They got Roman Polanski... - Page 2

Dragoro · 10-04-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

I'm not going to make a blanket statement about all crimes, but this crime, sure. Polanski has had thirty years for reflection and has apologised plenty of times for what he did and his victim has forgiven him, expressed a desire for an end to the whole situation and is on speaking terms with Polanski. From here, what purpose could prison possibly serve? Seems to me that this is water under the bridge. I wouldn't be outraged to see him imprisoned, but I'm really not bothered if he walks.

then your an idiot. Why not put out your address and come let someone **** your daughter, its not like you care or anything.

Dragoro · 10-04-2009, 08:07 AM

Its official, JCC is freakin clueless.

Still Jack · 10-04-2009, 08:50 AM

Ahahahaha. That's funny. Because quite frankly, I think JCC is actually right on this one.

gothicusmaximus · 10-04-2009, 09:43 AM

Fuck, these replies pissed me off. I mean, every once in a while JCC and Alan are really wrong about something, but at the same time?
I think we can immediately discard the idea that he spent 30 years "reflecting". I believe the word for which you're looking is "chillin'". Roman Polanski has not exactly experienced moral anguish-- if he had, I'm pretty sure he would have turned himself over to the courts rather than continue to run around drinking martinis and making the Pianist. A guy who wakes up one day suddenly sensible to the ethical repercussions of ****** a kid thinks "I'm a sick piece of shit. I should be locked up," not "I'm a big fat jerk. Hey guys, I feel really crummy today, I think I'm going to stay inside. See you tomorrow." While most of what I'm arguing against here is opinion, Jack the Knife is actually flat-out completely mistaken when he says that Polanski was arrested by Swiss 'filth' after living in Switzerland for a while. He was arrested in the airport, on his way to collect a Lifetime Achievement award. A person with an even nearly ordinary morality does not possess the capacity to take pride in his cinematic achievement after he rapes a child-- he regards himself with all the disgust and revilement that society feels for child rapists. Roman Polanski clearly doesn't fit the profile, despite how sorry he may profess himself to be.
On the subject of the victim's forgiveness, she isn't fucking Yahweh or something. Personally, I think that feeling most probably results from a need to move past the incident-- since Polanski was never punished, allowing herself to forgive him was a way for this woman to reconcile to the idea of her rapist running around, living it up, getting Lifetime Achievement awards. If Polanski *****, say, a very nubile retarded girl, who could barely even process that he had done something wrong, and certainly bore no ill will towards him, would that in any way absolve him?
As for what purpose this punishment serves, given that the criminal probably isn't going to feel any more remorse, and the victim has, at least ostensibly, forgiven him, the answer is social justice. The purpose is to reinforce that wealth and fame do not reduce the sentence for child **** to a long vacation, so that the next aspiring Vogue model to be violated by a rich director doesn't think "what the fuck is the point? he's got enough money to ignore laws anyway."

Despanan · 10-04-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

I'm not arguing for his absolution at all, I don't care whether he goes to prison. What I'm saying is that at this time, punishment serves no purpose other than it's own sake; the victim isn't going to feel any better if Polanski is punished and Polanski won't have a change of heart in his view of what happened because he already did that years ago, so I don't give a shit IF he walks. You can't say that this is an easy situation to call because it's not, you've got a prison sentence with a thirty year gap between the crime and the capture, and during those thirty years everyone involved has become at peace regarding the incident. You've even got a victim expressing her desire for the whole thing to be over and done with rather than looking for 'justice' on Polanski: how can you expect anyone to still muster any moral outrage?

I know you're trying to be the good liberal here dude but...DUDE.

The punishment does have a purpose. When one commits a crime in a civilized society, one must pay for it, and the rule of law must be evenly applied to everyone, regardless of race or social class.

There is positively no reason to be against this. R@pe is illegal, sex with minors is illegal, giving drugs and alcohol to minors is illegal. Skipping the country when you're supposed to be on trial is illegal. Just because someone is famous, or rich, or able to avoid the law for "x" amount of years does not make it okay to do illegal things.

The fact that the girl forgave him is immaterial. She forgave him, she did not recant the crime. The justice system works on behalf of the people and the law; not on behalf of the victim. IF the victim, pressured by society, or compassion, or money (she sued him years later and was bought off) decides to forgive you that does not excuse your crime. Because time has passed, and you've reflected and you claim to be "a different person" that does not excuse your crime.

