles the mind that you fail to grasp posts in context. The "you" in that post was referring to the DA, not to you personally. But instead of asking for clarification, you fly off the handle with your condescending and amusing posts.

I guess I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink, eh? :shrug:

Perhaps if you had better skills in the English language you could make yourself better understood? I am hardly surprised that you would think it is everyone BUT you.

Usually when someone responds to someone and types “you”, it is natural and logical to assume they meant “you.”

:2wave:
 
Perhaps if you had better skills in the English language you could make yourself better understood? I am hardly surprised that you would think it is everyone BUT you.

Usually when someone responds to someone and types “you”, it is natural and logical to assume they meant “you.”

:2wave:

This is generally true. Unless they know a person or their posting habits. Then it's easy to tell the difference. But since you can't possibly know everyone or their posting habits I've gotten into the habit of making a disclaimer...much like what I am going to do now...

The "you" in my post is meant to be interpreted generally and is not directed at you Truth Detector, or anyone else in particular. ;)
 
If he's guilty, then why shouldn't he be sentenced for the crime? Just because he's rich or a famous director?
 
My dad is pretty sure that Polanski was that one to order a hit on his wife (Tate) by the Manson family.

Maybe so he could go on ****ing little girls.

Yeah because Charles Manson would have never killed a pregnant woman otherwise.....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2oZWpqtNi4"]YouTube - Charles Manson's Epic Answer[/ame]
 
Do you believe that "time served" was sufficient punishment for confessed baby-raper?
He had sex with a teenage girl, i.e. a young woman biologically speaking. To call him a baby-raper is ludicrous.
 
Back
Top Bottom