AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

View Poll Results: Do you think that given the US laws, Polasnki should be judged for the crime he has d
Yes 41 85.42%
No 7 14.58%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-10-01, 11:39   Link #141
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
They should take away both his assets and freedom: Mugged and Jailed.
and the inevitability of getting shanked
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 12:01   Link #142
JMvS
Rawrrr!
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 31
There is nothing to say about his extradition:

-he was sentenced guilty and escaped a sentence.
-an extradition notice was issued to our police.
-our police arrested him accordingly.
-he will receive his sentence and serve it, be it 1 week or 150 years it has no importance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
...
Erm... last time I checked, in modern democracies, more than strict utilitarian concerns, we are more concerned about staying true to the values we perceive our society is based on (as changing as they may be). And disregarding HOW it is applicated, the law has to be applied to all indiscriminately.

There are a lot of similar things where on a strict utilitarian point of view we waste tons of money, some crucial, other vains or deformed. After all, as the old man said, it is the worst system, but there are no better one's.

But if you consider utility more important, and are ready to make a few compromises, either you go toward anarchy (why wasting time and resources to create and implement laws? it's such a hassle).

Or, as having and organized society has shown several benefits, there a very simple ways to cut costs:
-Why keep criminals in prison when you can sentence them to death and execute them at the end of the trial? You can even cut down the costs further if you charge his assets or relatives for it!
-Why bother with democracy? It's such a wasteful system! have you any idea of the costs of a single elections! Imagine if you have to organise and spend money for everybody to vote on everything! To vote only for El Presidente life-term is for sure much more economical, and why bother organizing an election if he's already in power or has a successor ready?

BTW, I am very happy living in a country without death penalty, where we vote on everything every two months on average, and I am proud of it's institutions.
__________________
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 13:13   Link #143
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
The discipline on self must be strong enough to overcome desires. If failed, then you can only blame yourself. Atonement will not be achieved by running around, one must achieve greater discipline---and I believe that the prison cell (no death penalty) would be the suitable place for that kind of heavy reflection on heavy crime.
A normal prison is more like a training/convention centre for people to become real criminals. Many prisoners get another insight there...
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 13:31   Link #144
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto View Post
A normal prison is more like a training/convention centre for people to become real criminals. Many prisoners get another insight there...
So people getting out immediately goes back to crime? The irony....




EDIT: Well they don't, but they get more "buffed" and more ready to break more laws.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 16:01   Link #145
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto View Post
A normal prison is more like a training/convention centre for people to become real criminals. Many prisoners get another insight there...
It's not so much "training", as it is just the fact that the prisoners are treated harshly and offered little chance to reform, so when they emerge they just go back to the life they once had, and since that life led them to crime originally, the cycle simply repeats. Sadly enough, since the cycle is seemingly endless (not to mention that recent studies seem to show that jail does not deter would-be criminals), reform for the American justice/penal system is almost impossible.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 16:15   Link #146
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
And then you expect lady justice to bend over for Polanski? If it's a sad statement of yours, then you would be happy if lady justice don't bend this time, right?
While I may or may not be happy if "lady justice don't bend this time," I fail to see how that has any relevance to the case at hand. My personal opinion about what should happen to the man is that we should try to make some good out of this already screwed up scenario, and I don't see how throwing him in jail does any good. Again, you get the people who say "Wahoo, take that criminal!" but what do you have when that's over? You've gained nothing from his incarceration, and instead cost the state perhaps a million dollars or more over the course of the rest of his life. In a sense, he continues to make money for his crime, because he has to pay nothing for his offense. Since the life he's lived, the awards he's won, and the money he's made since this incident seem to be an outrage to so many people, I fail to see how they find retribution throwing him in jail, where he loses none of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisdrache View Post
Well I admit I can see the reasoning behind your posts. I do agree that we dont accomplish anything besides putting a child molester in jail. He also costs the state more than placing him under surveillance outside. However Im troubled with the fact that you place money over justice. The fact that you intend to treat Polanski differently than other child molesters.

If you apply this treatment to Polanski you have to do it to every single other child molester who is currently in jail. And this will cost the goverment far more than $ 200'000. Not to mention that putting someone under surveillance doesnt come cheap as well. Dont forget that not every rapist is a famous oscar director. Not all of them can pay several hundred thousand dollars fines to support the goverment.