Also, it's important to note, that I doubt Polanski really is that different of a person. This situation was not a momentary lapse in judgment. Polanski has been known to be into underage girls (e.g. Natassja Kinski) throughout his career. Also:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman Polanski

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

The bottom line is: Polanski is a man (albeit a brilliant one) who committed a heinous crime, and ran away. He was able to avoid the law for thirty years because he was famous and had the money and the influence to spend those years in gilded exile. He was able to continue to work within society because enough people (like you JCC) were willing to overlook his crime.

The man has made some amazing movies; but that doesn't excuse the fact that thirty years ago he filled a thirteen year old girl with drugs and alcohol and then sodomized her as she pleaded for him to stop. If he is not prosecuted; then that sends the message that hey, fuck the law; it's okay, if you're rich and famous the rules that apply to the lower classes don't apply to the upper class.

Saya · 10-04-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I just kept the interesting parts.

Let me get this straight.

You think, under the basis of law, which you say is laughable, no justice has been served until a man is jailed for a 30 year old crime that the victim has forgiven him for?

Fuckin genius.

I don't think it would truly be justice then either, but its better than just patting him on the back and saying its okay, because hey, it was only thirty years ago and it was only some dumb kid.

Look, look at how the media treated her when the case first happened, there were people saying her parents intentionally put her in Polanski's hands just so they could accuse him of **** and make lots of money. There were even people who said she was a little L0lita who wanted it. People are still saying that now. Because **** just doesn't matter, that attitude is why rapists get lenient sentences, why most rapes are never ever reported and why even one reported there is very little chance a rapist will be convicted. So we have in our hands a rapist who admitted he drugged and ***** a child who kept telling him no, we were all ready to sentence him when he fled. He kept away for long enough that...its fine now? The brutal crime doesn't matter any more?

I get that a long time has passed and I get that he's old now, so maybe a lenient sentence is fitting now. But just to pat him on the back and let him walk? When you get a card saying a sex offender has moved in the neighbourhood, do you find out how much time has passed since the conviction before you care?

JCC · 10-04-2009, 10:10 AM

Aight, I'm convinced.

Dragoro is still wrong though, right?

Dragoro · 10-04-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Aight, I'm convinced.

Dragoro is still wrong though, right?

clueless!!!!

Still Jack · 10-04-2009, 10:46 AM

Oh, just die or something already. like you have a fucking clue...

viscus · 10-04-2009, 11:10 AM

He should be prosecuted if only on principle. I'm tired of seeing these Hollywood cunts get off light for things that most of us would be railroaded for.

KontanKarite · 10-04-2009, 11:22 AM

It's simple. On a person to person basis, he is morally absolved by the victim and in that sense, fine. Wonderful. Both parties are over it.

However, the law doesn't work that way. He's still guilty for what he did and his sentence will serve as an example to others that despite the capabilities of people being able to get over shit on a personal level, you can't give wrong doing a tenure in which everything is okay in the eyes of society at large. W/O him being punished, society itself is allowing shit like that to happen. o_0

Lolly PopMuzik · 10-05-2009, 08:20 PM

"It's been said that Polanski lost interest in the case when it turned 18."-Joel McHale, The Soup

Alan · 10-05-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

It's simple. On a person to person basis, he is morally absolved by the victim and in that sense, fine. Wonderful. Both parties are over it.

Exactly. So....?
You realize your second paragraph resolves to nothing but the stupid idea that punishment deters crime? I'd think everyone in here knows better than that.

Joker_in_the_Pack · 10-05-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Despanan

When one commits a crime in a civilized society, one must pay for it,.

Hey, society is fine. Think of it, society is rid of him. Punishment is supposed to remove crime from a society, as best as it can. (It doesn't work, but fuck it, we're using your logic, not mine). At any rate, the society he committed the crime in is rid of him. He's not our problem, he's Europe's problem. What is the difference if he's abroad or in jail? He's NOT FUCKING HERE.

Apathy's_Child · 10-06-2009, 06:45 AM

You know guys, it's all good to dispute the role of the prison system in genuine rehabilitation, and I hear that shit, I really do. However since it's the only system we have to deal with men who drug and r*pe young girls, the disucssion is kind of bigger than that unless you're arguing that no r*pist should EVER be held to account in terms of jail time. Which again would be interesting, but that's a whole 'nother thread, and also something anyone has yet to argue for convincingly in this one.

