| YourValentine 12.07.2010 08:13 |
Director Roman Polanski is a free man after the Swiss government rejected a request of the USA to extradite him. link |
| john bodega 12.07.2010 09:31 |
(prepares for idiotic rape-apologist comments). Polanksi's nothing but a turd. His movies stink, and the way that Hollywood bent over backwards in it's inexcusable defense of his actions is rather laughable. BUT the thing that bothered me the most is that this, like any trial, is none of my/our business. Two things went wrong here.: the whole affair got a lot of press, and he got away with it in the end. Both totally inexcusable. |
| Saint Jiub 12.07.2010 20:14 |
Drugged, sodomized, and repeatedly asked Polanski to stop ... Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant etc ... The USA legal system is no better than the Switzerland, France or Poland |
| tcc 13.07.2010 03:28 |
I will do something about it - I will not see his new movie when it gets released. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 13.07.2010 04:35 |
has anyone actually ever seen a Polanski movie? |
| tcc 13.07.2010 04:55 |
I saw: Rosemary's Baby (1968 horror film starring Mia Farrow), Chinatown (1974 film starring Jack Nicholson) and The Pianist (2002 film starring Adrian Brody). They are all very good films. |
| YourValentine 13.07.2010 06:19 |
I think Polanski is a great director but this should not play a role in the extradition case. The rape of a 13 old girl should not go unpunished ever. The USA had a chance to build a case against Polanski in 1977 but they blew it and now they were too superior to provide the requested information to Switzerland. The Swiss government had no other chance than to reject the extradition request as a result. If the US justice system had done their job correctly the whole case would have been forgotten a long time ago. Why a plea bargain was okay 33 years ago but today they need another trial is a mystery. The Swiss decision was a big surprise and there must have been good reasons for the government to reject the US request. Funny how the US justice dept blames Switzerland now for "letting get Polanski away" when their own justice was unable to get a verdict when the case was new and Polanski in US custody 33 years ago. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2010 10:18 |
I think that Polanski's films (and some of them are very good indeed) should have nothing to do with the issue at all. This case is clear on all levels A) The direct trigger: the US refused to allow the Swiss to review relevant parts of the trial the US cited as the basis for extradition. On that ground alone the Swiss should logically refuse further coöperation, which is exactly what they did - further coöperation would create a legal precedent for later extradition to, for instance, Iran or Zimbabwe. B) There were serious irregularities with the original trial - not in the least a judge who spoke to the media and pronounced Polanski guilty literally before the prosecution had started its case. C) A trial back when this happened, if considerably less irregular than the one the US had, would have been no more than just. However, as the victim does not want this renewed legal drag, I think this farcical proceeding is an unsavoury, cold-blooded career move by the prosecution that plays on revenge whereas consideration for the victim should come first were it to be justice. |
| Holly2003 26.07.2010 04:39 |
A critic once called Polanski "The five-foot Pole you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole." |
| GratefulFan 27.07.2010 01:14 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: C) A trial back when this happened, if considerably less irregular than the one the US had, would have been no more than just. However, as the victim does not want this renewed legal drag, I think this farcical proceeding is an unsavoury, cold-blooded career move by the prosecution that plays on revenge whereas consideration for the victim should come first were it to be justice. ===================================================== The victim has stated that she long ago moved on and wants no further focus on the case as each new round brings unwanted media attention on her and her family. I can completely understand and respect that, and hope she finds her permanent peace soon. However, the justice system can't be about 'consideration for the victim' unfortunately. It's never 'The Victim vs. Roman Polanski', it's 'The People vs. Roman Polanski'. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing is in significant part about the denunciation of anti-social acts to society and about general deterrance. I've often thought that there should be a parallel process in the justice system that is is purely about supporting the victims and their families because criminal trials so often leave victims strung out, confused and feeling revictimized. The obligation of the state to proceed where warranted and possible and the right of the accused to have a fair trial and challenge his or her accusers supercedes the victim's rights in just about every way. In the end, the prosecution was right to try and to send the message that 'you can run but you can't hide'. Most now know Polanski is an unrepentant statutory rapist and drugger of children who has been boxed into a little corner of a big beautiful world for his crimes. That may have to do in the end. He probably could have done 30 days 30+ years ago and have been done with it. What a schmuck. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.07.2010 06:55 |
You've got an incorrect and barbaric view of law, if you ask me. Your view that the enforcement of laws comes before the interest of the victim is in direct negation of Civil law, the foundation of most modern western law. It opposes the very object of western law, which is, for better or for worse, the protection of rights, person and property of the individual. |
| Holly2003 30.07.2010 08:08 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: You've got an incorrect and barbaric view of law, if you ask me. Your view that the enforcement of laws comes before the interest of the victim is in direct negation of Civil law, the foundation of most modern western law. It opposes the very object of western law, which is, for better or for worse, the protection of rights, person and property of the individual. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are two fundamental things to consider in western law: punishment and deterrent. Letting Polanksi get away with this fulfills neither of those functions. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.07.2010 10:05 |
