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
posted by Matt Bors at
3:00 AM
17 Comments:
Touche ... and you are correct on all counts, as if you needed me to reaffirm that.
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?
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.
The law wasn't made so it could only be applied when victims want something done about it. Polanski plead guilty.
The calendar was a nice touch.
Well, thanks for defending our young girls, Oprah.
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.
Addendum to my last post: http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape
Addendum to my last post: http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape
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."
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?
Lolita was also a nice touch.
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home