Originally posted by: Craig234
I disagree and view this as relvant to the moral issue.
That's nice, but irrelevant to the legal issue.
You sound like you are briniging an existing agenda and applying it. What does 'rich person' have to do with the point under discusion, thevicti's wishes?
If the issue were about his getting off because he's rich, we'd agree, he shouldn't.
Just because he's rich doesn't mean that's the issue. It's not in this discussion.
I'm *very* against the rich buying their own justice. Now let's talk about this case.
This is a huge part of the case. Polanski used his resources and wealth to evade justice. Most normal persons would not be able to evade justice in plain sight for so long.
The *prosecution* agreed that the 42 days he spent was adequate punishment. That's a pretty strong indication a case can be made that it was.
Serving the time the prosecution says is a fair sentence is a far cry from fleeing after serving no time.
As I said, it's a factor. Yes, there's a point to what you're saying as well - but it's a gray issue, not black and white. Was the judge being excessive going beyond the prosecution?
We can't let defendants decide they are and simply evade the system, but again it's a factor, and there are others.
What the prosecution decided is not the final answer. The prosecution could have said 1 day or 100000 days. You must wait until sentencing. In this case, the judge had discretion available against too lenient or too strict agreements between the prosecution and defense.
Also, he was sentenced to a psychiatric evaluation. That is a far cry from a complete sentence (not talking about only incarcerating him).
If the judge was excessive, then there are frameworks within the legal system to challenge it.
Yes, it is. The fact that you can't distinguish between Polanski and nazi war criminals from the holocaust indicates to me you are not reasonable and likely not rational.
There are many crimes with statutes of limitations and other lesser treatment, because not every criminal is a nazi leader, no matter how fun it is for you to play the Nazi card.
You make any discussion pointless with your obstinate absurdity.
It's not that difficult. People are routinely pursued for decades for their crimes, even when they were relatively peaceful after their sought-for actions. Except in this case Polanski is in a worse condition since he plead guilty and then fled.
You make any discussion pointless with your obstinate absurdity.
You seem locked on to one point of view, and are simply ignoring any other points about the case, it seems to me. Blinders on.
You've stated your points, I've listened and stated mine, I'm not seeing much more promising at this point.
But it seems to me that you have latched on to Polanski as some sort of poster child for you to get some cause you believe in furthered.
I guess this is a defense mechanism on your part when you realize how fucked up you are in your analysis of the situation.
Celebrities who develop a sense of entitlement and abuse others disgust me. Michael Vick is an example, I guess, and the consumers who support their getting off disgust me as well, just because the consumers want to see them play ball or whatever. If the question were Polanski evading justice for this when he did it, I'd be against it.
But justice does not seem served to me at this point on this for his criminal mistake over 30 years ago. But you are not seeming to response to my points much IMO.
You are locked in to one angle - he's a celebrity who cheated the system, so you want him punished, without regard for the various other factors that weigh on the situation.
You still just don't get it. Justice needs to be served for more than just his initial rape of the child. The situation has evolved much more than that.
Facebook
Twitter