|
On September 29 2009 04:39 Slow Motion wrote:An interesting article here about how Europeans and Americans see the Polanski issue differently. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.htmlI'm not sure I buy the author's generalizations about Europeans believing rich and famous people deserve to be treated differently. Anyone from Europe have their own thoughts?
interesting article about how to create arguments out of nothingness, then apply them to generalize an entire mass. great read.
and related to this, punishment and rehabilitation should be one, not 2 opposing sides, since punishment (for some peeps) is a tool of rehabilitation.
|
On September 29 2009 04:38 travis wrote:
"he went down and he started to perform cuddliness"
- from the testimony
"cuddliness"
anyways the testimony certainly sounds terrible. but it's just one side
totally calling cunnilingus cuddliness now
I can't possibly see how there's "just one side." especially considering he pleaded GUILTY to drugging, raping and sodomizing this 13 year old girl.
|
sodomizing a 13 year old girl? what the fuck :C
put that fucker in jail until he croaks it
|
Haha.. I bet that arrest blind-sided him.
What I find pretty obscure is how he managed to obtain property in Switzerland without being arrested previously. He's been a fugitive for thirty years, why would they arrest him now, out of the blue, when clearly they must have had at least one opportunity in the past (when he bought that property)?
|
On September 29 2009 11:11 Meta wrote:
Haha.. I bet that arrest blind-sided him.
What I find pretty obscure is how he managed to obtain property in Switzerland without being arrested previously. He's been a fugitive for thirty years, why would they arrest him now, out of the blue, when clearly they must have had at least one opportunity in the past (when he bought that property)?
apparently in the past the swiss have tried to arrest him, however he's been able to avoid them by not showing up if he knew that they'd be there or something :/ basically in the past he's only decided to go to Switzerland if it was unannounced and he knew that there would be no one expecting him. if his visit were announced publically then he knew that law officials would be waiting at the airport for him.
oh, and im not sure if obtaining property would necessarily put him in the eye of the law. I don't think the police look over every single acquisition of property in search for fugitives...
|
Nice to see him arrested, looking forward to justice being (finally) carried out. Artistic skill and fame is not a ticket out of trouble: everyone is, or should be, equal before the law.
|
On September 29 2009 05:57 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote + "The French view Polanski as an artist and celebrity and feel he deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people, which just isn't an option in the U.S.," says Ted Stanger, an author and longtime resident of France who has written extensively on the differing public views and attitudes across the Atlantic. That's wrong. People want him to be released because of the statute of limitations. Nobody here want a different treatment for famous people lol ( Well maybe Mitterrand, some so-called artists and our midget president but not the average citizen ).
Statute of limitations does not apply. Running away from the law for a long enough period does not allow you to make it "not count anymore" if you happen to not be caught in awhile. The police / courts have not at all impeded your right to a speedy trial, it was your own choice, not theirs.
Nobody is actually arguing statute of limitations in a real sense. They are just saying that its been so long, can't he it be forgotten? They really have no logical argument, and are just coming up with odd excuses which make no sense in order to get him free. It's like sticking up for your friend even though you know it's wrong, or booing the referee when your team gets called a penalty even though your player did commit it.
|
As for the arguments about:
1) The victim no longer wanting him to be arrested / brought to court again:
Irrelevant. He was convicted of a crime, and no doubt committed it (read the testimony), and he should be sentenced. It's no longer about the victim, it's about justice. A trial is not only for the victim but for the upholding of law for the protection of everyone. He did the crime and was convicted of it. The victim at the time wanted it brought to trial and did so. Now that she doesn't want to deal with it or has forgiven him is irrelevant. A trial is not a private mediation between aggressor and victim but a rule that society has put forward. It should be enforced, whatever the victim now decides. Or more, simply, if a victim decides to forgive a jailed convict, it shouldn't mean the convict gets to go free. That Polanski has dodged being in prison doesn't change it: he was convicted, and ran from sentencing.
2) The trial was unfair, there was judicial misconduct.