You also mention the point that he is widely known as a rapist and we know that pedophiles usually are extremely unpopular wherever you go. This has not hindered Polanski over the last 30 years to become a famous director, winning not only an oscar but also several film prices and also living in France as well as doing holidays in Switzerland without being bothered by it at all.
I intend to treat him differently because of the circumstances. He is old, on his way out, and rich. The thing rich people fear the most is not being rich any more. I think taking his fortune from him through fines is a great way to spread the message "Hey rich people, you want to be criminals. That's fine, but you don't get to be rich anymore after that." Also, keep in mind that sometimes money and justice are one in the same thing. Traffic tickets and MIP's are just naming a few. This is simply that idea extrapolated to perhaps the grandest of scales.

On a separate note, I think his comfort is due, mostly, to his fame. People don't look at him and go, "Hey, that's Roman Polanski the rapist!" They see him and say "Hey, that's Roman Polanski, the famous movie director!" On the other hand, people may look at Bob down the street, and ignore whatever sort of work he does in favor of saying "Did you know Bob molests kids?" It's all about perception, and people know Polanski more for the movies he directed, than for this one girl he raped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
Erm... last time I checked, in modern democracies, more than strict utilitarian concerns, we are more concerned about staying true to the values we perceive our society is based on (as changing as they may be). And disregarding HOW it is applicated, the law has to be applied to all indiscriminately.
So smite the criminal regardless of circumstance, that is your opinion? I fail to see how that delivers any more or less justice than my assertion that we should look for a means to create some social benefit from this situation. Your justice is delivered through your sense of "fairness", and my justice is delivered through my sense of "social ethical responsibility."

Quote:
There are a lot of similar things where on a strict utilitarian point of view we waste tons of money, some crucial, other vains or deformed. After all, as the old man said, it is the worst system, but there are no better one's.
I'm assuming you just misspoke here, and you meant "It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've got." In which case, I argue that it may not be the best system. England seems to be doing rather well from a governmental standpoint, and their a monarchy. Canada is much in the same boat. On the other hand, the United States is $9 trillion in debt, and sinking further and faster every year. If the measure of the quality of a government is how it treats it's people, then I'd have to say that America has actually one of the worst governments in the world. There's a quote out there somewhere (I can't find it at the moment), about gaining better understanding of a society by looking at it's convicts. Well, America has more of them than any other country in the world; what does that say?

Quote:
But if you consider utility more important, and are ready to make a few compromises, either you go toward anarchy (why wasting time and resources to create and implement laws? it's such a hassle).

Or, as having and organized society has shown several benefits, there a very simple ways to cut costs:
-Why keep criminals in prison when you can sentence them to death and execute them at the end of the trial? You can even cut down the costs further if you charge his assets or relatives for it!
-Why bother with democracy? It's such a wasteful system! have you any idea of the costs of a single elections! Imagine if you have to organise and spend money for everybody to vote on everything! To vote only for El Presidente life-term is for sure much more economical, and why bother organizing an election if he's already in power or has a successor ready?
As sarcastic as you're being, I don't think you fully realize the positive implications of a system like this. If we started executing every single person who committed a crime, I think we'd see the crime rate drop dramatically. Unfortunately, we can't do that, as it infringes directly on the basic human right of life. Since we have that issue to deal with, why not try to gain benefit in other ways. There are plenty of starving people out there, plenty of homeless people out there, and I'm sure that Polanski's fortune could fund more than a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters for a good while.

That's only one example. Hell, donate the money to a charity or organization that helps rehabilitate female victims of abuse, I don't care. I just think that there are far better ways to go about getting some justice than simply tossing him in prison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Actually, I think removing a large portion of his assets and dedicating them to improving the lot of young teens in education and rehabilitation -- probably does society more good than throwing him in jail for very long. I'll hope that the judge/jury are creative in that regard.
A shared sentiment, indeed sir.

Quote:
Legally speaking, even if the "victim" does not want to pursue charges, the state often has an interest in prosecuting cases -- otherwise mobsters would simply pay off victims or husbands would threaten abused wives, etc.

