There are logical reasons for criminals to not be punished. It's incorrect to say that logic is defied every time a legal system drops a charge, reduces a charge, or reduces a sentence. There are logical reasons on both sides of the issue and people have to reason out the answer. Logic doesn't dictate anything.

Kashmir

New Zealand178 Posts

July 14 2010 00:07 GMT

#202

Fair enough but why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he gets a lengthy prison sentance for raping a little girl then? Ninety days seems way too lenient. Was that the usual sentance for child rape at the time? If so then I can see why he fled (even if I don't agree with it).

RoyW

Ireland270 Posts

July 14 2010 00:10 GMT

#203

"Victim Samantha Geimer, now 45-years-old, has also called for the case to be dismissed"

NonY

8751 Posts

July 14 2010 00:11 GMT

#204

On July 14 2010 09:07 Kashmir wrote:
Fair enough but why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he gets a lengthy prison sentance for raping a little girl then? Ninety days seems way too lenient. Was that the usual sentance for child at the time? If so then I see why he would have fled.

I don't really care about this particular case much. If someone else wants to take this up, go for it. I was just pointing out that you can't feel confident in the side of the issue you've taken just because you have a logical argument on your side. In most legal issues, there are logical arguments on both sides.

I admit I don't immediately perceive and understand why Polanski has so much support but I also admit I don't care enough to go learn why.

Pablols

Chile519 Posts

July 14 2010 00:13 GMT

#205

imagine if someone raped your daughter, then 30 years later he gets away with it, fk that, he should get twice the time for avoiding the charges for so long

dafunk

France521 Posts

July 14 2010 00:18 GMT

#206

On July 14 2010 09:10 RoyW wrote:
"Victim Samantha Geimer, now 45-years-old, has also called for the case to be dismissed"

bonifaceviii

Canada2890 Posts

July 14 2010 00:24 GMT

#207

In May, Polanski broke months of silence to plead his case in a written statement.

"It is true: 33 years ago I pleaded guilty, and I served time at the prison for common law crimes at Chino, not in a VIP prison. That period was to have covered the totality of my sentence. By the time I left prison, the judge had changed his mind and claimed that the time served at Chino did not fulfil the entire sentence, and it is this reversal that justified my leaving the United States," he wrote.

That would be true if he had been given a sentence at that time, which he had not.

On July 14 2010 09:18 dafunk wrote:

Show nested quote +

I am sympathetic to Mrs. Geimer's opinion. I do not think, however, that her opinion trumps the law.

brian

United States9639 Posts

July 14 2010 00:26 GMT

#208

edit::meh i just stir up shit

but ---v extradition is serious shit. that is a silly statement.

PanN

United States2828 Posts

July 14 2010 00:30 GMT

#209

All Sweden's ruling does is tell everyone it's ok to commit crime, hide for an extended period of time, then move to their country.

Lucktar

United States526 Posts

July 14 2010 00:50 GMT

#210

On July 14 2010 09:30 PanN wrote:
All Sweden's ruling does is tell everyone it's ok to commit crime, hide for an extended period of time, then move to their country.

Switzerland, dude. Switzerland.

Grond

599 Posts

July 14 2010 07:55 GMT

#211

On September 28 2009 22:15 Not_A_Notion wrote:

Show nested quote +

Excellent point.

If he felt that the judge illegally changed the plea bargain then he should have gone about trying to get it quashed without fleeing the state,

Hence
"In May, a Californian judge dismissed Polanski's bid because he failed to appear in court."
What he tried to do was get have his cake and eat it. If his appeal succeeded he could return to the US whenever he wanted, if it failed then he wouldn't do jail time since he wouldn't be in the country, that's a pretty asymmetric outcome. No judge would agree to hear a case in that situation.

Get it quashed, how do you propose he should have done that? Polanski served his sentence and the judge wanted to change the sentence after the fact. If the new judge hadn't already made up his mind he wouldn't have insisted on Polanski turning himself in to hear the case. The US refused to turn over the details of the case to Swiss authorities to prove he was actually a fugitive.

zatic

Zurich15364 Posts

July 14 2010 08:14 GMT

#212

On September 29 2009 16:43 zatic wrote:
When this thread is finished I would love to make a direct comparison of the general consensus with this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=93135

I predict that torturing and killing 29000 people will be generally accepted over raping one girl.

I was right!