Punishment and deterrent are medieval concepts. They have been outdated since Enlightenment! Protection of individual and collective rights, not caveman-style revenge. |
| Holly2003 30.07.2010 10:29 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Punishment and deterrent are medieval concepts. They have been outdated since Enlightenment! Protection of individual and collective rights, not caveman-style revenge. ................................................................................................................................................................................... Very noble sounding. What does it mean exactly? |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.07.2010 10:43 |
It means, plain and simple, that the interests of the victim take precedence over prosecution to the full extent of the law. |
| The Real Wizard 30.07.2010 10:56 |
So you're suggesting that if the victim says he shouldn't be prosecuted, the law should follow their lead? That almost sounds like stockholm syndrome. |
| GratefulFan 30.07.2010 13:47 |
To your original complaint: I was a bit stark in my expression in order to make the point, but the thrust of it remains. The best investigators and prosecutors do of course care deeply about the victims. The justice system will try to accommodate the victim and his or her needs or preferences where possible, but not to the point of failing to uphold the law, which is their sworn duty. Bargains may be struck to reduce charges to entice the accused to make a deal that will avoid a painful trial for the victim, but we do not simply let people off in deference to a victim. In fact, in most jurisdictions for most crimes reluctant victims can be and are compelled to testify through subpeona. If they proceed to trial, victims must submit themsleves where called to the questioning and tactics of the representatives of those that have harmed them. Justice is not wholly or even mostly a transaction between the victim and the offender, it's between the laws of society and the offender. I honestly think this is so self evident that I'm not even sure what the argument is. |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.08.2010 14:51 |
Sir GH wrote: So you're suggesting that if the victim says he shouldn't be prosecuted, the law should follow their lead? That almost sounds like stockholm syndrome. === That sounds really paranoid. |
| The Real Wizard 05.08.2010 00:26 |
Don't get your drift. Can you elaborate? |
| Micrówave 05.08.2010 13:13 |
Zebonka wrote: and the way that Hollywood bent over backwardsI didn't know she had a nickname. Regardless, he probably shouldn't have done that. |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.08.2010 12:47 |
Sir GH wrote: Don't get your drift. Can you elaborate? === If a victim does not want prosecution, this does not automatically mean that they are relating to the perpetrator. The strain, humiliation and sheer humdrum of a long-winded trial might understandably be considered worse than having the guilty party go unpunished - which, in this case, the guilty party did not. Polanski spent a significant time in practical detention, and his "good name" was further degraded. If the victim considers this sufficient punishment, especially considering the *age* of the crime in question (if this had really been about justice and not about the inflated egos of publicity-horny lawyers, they would have requested Polanski's extradition ages before, not to mention that they would have complied with *international law*, meaning they would have given the Swiss authorities full access to the documentation on the original trial, which they refused), I can fully understand that. So, to summarize, I can think of circumstances where a trial is a worse option than no trial from the perspective of the victim, and, in contrast to some individuals here who would fit in splendidly in the neolithicum, I consider the interests of the victim to outweigh any barbaric notions of revenge. |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.08.2010 12:48 |
Micrówave wrote: Zebonka wrote: and the way that Hollywood bent over backwards === I didn't know she had a nickname. Regardless, he probably shouldn't have done that. === If even for a moment you thought this funny, you're an even worse mentally challenged nutcase than I thought. |
| GratefulFan 06.08.2010 13:32 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Sir GH wrote: Don't get your drift. Can you elaborate? === If a victim does not want prosecution, this does not automatically mean that they are relating to the perpetrator. The strain, humiliation and sheer humdrum of a long-winded trial might understandably be considered worse than having the guilty party go unpunished - which, in this case, the guilty party did not. Polanski spent a significant time in practical detention, and his "good name" was further degraded. If the victim considers this sufficient punishment, especially considering the *age* of the crime in question (if this had really been about justice and not about the inflated egos of publicity-horny lawyers, they would have requested Polanski's extradition ages before, not to mention that they would have complied with *international law*, meaning they would have given the Swiss authorities full access to the documentation on the original trial, which they refused), I can fully understand that. So, to summarize, I can think of circumstances where a trial is a worse option than no trial from the perspective of the victim, and, in contrast to some individuals here who would fit in splendidly in the neolithicum, I consider the interests of the victim to outweigh any barbaric notions of revenge. ===================== It's doesn't matter what you think TQ, because this isn't a matter of opinion. You can throw around the neolithicum all day long and it's not going to change the fact that western law is stuctured and codifed to fairly and consistently enforce standards of conduct in order to protect society, and that it accomplishes this through punishment and deterrence. For the record, there has been a US arrest warrent since 1977 and an international arrest warrant since the middle of this decade. The request for extradition came the moment he travelled to a country from which he could be extradited, indicating the American authorites had been montoring this closely for some time. Also for the record, the crime of fleeing justice is ongoing, not old. |