However, I wish this amount of media attention had been paid to all the teens who are having their lives ruined by usurious "underage" laws as prosecuted by witchburning prosecutors "protecting the children" (by ruining their lives).
I'm not sure I fully understand where you're going with this one. Is this as to the discussion of underage teens who make decisions for themselves, where people are still left facing prosecution because that teen was "underage"? If so, I'd have to agree, but it's difficult to convince people that a certain age is the appropriate time when people can begin to make decisions for themselves. Hell, in my state we've got two ages of consent; 18 and 21. The question becomes, at what age is a person of sound mind to be able to make their own decisions by fulling understanding the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, this is a universally fluxuating number, and so it seems that laws operate under a "best guess" scenario.
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg

Last edited by Quzor; 2009-10-01 at 16:29.
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 16:28   Link #147
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
While I may or may not be happy if "lady justice don't bend this time," I fail to see how that has any relevance to the case at hand.
Learn to read your own posts then. You said it's sad that money/fame/etcs makes the justice bends over.

While you carefully avoid to reply to my question, you give the feeling that you expect the Justice to disregard the law texts because you think Polanski should not go to prison. But at the same time, you'll be sad because the justice did bend again? I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt.

And I don't see how what we are talking about is revelant to the "current" state of the case. As I said to Solace, we're not at the point of pronouncing a sentence yet, the US Justice can't even judge Polanski (whatever he'll get, 1 days or 150 years of prison, that's not the current problem), because Mister Polanski "decided" that the charges against him have to be dropped.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 16:36   Link #148
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
Learn to read your own posts then. You said it's sad that money/fame/etcs makes the justice bends over.

While you carefully avoid to reply to my question, you give the feeling that you expect the Justice to disregard the law texts because you think Polanski should not go to prison. But at the same time, you'll be sad because the justice did bend again? I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt.
Just because I don't think he should go to prison, does not mean I do not think he should be punished. Your statement asserts that the only means of punishment is incarceration. "I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt."

The fact that I am disgusted by the ease with which the rich and famous bend and break the rules of the justice system, does not change the fact that I think this is a special circumstance where a better result could be achieved by a slight bending of the rules. We're not talking about Lindsey Lohan getting a DUI, and paying a fine to get out of it (which, by the way, is not AT ALL how that works for non-famous people). This is a man who has already lived into the twilight of his life. If you feel like we will have achieved some justice by forcing the man to die in prison, then fine. I do not feel that way.

Don't just put together bits and pieces of what I said and call me a liar; it's all contextual. Do I think it's fair that famous people get to manipulate the justice system with money? Hell no. Do I think this particular case warrants some creative interpretation of the rules to better punish the accused? Absolutely.
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 16:53   Link #149
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
Just because I don't think he should go to prison, does not mean I do not think he should be punished. Your statement asserts that the only means of punishment is incarceration. "I smell a lie, sorry to be blunt."
My main problems with this man are:

- The French governement shall not ask the USA to drop the charges just because Mr Polanski achieved movies awards and such. Beside some people from the government and some stars, almost no French support him. Again in the today TV debate "C dans l'air" on the French TV, after an sms question, no one who was present in the debate thinked he deserves a special treatment. So it would be good if some medias stop to say "The french are supporting him".

- I currently don't really care about the sentence, I am just disgusted that Mr Polanski refuses to be extradited and judged.

Quote:
This is a man who has already lived into the twilight of his life. If you feel like we will have achieved some justice by forcing the man to die in prison, then fine. I do not feel that way.
I have the French nationality and Polanski lived in my country, mostly since 1978, and I don't think his life was that bad here. We're not talking about a poor powerless man here.

I don't care if he dies in prison or not. I want him to be judged, that's all. Now, I'll let the LA justice to decide what is the right sentence for him.

But the man doesn't even want to be judged. Back months ago, he could have gone to the USA, because given the new supposed things that were discovered in the documentaries, his lawyers tried to make the case dismissed (about the girl he raped). It was refused because Mr Polanski was not present, while given the law, he has to be present. While he would have probably not been charged anymore for the rape, you really think he would have been sentenced to 30y of prison because he fled? I don't think so, I don't even think he would have stayed in a prison for a long time (but i could be wrong).