That can be brought up and argued in his upcoming appearance in the American court system. If there was gross misconduct, let him argue it and show it: none of the original players of there and so any conspiracy is dead. And if it isn't, his fame and the media coverage of his new court experience will blow anything out of the water.
|
On September 29 2009 11:45 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2009 05:57 Boblion wrote:On September 29 2009 04:39 Slow Motion wrote:An interesting article here about how Europeans and Americans see the Polanski issue differently. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.htmlI'm not sure I buy the author's generalizations about Europeans believing rich and famous people deserve to be treated differently. Anyone from Europe have their own thoughts? "The French view Polanski as an artist and celebrity and feel he deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people, which just isn't an option in the U.S.," says Ted Stanger, an author and longtime resident of France who has written extensively on the differing public views and attitudes across the Atlantic. That's wrong. People want him to be released because of the statute of limitations. Nobody here want a different treatment for famous people lol ( Well maybe Mitterrand, some so-called artists and our midget president but not the average citizen ). Statute of limitations does not apply. Running away from the law for a long enough period does not allow you to make it "not count anymore" if you happen to not be caught in awhile. The police / courts have not at all impeded your right to a speedy trial, it was your own choice, not theirs. Nobody is actually arguing statute of limitations in a real sense. They are just saying that its been so long, can't he it be forgotten? They really have no logical argument, and are just coming up with odd excuses which make no sense in order to get him free. It's like sticking up for your friend even though you know it's wrong, or booing the referee when your team gets called a penalty even though your player did commit it.
nice to see someone who shares the same views as me. for a bit i thought the whole world had gone mad. especially that french guy. how blind can he be?
|
On September 29 2009 07:07 evanthebouncy! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things. would you?
It's a bit I heard from some comedian a long time ago, I didn't actually mean that. 
|
On September 29 2009 11:15 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2009 11:11 Meta wrote:
Haha.. I bet that arrest blind-sided him.
What I find pretty obscure is how he managed to obtain property in Switzerland without being arrested previously. He's been a fugitive for thirty years, why would they arrest him now, out of the blue, when clearly they must have had at least one opportunity in the past (when he bought that property)? apparently in the past the swiss have tried to arrest him, however he's been able to avoid them by not showing up if he knew that they'd be there or something :/ basically in the past he's only decided to go to Switzerland if it was unannounced and he knew that there would be no one expecting him. if his visit were announced publically then he knew that law officials would be waiting at the airport for him. oh, and im not sure if obtaining property would necessarily put him in the eye of the law. I don't think the police look over every single acquisition of property in search for fugitives...
he wasnt arrested in the past largely because the international arrest warrant was not issued until 2005.
beyond that, actual requests from LA were not as specific as this one afaik.
|
|
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On September 28 2009 21:12 pubbanana wrote:
He was a Holocaust survivor, his wife was murdered by Charles Manson, he had sex with a thirteen year old girl, and he is an award-winning film director. I would be happy to be able to say just one of those things.
hahahaha this is great
i find it hard to feel strongly either way; whatever happens will probably sound fair to me
|
I don't believe in statutory rape laws in the first place. He's technically an ephebophile not a pedophile. He should run free as a bird as far as I'm concerned, he didn't do anything wrong.
|
On September 29 2009 11:06 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2009 04:38 travis wrote:
"he went down and he started to perform cuddliness"
- from the testimony
"cuddliness"
anyways the testimony certainly sounds terrible. but it's just one side totally calling cunnilingus cuddliness now I can't possibly see how there's "just one side." especially considering he pleaded GUILTY to drugging, raping and sodomizing this 13 year old girl.
Oh he drugged her never mind, he should go to prison.
|
On September 29 2009 14:52 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I don't believe in statutory rape laws in the first place. He's technically an ephebophile not a pedophile. He should run free as a bird as far as I'm concerned, he didn't do anything wrong.
did you even read the statement the victim gave? seemed alot like rape to me.
|
He paid her an undisclosed amount, that's the only reason she's OK with it now. Either that or she fears for her safety by pedo supporters like some of you.
|
On September 29 2009 14:56 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2009 14:52 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I don't believe in statutory rape laws in the first place. He's technically an ephebophile not a pedophile. He should run free as a bird as far as I'm concerned, he didn't do anything wrong. did you even read the statement the victim gave? seemed alot like rape to me.
Yeah, I didn't realize there were drugs involved.
If she consented then it would be a non-issue to me.
|
I hope he faces a FAIR lawsuit now. That was not the case in 1978 ... read "Wanted and Desired" and stop your sciolism.
|
"Man drugs and rapes 13 year old". I don't see how any of you can say that this guy should not serve time for this. That is unless you think rape and pedophilia aren't particularly severe crimes. Seems like an open and shut case to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