| Micrówave 06.08.2010 19:06 |
No, TQ, it was funny. What's even funnier is that people give a rat's shit about this issue anymore. Yes, let's dig up all the 30-50 year old cases we can and send some elderly people to jail. If this was such as open and shut case, then it would have been prosecuted properly. The judge would have been replaced and a new trial set. All parties have moved on. Prosecuting this case any further would do no good. Who would benefit? The Victim? No, she's moved on by now I'm sure. The Defendant? No, he's moved on by now I'm sure. Remember his wife? I think he's had his share of tragedies to deal with in his life. We're happy to put Manson on TV every couple of years for an interview. Think he enjoys those? Rape Victims? No, a successful 40 year trial is not going to make any victim feel any better about coming forward. The Press? Most definitely. Ratings would increase, advertising revenue would be off the chart. Lawyers? Absolutely. Start signing the book deals now. Look at how tan and rich Robert Shapiro looks lately. Rapists? Yes, hey there's still quite a chance they won't prosecute em for 40 years, may be dead by then!!! Lame ass people like Thomas Quinn? Quite a bit. Makes 'em feel good seeing other people's problems aired out in public, thus hiding their own personal misgivings. Plus, the trial might come on right after Springer or Oprah... no need to get up and change the channel. |
| Holly2003 06.08.2010 20:05 |
If he gets away with it, the message it sends is ... he got away with it. All you have to do after you've drugged and brutally raped a 13 year old girl is leave the country and evade prosecution for a long time and if you can do that, people will get bored and start saying things like "what's the point" and "he's an old man". So (1) he isn't punished for his crime and (2) there is no detererent to those thinking of commiting similar crimes because they know they can get away with it (especially if they're rich and can start a new life in a new country). |
| The Real Wizard 07.08.2010 10:43 |
GratefulFan wrote: "You can throw around the neolithicum all day long and it's not going to change the fact that western law is stuctured and codifed to fairly and consistently enforce standards of conduct in order to protect society, and that it accomplishes this through punishment and deterrence." And rehabilitation. In many cases this is a very important cornerstone of the justice system. By throwing people in jail we often create more anger and breed more (and worse) criminals, and in these cases there are alternatives that can work for everybody. |
| GratefulFan 09.08.2010 23:02 |
Sir GH wrote: And rehabilitation. In many cases this is a very important cornerstone of the justice system. By throwing people in jail we often create more anger and breed more (and worse) criminals, and in these cases there are alternatives that can work for everybody. ================================== Yes, absolutely. I had actually started to add rehabilitation here and there on this thread but I kept erasing it because 1) it wasn't completely germane to the points; and 2) knowing I should be typing less *and* being willing to do so is such a rare event for me here on Queenzone I figured I had better go with it. :) Rehabilitation is a particular focus in the Canadian system and I'm proud of that. It was depressing watching our MPs ram through those changes to the pardon system in June on the back of some of the most blatant political manipulation and opportunism I've ever seen. As if Karla Homolka would ever have applied for a pardon; she's many things but she's not stupid. And if by some chance she had deigned to try and use the system as it was meant to be used, nobody would have have the courage to grant her a pardon in 10 lifetimes even if it was determined she deserved one. The pardon system is about furthering rehabilitation, not the arbitrary application of additional punishment so we can all be down with being 'tough on crime'. I'm so frigging up to the eyballs with this government. |
| The Real Wizard 09.08.2010 23:59 |
GratefulFan wrote: "It was depressing watching our MPs ram through those changes to the pardon system in June on the back of some of the most blatant political manipulation and opportunism I've ever seen." And 1/3 of the country still ate it up, as always. There are a lot of stupid and complacent people in our country, and the government (in other words, Harper) knows it, and takes full advantage. "The pardon system is about furthering rehabilitation, not the arbitrary application of additional punishment so we can all be down with being 'tough on crime'." Not in Stephen Harper's Canada it isn't. Remember, he's the one who said we wouldn't even recognize the country after he'd be done with it. "I'm so frigging up to the eyballs with this government." Most of us are. But until there is an opposition with balls (i.e. an opposition that is organized enough that they might win an election), Uncle Steve's minority government will keep governing this country as if he had a majority. I can only wonder what the news will say tomorrow. It seems every time he opens his mouth, either partisan hackery or downright idiocy comes out of it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.08.2010 07:46 |
Have you heard what's happening in the Netherlands? The conservative VVD and christian-democratic CDA are forming a minority government that will rely on Wilders' support to get bills through the house, going so far as to allow him to be a full partner not only in negotiations between the CDA/VVD government and him but also in negotiations between CDA and VVD themselves! The man who presided over the first series of negotiations even said outright that we would have to reconsider the word "majority" in "majority rule" when explaining the constitutional justice of a government when he was asked how he defended the fact that the VVD, CDA and Wilders only have a 1-seat majority in the house, and a small minority in the senate (Wilders is not represented there because he didn't run in the Provincial Estates elections that decide the senate race too). |