Quote:
Polanski's attorneys have sought to dismiss the case following the release of the HBO documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which raised questions about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The film contends Rittenband, who has since died, was improperly consulted by a prosecutor not assigned to Polanski's case about what kind of sentence the film director should receive. While Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza earlier this year found there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case, he dismissed Polanski's motion to throw out the case because the director did not appear in court. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles. He has appealed Espinoza's decision, and a California appellate court is reviewing the case.
Now, if it happens that he can't use that excuse anymore, that will be entirely his fault.


-
Anyway the guy doesn't even want to spend 1 day in a prison, or even, not even want to be judged, even if the sentence is little, because he decided it. So far I only see an egocentrical person who thinks he is above everything.

Last edited by Narona; 2009-10-01 at 17:16.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 17:27   Link #150
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
My main problems with this man are:

- The French governement shall not ask the USA to drop the charges just because Mr Polanski achieved movies awards and such. Beside some people from the government and some stars, almost no French support him. Again in the today TV debate "C dans l'air" on the French TV, after an sms question, no one who was present in the debate thinked he deserves a special treatment. So it would be good if some medias stop to say "The french are supporting him".

- I currently don't really care about the sentence, I am just disgusted that Mr Polanski refuses to be extradited and judged.


I have the French nationality and Polanski lived in my country, mostly since 1978, and I don't think his life was that bad here. We're not talking about a poor powerless man here.

I don't care if he dies in prison or not. I want him to be judged, that's all. Now, I'll let the LA justice to decide what is the right sentence for him.
I think we generally agree on the grand scheme of things, with a little difference as to how we think he could be most appropriately punished. I agree with you that I want him to be judged on this instance. I think it's a sham that he was able to avoid prosecution and judgment for so long and, even more so, a sham that he thinks he should not even be prosecuted. Certainly the guilty must pay some debt for their crimes, and this is where we disagree. I'm more than content to agree to disagree on that issue, since the definition of justice is quite ambiguous, and people are free to interpret it however they feel. We all view justice as something different in our own minds; there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 18:34   Link #151
JMvS
Rawrrr!
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
So smite the criminal regardless of circumstance, that is your opinion? I fail to see how that delivers any more or less justice than my assertion that we should look for a means to create some social benefit from this situation. Your justice is delivered through your sense of "fairness", and my justice is delivered through my sense of "social ethical responsibility."
My bolding was probably misleading, what I meant is that the case justice is for everybody: you commit a crime => you get sentenced to something.
How you get judged, depending on circumstances, etc... is up to the judge.
Allowing somebody to escape trial is not the same as giving him a comprehensive sentence.

Quote:
I'm assuming you just misspoke here, and you meant "It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've got." In which case, I argue that it may not be the best system. England seems to be doing rather well from a governmental standpoint, and their a monarchy. Canada is much in the same boat. On the other hand, the United States is $9 trillion in debt, and sinking further and faster every year. If the measure of the quality of a government is how it treats it's people, then I'd have to say that America has actually one of the worst governments in the world. There's a quote out there somewhere (I can't find it at the moment), about gaining better understanding of a society by looking at it's convicts. Well, America has more of them than any other country in the world; what does that say?
Yeah I misspoke the saying, sorry about that. I am fully aware of the multiple flaws of democracy (and not-so-democracies), but I value it still.

Quote:
As sarcastic as you're being, I don't think you fully realize the positive implications of a system like this. If we started executing every single person who committed a crime, I think we'd see the crime rate drop dramatically. Unfortunately, we can't do that, as it infringes directly on the basic human right of life. Since we have that issue to deal with, why not try to gain benefit in other ways. There are plenty of starving people out there, plenty of homeless people out there, and I'm sure that Polanski's fortune could fund more than a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters for a good while.
I fully realize the advantages of such a system. What I was pointing at is precisely that values such as democracy and human rights are highly vulnerable to the utilitarian approach.

Quote:
That's only one example. Hell, donate the money to a charity or organization that helps rehabilitate female victims of abuse, I don't care. I just think that there are far better ways to go about getting some justice than simply tossing him in prison.
No argument here. My main point being that he has to be sentenced, to what is up to the judge.
__________________
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 20:08   Link #152
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
My bolding was probably misleading, what I meant is that the case justice is for everybody: you commit a crime => you get sentenced to something.
How you get judged, depending on circumstances, etc... is up to the judge.
Allowing somebody to escape trial is not the same as giving him a comprehensive sentence.
I think I misconstrued what you said, because of the bolding. We seem to be in direct agreement on this issue. Everyone deserves to be judged for their crimes, but punishment lies with the penal system, and those who interpret it, on a case by case basis.