What I love is the way people like to take one sentence from a post and use that to justify their stance, whilst ignoring the stuff that has far more bearing on what's being discussed. I'd like to see some responses to the post that everyone except JCC is avoiding:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I think we can immediately discard the idea that he spent 30 years "reflecting". I believe the word for which you're looking is "chillin'". Roman Polanski has not exactly experienced moral anguish-- if he had, I'm pretty sure he would have turned himself over to the courts rather than continue to run around drinking martinis and making the Pianist. A guy who wakes up one day suddenly sensible to the ethical repercussions of ****** a kid thinks "I'm a sick piece of shit. I should be locked up," not "I'm a big fat jerk. Hey guys, I feel really crummy today, I think I'm going to stay inside. See you tomorrow."

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

On the subject of the victim's forgiveness, she isn't fucking Yahweh or something. Personally, I think that feeling most probably results from a need to move past the incident-- since Polanski was never punished, allowing herself to forgive him was a way for this woman to reconcile to the idea of her rapist running around, living it up, getting Lifetime Achievement awards. If Polanski *****, say, a very nubile retarded girl, who could barely even process that he had done something wrong, and certainly bore no ill will towards him, would that in any way absolve him?

I'd especially love to see the fuckin' class warriors respond to THIS shit, and explain how the fact that Polanski can afford to hightail it over to Europe makes him less deserving of pnuishment than someone who can't:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

As for what purpose this punishment serves, given that the criminal probably isn't going to feel any more remorse, and the victim has, at least ostensibly, forgiven him, the answer is social justice. The purpose is to reinforce that wealth and fame do not reduce the sentence for child **** to a long vacation, so that the next aspiring Vogue model to be violated by a rich director doesn't think "what the fuck is the point? he's got enough money to ignore laws anyway."

Alan · 10-06-2009, 01:31 PM

At the risk of simplifying GM's post, the most concise response I can give is that just as the victim is not Yahweh, neither is the justice system.
The victim is past it, and the crime was three decades ago. All the argument people keep saying is "well he still has to pay"
Why?
If I had been ***** and I had made my life with it and moved on, that everyone would pick it up when I'm thrice as old would be what offends me, especially because, as we've seen, people don't even care about me as a victim, only on he action upon me the victim.

Apathy's_Child · 10-06-2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus View Post
As for what purpose this punishment serves, given that the criminal probably isn't going to feel any more remorse, and the victim has, at least ostensibly, forgiven him, the answer is social justice. The purpose is to reinforce that wealth and fame do not reduce the sentence for child **** to a long vacation, so that the next aspiring Vogue model to be violated by a rich director doesn't think "what the fuck is the point? he's got enough money to ignore laws anyway."

You don't think there's ANY validity to this? Social justice doesn't have to mean mindless vengeance for its own sake.

Despanan · 10-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idiotontheforum

Hey, society is fine. Think of it, society is rid of him. Punishment is supposed to remove crime from a society, as best as it can. (It doesn't work, but fuck it, we're using your logic, not mine). At any rate, the society he committed the crime in is rid of him. He's not our problem, he's Europe's problem. What is the difference if he's abroad or in jail? He's NOT FUCKING HERE.

Joker, It's like you and Alan are made of distilled stupid. Sometimes I wonder if you really just need someone bigger and hairier than you to punch you in the gut and then sit down with you and explain things very slowly.

People commit crimes and flee countries all the time; they are hunted down and made to pay for what they did. Running does not excuse your crime. Forgiveness from the victim does not excuse your crime. This is not the way the law works.

And I would like to mention, that like Apathy, I find it the height of irony that people like you who claim to embrace Anarcho-faggotry, and class warfare would defend a rich, upperclass asshole who got away with **** for 30 years simply because he had enough money to run.

Hell at least JCC has enough presence of mind to realize when he's wrong. Not you two though...you'll just continue to spout rhetoric won't you?

Alan · 10-06-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

The purpose is to reinforce that wealth and fame do not reduce the sentence for child **** to a long vacation, so that the next aspiring Vogue model to be violated by a rich director doesn't think "what the fuck is the point? he's got enough money to ignore laws anyway."

