|
On September 29 2009 16:20 Slithe wrote:
"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.
not to the ignorant masses, who see him as a heroic and revered film maker.
|
On September 29 2009 16:28 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2009 16:20 Slithe wrote:
"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. not to the ignorant masses, who see him as a heroic and revered film maker.
a post like this isn't really helping your case
|
Zurich15353 Posts
|
On September 29 2009 16:32 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2009 16:28 lazz wrote:On September 29 2009 16:20 Slithe wrote:
"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. not to the ignorant masses, who see him as a heroic and revered film maker. a post like this isn't really helping your case
What do you mean? im just pointing out that there are quite a few people defending him who aren't looking at the case objectively. their judgment is clouded by their preconceived opinions of him, in this case, his fame as a film director.
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=93135I predict that torturing and killing 29000 people will be generally accepted over raping one girl.
that's entirely different case altogether, for many reasons. first, being a guard in a nazi concentration camp,it's somewhat likely that the job was forced onto him, as in, he may not have had the option to refuse work.
also, if it was found that he was a guard at the concentration camp, and it was proved without a doubt that he did commit atrocious acts (which I don't think it'd be possible to do at this point)) then yes he should be tracked down and punished.
Polanski's case is different altogether. drugging and raping a 13 year old is very different from being forced to work as a guard in a nazi concentration camp. there was also a huge amount of evidence in Polanski's case, so much so that he was forced to plead guilty because he knew he wouldn't be able to wriggle himself out of a conviction
|
and your judgment is unclouded?
|
Incredible, such a crime... he had sex with a 13 year old. Imagine the horror of it, he didn't even rape her.
We absolutely need to put in jail thousands of people because they had sex with "illegals".
And that happened 30 years ago, most crimes even prescribe during that time but this is simply horrible and should be treated such as the nazi killers in auschwitz..
|
On September 29 2009 16:49 benjammin wrote:
and your judgment is unclouded?
of course it's not, I'm not a robot. however, I can say that I'm looking at this case from a much more objective point of view than the French culture/communications Minister is. mostly because when I looked at this case for the first time I had no knowledge of Polanski and thusly no opinion of him, while a vast majority of the people defending Polanski happen to like his films.
let me ask you a question: what do you think the punishment should be for an adult man, 18 years or older, drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old? 20 years ? 30 years? how about 90 days of psychiatric evaluation? or would that be too harsh?
|
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.
La prescription des peines est le délai après lequel une peine ne peut plus être exécutée.
La prescription n’emporte en aucun cas effacement de la condamnation ; comme pour la prescription des obligations en droit civil, c’est seulement l’exécution qui est paralysée.
Le délai de prescription des peines court à compter de la date à laquelle la condamnation devient définitive.
Sa durée dépend de la gravité de l’infraction :
Les peines prononcées pour un crime se prescrivent par 10 ans (article 133-2 du code pénal - sauf exceptions citées plus loin)
Les peines prononcées pour un délit se prescrivent par 5 ans (article 133-3 du code pénal)
Les peines prononcées pour une contravention se prescrivent par 3 ans (article 133-4 du code pénal contre 2 ans avant le 1er janvier 2003)
Les délais de prescription de l'action publique se différencient des délais applicables aux peines. Les crimes ne peuvent plus être poursuivis par le ministère public après 10 ans. Les délits ne peuvent être poursuivis après 3 ans et les contraventions après 1 an. Pour certaines infractions particulièrement graves, le législateur a prévu un régime dérogatoire. Ainsi les crimes contre l’humanité sont imprescriptibles, le terrorisme et le trafic de stupéfiants se prescrivent par 30 ans pour les crimes et 20 ans pour les délits. De même, le délai de prescription de l'action publique de certains crimes et les délits commis sur un mineur ne commence à courir qu'à compter de leur majorité (articles 7,8 et 9 du code de procédure pénale).
La prescription de la peine est interrompue par tout acte d’exécution forcée (arrestation, saisie…) ou suspendue par l'existence d'un obstacle de fait (force majeure) ou de droit (exécution d'une autre peine).
La prescription de la peine n’emporte aucune conséquence quant à l’exigibilité des dommages-intérêts, qui obéissent aux règles du Code civil.
( From wiki )
Prescription after 10-30 years depending if you are a murderer, a rapist, a terrorist etc ...
Prescription de l'action publique =/= prescription des peines ( Maybe this concept doesn't exist in American Law but that explains the overall consensus here ).
|
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.
gold
|
i'm not a judge, so i can't really say. i do know that in a case with this degree of prosecutorial misconduct should probably be dismissed, whether or not that is an adequate degree of justice is up to you.
|
On September 29 2009 17:03 benjammin wrote:
i'm not a judge, so i can't really say. i do know that in a case with this degree of prosecutorial misconduct should probably be dismissed, whether or not that is an adequate degree of justice is up to you.
I agree, the case should be redone and he should get the proper conviction, 1-30 years.
|
On September 29 2009 16:56 Pika Chu wrote:
Incredible, such a crime... he had sex with a 13 year old. Imagine the horror of it, he didn't even rape her.
We absolutely need to put in jail thousands of people because they had sex with "illegals".
And that happened 30 years ago, most crimes even prescribe during that time but this is simply horrible and should be treated such as the nazi killers in auschwitz..
According to the testimony it's pretty clear that he did rape her. He had her drink champagne and take quaaludes, a sedative drug, and he didn't stop even though she said no to his advances multiple times.
|
|
|
was just kidding bro, of course you cant be convicted twice :p that plea bargain continues to baffle me though, I wish someone studying law could explain how it was possible for him to get a 1-30 charge dropped to 90 days of re evaluation. that just seems way off.
|
that's also what i'm confused about, as i don't understand what allows for pleading to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse versus this staying a rape charge. still, i'm guessing the odds are in favor of this case getting dismissed.
|
Zurich15353 Posts
On September 29 2009 16:44 lazz wrote:that's entirely different case altogether, for many reasons. first, being a guard in a nazi concentration camp,it's somewhat likely that the job was forced onto him, as in, he may not have had the option to refuse work. also, if it was found that he was a guard at the concentration camp, and it was proved without a doubt that he did commit atrocious acts (which I don't think it'd be possible to do at this point)) then yes he should be tracked down and punished. Polanski's case is different altogether. drugging and raping a 13 year old is very different from being forced to work as a guard in a nazi concentration camp. there was also a huge amount of evidence in Polanski's case, so much so that he was forced to plead guilty because he knew he wouldn't be able to wriggle himself out of a conviction
Thanks for proving my point.
|
On September 28 2009 20:53 uziasz wrote:
Since Polanski made more good things than bad ones in that 30 years he should be free
hey guys here's how to commit crimes: offset them with good stuff! It's like buying carbon credits that totally make your private jet OK for the environment!
|
On September 29 2009 16:56 Pika Chu wrote:
Incredible, such a crime... he had sex with a 13 year old. Imagine the horror of it, he didn't even rape her.
We absolutely need to put in jail thousands of people because they had sex with "illegals".
And that happened 30 years ago, most crimes even prescribe during that time but this is simply horrible and should be treated such as the nazi killers in auschwitz..
from her statements it sounded like he had sex with her and she didnt want to.
sounds like rape to me
it doesnt sound like its a case of her being underage but willing to wanting to have sex. if it was like that, well i guess she might be too young to understand what she is doing but definetely deserves less of a penalty
but it seems like plain old rape to me, put him in jail
|
|
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
except there was no consent
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