Quote:
Yeah I misspoke the saying, sorry about that. I am fully aware of the multiple flaws of democracy (and not-so-democracies), but I value it still.
No apologies necessary. As I said, I assumed you misspoke, I just like to nitpick for the sake a nitpicking. Call it a character flaw =P



Quote:
I fully realize the advantages of such a system. What I was pointing at is precisely that values such as democracy and human rights are highly vulnerable to the utilitarian approach.
This I find to be an unfortunate truth. We start to delve into question like "If someone takes a life, do they deserve to live?" when we get to here. As I said before, I'd prefer to see eye for an eye justice, but we live in a country where human rights must come first, for all people, regardless of their actions toward others.



Quote:
No argument here. My main point being that he has to be sentenced, to what is up to the judge.
Again, we are in complete agreement here. And, obviously, we could argue ad nauseam about what a fair punishment would be, but it is up to the judge to interpret the law and derive punishment from his interpretation. I simply hope that he will recognize where some benefit for others can come out of this situation, aside from just punishing the accused.
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 20:47   Link #153
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
Again, we are in complete agreement here. And, obviously, we could argue ad nauseam about what a fair punishment would be, but it is up to the judge to interpret the law and derive punishment from his interpretation. I simply hope that he will recognize where some benefit for others can come out of this situation, aside from just punishing the accused.
If the case of rape is dismissed thanks to the documentary's infos, we can only wonder if they will sentence him because he fled. To be honest, I don't understand why he still refuses to be extradited.


Now for the tabloids:

Quote:
"Switzerland let a guest walk into a nasty trap. We should be ashamed," said tabloid newspaper Blick.

Daily paper Le Temps said Switzerland had "shocked film buffs and friends of the arts with its kindly and efficient co-operation with US justice. It has angered Poland and France".
To caugh someone who has broken the law is actually a "nasty" trap

And I like the "It has angered Poland and France" Beside Mitterrand and his friends, nearly no one here is angered at what the Swiss Police did. And given the result of the national Polish survey that I posted ealier, not a lot of people in Poland are angered either.


And another news with the best source ever:

Quote:
The Los Angeles Times on Monday said Polanski's lawyers may have sparked the arrest by claiming that prosecutors had never sought to extradite him in 30 years. It cited two unidentified sources as saying that court motions filed in July had suggested prosecutors were not serious about capturing him.

And finally, an article about France:

Quote:
Roman Polanski, a sexual predator? Not in the eyes of the French media, which tend to describe him as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge.

The woman in question was Susan Gailey, whose daughter, Samantha, was at the centre of the case that led to Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland.

The French view is that Mrs Gailey pushed the 13-year-old — now known as Samantha Geimer — into Polanski’s arms in the hope of a movie career.

For the generation of French commentators who grew up the 1960s, Polanski was guilty only of pushing back the boundaries of sexual liberation.

The other figure in a tale that highlights the Franco-American gulf is Laurence J. Rittenband, the judge in charge of the case, who died in 1993. He is accused in France of reneging on his word over a plea bargain, making a series of procedural errors and using Polanski’s name to earn himself celebrity.

For France, there has never been any question of extraditing Polanski to the United States because he holds a French passport. Nor has his reputation been tarnished in Paris by the events of 1977. Instead, he is seen as a hero unjustly persecuted by America’s prosecutors and media.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6851562.ece
Even if it is true about our medias in France (sadly), and even if they put "french media" in the first lines of the article", articles like this one tend to give a rather bad view of the "French people" who are actually ok with the Californian Justice decision in majority.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 22:42   Link #154
FateAnomaly
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
For supporters of the fine sentence, how much would you say a appriopriate fine wil be? As far as i know there isn't a fine that is "All your money and assets".
FateAnomaly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 22:53   Link #155
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by FateAnomaly View Post
For supporters of the fine sentence, how much would you say a appriopriate fine wil be? As far as i know there isn't a fine that is "All your money and assets".
I would have to see an estimate of his personal wealth (including any incoming royalty fees he may be pulling in from anything he's ever put his name on), to give an estimate of what I think would be a fair amount for a fine.