You don't think there's ANY validity to this? Social justice doesn't have to mean mindless vengeance for its own sake.

Then what is it? In fact no, I don't find any validity, because this form of 'social justice' can only be two things. Either:
It IS vengeance, because there's nothing else to be won from this.
Or it is an attempt at deterring crime, which we all know is stupid.
Celebrities get away with shit, we all know that, and I don't defend it. I'm on the other side of this because this is a matter of futility, not fame.

Now, for now, I'd recommend you to dissociate yourself from Desp as if he were part of 'your side' because unlike yo, he's too fucking stupid to even come up with reasonable arguments that he has to reduce himself to a bitch fit.

Apathy's_Child · 10-06-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Then what is it? In fact no, I don't find any validity, because this form of 'social justice' can only be two things. Either:
It IS vengeance, because there's nothing else to be won from this.
Or it is an attempt at deterring crime, which we all know is stupid.
Celebrities get away with shit, we all know that, and I don't defend it. I'm on the other side of this because this is a matter of futility, not fame.

The prison system is screwed up, therefore it doesn't matter what happens to convicted criminals?

You know, as much as I fucking HATE to resort to these kind of arguments - what would your response be if your girlfriend/sister/mother was r.aped? I'm not asking that in a desperate attempt to emote. Rather I'm curious to know whether you'd call the cops, or simply tell them that jail won't stop things like this from happening. Would you still believe there was "nothing to be won" from their knowledge that the guy is off the streets? You genuinely don't think that might contribute to their psychological recovery? This isn't vengeance - it's about healing rather than hurting. Granted, the one who chose to forcibly ravage a woman's vagina will incidentally be the worse off as a result, but frankly I can live with that.

Out of sheer curiosity, what's your suggestion for dealing with r.apists? Education? Because Polanski wasn't exactly some backwoods misogynist who was bound to end up fucked in the head at the time of this crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Now, for now, I'd recommend you to dissociate yourself from Desp as if he were part of 'your side' because unlike yo, he's too fucking stupid to even come up with reasonable arguments that he has to reduce himself to a bitch fit.

The dude may not know shit about fairy tales, but at least he doesn't think, "what's wrong with being super?!", is a valid counterpoint against socioeconomic concerns regarding genetic engineering.

Just sayin'.

Mir · 10-06-2009, 03:02 PM

I'm also curious as to whether your argument would change had the victim not forgiven Polanski.

Alan · 10-06-2009, 03:04 PM

Actually yeah. That simple.

Alan · 10-06-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

You know, as much as I fucking HATE to resort to these kind of arguments - what would your response be if your girlfriend/sister/mother was r.aped? I'm not asking that in a desperate attempt to emote. Rather I'm curious to know whether you'd call the cops, or simply tell them that jail won't stop things like this from happening. Would you still believe there was "nothing to be won" from their knowledge that the guy is off the streets? You genuinely don't think that might contribute to their psychological recovery? This isn't vengeance - it's about healing rather than hurting. Granted, the one who chose to forcibly ravage a woman's vagina will incidentally be the worse off as a result, but frankly I can live with that.

I should have answered this before Mir instead of the other way around.

Look at what you said. There's a hurt victim. Let's say my sister gets *****. For some reason, it doesn't take thirty years, she just happens to be fucking Jesus and she forgives the criminal. I'll hate him forever but who am I to arbitrate over my sister? Why is MY form of justice the one that takes precedence? Where did the justice system stop giving a fuck about my sister when she's the one that was *****?

By the way on eugenics, my argument was simply that you guys had a double standard. I complain about the possible exploitation of eugenics just as much as I complain about the REAL exploitation of industrialism. Eugenics in itself IS NOT inherently exploitative. We seriously have to go back to that? I thought I had made myself clear by now.

JCC · 10-06-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Look at what you said. There's a hurt victim. Let's say my sister gets *****. For some reason, it doesn't take thirty years, she just happens to be fucking Jesus and she forgives the criminal. I'll hate him forever but who am I to arbitrate over my sister? Why is MY form of justice the one that takes precedence? Where did the justice system stop giving a fuck about my sister when she's the one that was *****?

Is it that simple, since there's a whole community outside of the victim to be taken into account?

Alan · 10-06-2009, 03:28 PM

I really doubt it was the community who convinced Switzerland to extradite him thirty years after the ****.