Roman Polanski is Arrested, Detained at behest of US.

froggie said:
Fine, if you feel it would serve society the best. It is supposedly the reason we jail people to protect society or is it for some type of conservative revenge?
Click to expand...

It is not revenge froggie... it is justice.


If it were about revenge, he never would make it to prison.
 
Superfreak said:
It is not revenge froggie... it is justice.


If it were about revenge, he never would make it to prison.
Click to expand...
Justice? I don't see how sending him to jail is serving justice at this point, especially when the victim says it isn't! Society takes over and the victim has no say???
 
froggie said:
Justice? I don't see how sending him to jail is serving justice at this point, especially when the victim says it isn't! Society takes over and the victim has no say???
Click to expand...

So the victims of crimes should decide the sentencing? While their views are certainly listened to in many cases, they are not the ones that make the final decision.

He plead guilty and then he ran. It serves justice in that he will not have gotten away with it. Should we release all rapists back into the world? There is no reason he should be free right now. saying 'well he got away with it for so long... so good for him... no jail' is a bad precedent to set.
 
Superfreak said:
So the victims of crimes should decide the sentencing? While their views are certainly listened to in many cases, they are not the ones that make the final decision.

He plead guilty and then he ran. It serves justice in that he will not have gotten away with it. Should we release all rapists back into the world? There is no reason he should be free right now. saying 'well he got away with it for so long... so good for him... no jail' is a bad precedent to set.
Click to expand...
It is obviously something we disagree on for personal reasons. I am with the victim.

If you feel that justice will be better served for him to go to jail forever, then so be it. I just feel that at this point, it serves no purpose.
 
froggie said:
It is obviously something we disagree on for personal reasons. I am with the victim.

If you feel that justice will be better served for him to go to jail forever, then so be it. I just feel that at this point, it serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Agreed that we disagree. Because I see it as a message to criminals...

what will the message be???

1) That you can commit a crime and avoid sentencing by fleeing the country

2) That we will eventually bring you to justice... no matter how long you hide
 
Superfreak said:
Agreed that we disagree. Because I see it as a message to criminals...

what will the message be???

1) That you can commit a crime and avoid sentencing by fleeing the country

2) That we will eventually bring you to justice... no matter how long you hide
Click to expand...
I understand, I really do, but there is so much here that you don't understand and we will leave it at that! Peace.
 
No one knows whether or not the prosecutor would have stuck to the plea agreement as Polanski fled the U.S. before sentencing. At the very least, he should serve the time agreed to in the plea agreement.
 
Superfreak said:
1) It is not unproven, he admitted to it during the trial... he then ran to France prior to sentencing.

2) Yes, he paid her due to the civil trial which he also lost.
Click to expand...

But that was 20 years before she publically forgave him, and 30 years before she asked the prosecutor not to press charges. Whatever payments she had recieved then probably had little bearing on those decisions.
 
The only problem with your article, sf, is that the author asks us to forget about the state violating the plea deal, but consider that he plead guilty. He then continues as if Polanski's guilt of forcible rape is certain. That's having your cake and eating it too. Plenty of innocent people plead guilty based on the risk of going to trial.

He should be brought back and sentenced based upon the original plea deal.
 
RStringfield said:
The only problem with your article, sf, is that the author asks us to forget about the state violating the plea deal, but consider that he plead guilty. He then continues as if Polanski's guilt of forcible rape is certain. That's having your cake and eating it too. Plenty of innocent people plead guilty based on the risk of going to trial.

He should be brought back and sentenced based upon the original plea deal.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the prosecutor has the right to dump the plea deal and go with something new - and I can't imagine any prosecutor with any sort of political ambitions willingly accepting the original 16 month plea. He also would probably get the sentence hugely aggravated by fleeing for so long. But he would be sentenced according to the much more lenient 1970's statutes - it really depends on the judge and the prosecutor, and whether or not he decides to fight the charges.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
So he should get away with raping a 13 year old girl with the only penalty that he give away a portion of his wealth?

Is that the new rule? If you have enough money, just do whatever you want, go hide in France and pay off those you harmed? No need to worry about any jail time?
Click to expand...

If he raped a 13 year old once I' find it hard to believe there are no more victims???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top