Oct 2, 2009

Obama Justice




Defenders of Roman Polanski say his crime occurred a long time ago and we should let it slide. I'm guessing it wasn't their daughter that went to his private photo shoot. All this "move on" stuff sounds like Obama on Bush and Cheney.

Monday: The Loss Of Civility

17 Comments:

Blogger Big Mark 243 said...

Touche ... and you are correct on all counts, as if you needed me to reaffirm that.

3:39 AM  
Blogger Mark Skull said...

Samantha Geimer, the woman he abused, herself is saying to just let him go.

http://www.thecelebritycafe.com/features/34278.html

I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, and I hate to come off as a hypocrite, but I think this is where you have to ask what does the victim want?

7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not defending Polanski, but the "putting yourself in her/her family's shoes" thing doesn't really work: the girl he was convicted of raping has publicly said that she wants the charges dropped.

9:36 AM  
Blogger Matt Bors said...

The law wasn't made so it could only be applied when victims want something done about it. Polanski plead guilty.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The calendar was a nice touch.

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, thanks for defending our young girls, Oprah.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous Kyle said...

Agreed Matt. If this were anyone who was not famous everyone would be calling for his head. The man had sex with a 13-year-old girl, plead guilty, and fled the country. He has been avoiding his punishment for years. Though it often does, the law should not make exceptions simply because a person is famous.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Kyle said...

Addendum to my last post: http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Kyle said...

Addendum to my last post: http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Kovalic said...

I read a comment about the whole "she wants this to be dropped" angle somewhere. Words to the effect hat "The law is not about victims. The law is about justice."

2:03 PM  
Anonymous CS said...

The law being "about justice" really depends on who you are. As folks have already pointed out celebs, entertainers, politicians, and businesspeople routinely get reduced or no sentences just because of their position in society. A white collar criminal can empty the savings of hundreds of people or run a fraudulent business destroying the livelihoods of thousands and only receives a couple years in jail or a fine (a slap on the wrist). But a kid sells some weed to make ends meet gets 10+ years to life (thanks Cali). Hell, the majority of people in prison serving overly harsh terms are non-violent offenders who just happen to be poor, a minority, or both. Where's all the "justice" in that?

2:42 PM  
Blogger Teleprompter said...

Lolita was also a nice touch.

4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Defenders of Roman Polanski say his crime occurred a long time ago and we should let it slide.

Matt Bors said...

The law wasn't made so it could only be applied when victims want something done about it. Polanski plead guilty."

what you should have written::

Samantha Geimer says his crime occurred a long time ago and we should let it slide.

if the "victim" says 'no harm no foul' then we're done. if i don't press charges why should the state do it on my behalf?

AND more importantly (because grammar takes precedence), Polanksi PLED guilty. Plead is present tense (and just for the record PLEADED was not a word when i was kid and it drives me nuts to see that is now acceptable.)


---------
n o o n e

7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matt,

"The legal system isn't set up only to punish people if victims want to." you're right about that.

and you're right it does not make sense 99.9% of the time (especially when we're talking about rape - a crime that has a lot of intimidation and power madness attached to it). i feel this case is part of that 0.1%.


cheers,

---------
n o o n e

11:57 AM  
Anonymous weez said...

If you commit a crime and the state opts to prosecute, the case belongs to the state, not the victim. The victim can express a desire not to have the case prosecuted but it is not their case to prosecute or dismiss.

If a victim does not want a case prosecuted, their only option is to not give evidence, which would nobble the prosecution's case- but Ms Geimer did at the time give evidence against Polanski.

In this particular case, not only did the state prosecute but the accused pled guilty. Polanski fled the US after his guilty plea was entered but (just) before he was sentenced. It's not even a question of prosecuting an old accusation- it's been prosecuted. No problem with fading memories and time-worn evidence.

Anyone objecting to Polanski being sentenced apparently thinks paedophile priests and nazi war criminals should go free as long as they can avoid the legal system for long enough.

9:27 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

You're missing the point. What's the purpose of prosecuting him at this point? Is it to bring peace to his victim? Clearly not. Is it to prevent recidivism? Well, has he raped anyone else in the intervening 30 years? We may be clear on that.

The only thing left is simply to punish him for breaking the law, so that the state and the general public can obtain some vindication. That's not a terribly good reason. In fact, it's even a bit dangerous.

2:09 PM  
Blogger Matt Bors said...

Again, Polanski pled guilty to a crime then fled and became a fugitive. There is no expiration for being a fugitive.

Your logic says that if you evade capture long enough (and don't commit other crimes) you should get off, and a person caught soon after a crime should be punished.

Makes no sense.

2:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home