Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246
^Honestly, if Polanski were to go to jail, I expect they (DoJ/California DA) would pull some strings in order to place him in a Minimum Security prison. If he even does go to jail (and he is not just sentenced with Time Served), I doubt he would imprisoned for that long (people thinking he would be sentenced to a full 20 years (or whatever the maximum sentence for statutory rape is in California) are simply deluding themselves - rehabilitation matters little in a sentencing when discussing a criminal over the age of 60-70, so if you sentence such a person to 20 years, it is actually a death sentence, which I doubt any jury would agree to in Polanski's case).
In the end, I expect if Polanski is extradited and taken to the U.S. he will be senteced to time served, then be arrested for running from the law, in which he will be given 5-10 in a minimum security prison.
|
Again though, I don't see how this is of any benefit, other than "Yay, we punished the criminal!" Meo has been forthcoming in stating it, and I'm inclined to agree; punishments are designed to instigate change. Be it change from a certain pattern of behavior on a personal scale, on a social scale, or just in the realm of understanding of consequence, it's still change. What possible change can come of Polanski going to jail for this crime? Will people see that he was caught after running from the law for 30 years, and suddenly decide that running from the law is fruitless? Will they see that he received punishment for something he did 30 years ago, and decide not to commit crimes? Or will they see a rich, old man being coddled by the DoJ near the end of his life, despite what he's done in the past.
I know it sounds contradictory (especially with what I just said), but I really don't think jail is the best option here. We're already spending money to extradite him to the US. We're spending money to prosecute him. If we put him in jail, we're spending money to incarcerate him. Would it not seem like a reasonable punishment to simply keep him under surveillance, and levy a fine against him? In this instance, not only does he not get to repeat his act (which he probably won't anyway), he has the embarrassment of having officials watching his every move, and the horror and sadness that would undoubtedly accompany him having to give all of that money he made over the last 30 years, away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942
THIS!
The State of California is broke, debt up to their eyeballs. They ought to milk him dry so that California can balance it budget 
Prisoners cost so much that the state release some of 'em early. |
I saw some interesting statistics once. Not sure how accurate they are today. I'll see if I can find them again sometime, when it's not five o'clock in the morning.
The US has more incarcerated individuals than any other country in the world. On average, the US spends nearly $50 billion per year to keep these inmates incarcerated. Approximately 1 in 100 individuals in America is in jail. Approximately 1 in 40 individuals is either in jail, on parole, on probation, or being monitored by some agency of the justice department.
If those are true (and I'm recalling from memory, so they may be a bit off), those are some pretty scary numbers.
Edit: Found some. Perhaps not the most reliable source but, eh... it's five o'clock in the morning.
Incarceration Rate in the US
Cost of Incarceration in the US