Thread: Roman Polanski...

Originally Posted by v76

Considering he's 76, that the victim wants the charges dropped and that he already somewhat paid for this during all of his life/career, I think he should be fined and/or maybe stay in jail for a couple of weeks. At this point, it's only judiciary "eagerness".

I think that the rule of law is, perhaps, a bit more important than that. The man raped a 13 year old. I would hope the judiciary would be "eager" to pursue that case...

You forgot a very important word in law... statutory. Statutory rape. Which opens the door to a reduction of the sentences and of the meaning/severity of the act itself. Consent. But I'm away that there are more variables than that involved. I won't work on that case.

I figure after 30 years it would be more damaging to the victim herself, she will have to relive this again, in public, with the usual mediatic harassment that goes with it. The human is very resilient but unfortunately when you sneak into the depth of the selective memory, it can be a very traumatic endeavor. Justice is not always the answer.

open and shut he druged and raped a 13 year old.that he is well known and has a lot of money is no excuse.do we realy want another oj simson? if that was me ( joe sixpack) i would be just getting out of prison instead of liveing the good life for the last 30 years.

Originally Posted by v76

You forgot a very important word in law... statutory. Statutory rape. Which opens the door to a reduction of the sentences and of the meaning/severity of the act itself. Consent. But I'm away that there are more variables than that involved. I won't work on that case.

I figure after 30 years it would be more damaging to the victim herself, she will have to relive this again, in public, with the usual mediatic harassment that goes with it. The human is very resilient but unfortunately when you sneak into the depth of the selective memory, it can be a very traumatic endeavor. Justice is not always the answer.

I guess I don't understand what you mean; do you believe she consented at the time of the act?

Chris L

Oops. Not exactly. Forgive my typos, I'm a bit spacey sometimes.

I'm saying that he only pleaded guilty to one count of "unlawful sexual intercourse" (statutory rape) which by default means that he's guilty of having had sex with a minor under the age of consent, which is between 16-18 years old in the US (18 in California, state in which I believe the acts occured) - not rape.

I'm not saying that she consented or not to anything.

He has been charged with five other felonies for which he hasn't been convicted so there are no conclusions to have in that regard.

I think it's an open and shut case, if it weren't someone famous. I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be two separate sets of rules for the famous (or for congress for that matter). He fled so he wouldn't have to serve out a sentence that he should have already served, now he should face the original sentencing and an additional charge for the fleeing portion. I think if it were any one of us, that is exactly what would happen.

He was convicted for the crime. He should do the time.

As a father of 2 daughters, I think he should rot in jail, after being castrated with a rusty spoon. Twice. And treated with alum afterwards.

Looking at it more objectively: Yes, he should do his time. He is a sentenced man who fled the country before he got locked up.

They can't really sweep it under the rug because statute of limitations does not apply. He still has to do time no matter what anyone thinks. The only legally significant way for this to end without him doing time is to issue a pardon. No politician would be willing to sign it, because it would be political suicide for various reasons.

The only thing they could have done was turning a blind eye to him being stupid and going to a country that extradites to the US. Even repealing the arrest warrant would have been a sensitive matter (political suicide). Apparently, it was known more than a week in advance that he would be in an extraditing country at a given time, which gave the US prosecutors enough time to prepare. Once he crossed the border and the issue of the arrest warrant came up, the wheels started turning. His own damn fault.

And while I understand the plight of the victim, we can't discard sentences just because the victim asks for it. It wouldn't take much imagination for convicted criminals to put the pressure on their victims to make them forgive them in public and asking to let the criminal run free.

Originally Posted by v76

I'm saying that he only pleaded guilty to one count of "unlawful sexual intercourse" (statutory rape) which by default means that he's guilty of having had sex with a minor under the age of consent, which is between 16-18 years old in the US (18 in California, state in which I believe the acts occured) - not rape.

You are incorrect. He is guilty of rape. "Consent" is irrelivant becasue she was under the age at which was legally able to give consent. He had sex with a 13 year old girl, and therefore raped her. It is that cut and dried.

As far as his sentence, he should rot in jail, after he is forced to castrate himself with a rusted spoon.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

As far as his sentence, he should rot in jail, after he is forced to castrate himself with a rusted spoon.

From discussions with ex-prisoners, that part wouldn't be necessary as it would be taken care of automagically if he isn't held in isolation 24/7.