As a general statement, I'd say 85-90% of his current wealth should do quite nicely. It would give the state of California some money to spend on something worthwhile, and send the message that if the rich and famous want to commit crimes, then they can sacrifice their riches for rags, and fame for infamy.
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-02, 01:50   Link #156
Fevvers
a regular van veen
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
It's high time for Polanski to face the goddamn music, even if it means spending the rest of his life in jail (which I doubt to be honest, but still...). Contrary to Whoopi's statement in her show, rape is, you know, just that, rape.

Also, seeing Guillermo del Toro's signature in the people defending Polanski makes me weep. (brb sobbing 'T_T)
Fevvers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-05, 11:38   Link #157
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...olanski&st=cse

Quote:
Court Records Show Polanski Agreed to Pay Victim to Settle Civil Suit
By Michael Cieply
The film director Roman Polanski agreed to pay at least $500,000 to Samantha Geimer, the victim in his 1977 child-sex case, under a settlement to a civil suit Ms. Geimer later filed against him, The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. Mr. Polanski agreed to the settlement in 1993, but as of 1996 still had not made the payment, according to court records that were provided to media outlets in Los Angeles in response to requests for access to the old case. It remained unclear whether the settlement was ever paid, though Ms. Geimer was still trying to collect as of 1996, by which time accrued interest had pushed the amount to over $600,000, according to the court records.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/mo...0polanski.html

Quote:
France Divided Over Polanski Case

PARIS — After two days of widespread expressions of support for jailed filmmaker Roman Polanski, from European political leaders as well as leading cultural figures there and in the United States, the mood was shifting among French politicians Tuesday about whether the government should have rushed to rally around the Oscar-winning director.

Do successful artists get a pass for their moral failings or crimes?

Post a Comment » Marc Laffineur, the vice-president of the French assembly and a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling center-right party, the UMP, took issue with the French culture and foreign minister’s remarks supporting Mr. Polanski, saying “the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is.”

Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski’s side despite the serious nature of his crime. On the extreme right, the father and daughter politicians Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen also attacked the ministers, saying they were supporting “a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class.”


Meanwhile, an international team of lawyers was fighting Tuesday to free Mr. Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he’s being held for possible extradition to the United States. The arrest last weekend of the 76-year-old filmmaker as he arrived at Zurich’s airport to attend a local film festival is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.

Mr. Polanski a French and Polish citizen,. fled the United States in 1978 just before he was to be sentenced for having sex with a minor — a 13-year-old girl — under a plea agreement in which he avoided other charges including rape and sodomy.

For two days, supporters in the demi-monde of movies and media circulated petitions and took to the airwaves in his defense. Among them was the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy (I didn't wait tody to dislike BHL anyway ), who suggested that perhaps the Swiss had more serious criminal matters to attend to than Mr. Polanski, who, he said, “perhaps had committed a youthful error.”

Marie-Louise Fort, a French lawmaker in the Assembly who has sponsored anti-incest legislation, said in an interview that she was shocked that Mr. Polanski was attracting support from the political and artistic elite. “I don’t believe that public opinion is spontaneously supporting Mr. Polanski at all,” she said. “I believe that there is a distinction between the mediagenic class of artists and ordinary citizens that have a vision that is more simple.”

The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.

That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski’s rarefied Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”


Still, many others continued to rally to the Oscar-winning director’s defense.

Film industry leaders like Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese and Costa Gavras signed a petition with about 100 names that expressed “stupefaction” with the arrest of Mr. Polanski at the Zurich airport. But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.

“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, , “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.” Meanwhile, Mr. Polanski remains in custody somewhere in Zurich; officials have not said exactly where. He was, however, visited by French and Polish diplomats, who afterward pronounced that he was being well treated.
And it's continue from what I know and read the last few days. Huge disagreements between the French people, and many artists/politcians/journalists.



And another article but too long to quote: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.c...olanski&st=cse

Quote:
The Polanski Uproar

The recent arrest of Roman Polanski, the film director who fled to France from the United States in 1978 on the eve of sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, has caused an international ruckus. The French culture minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, and the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, both issued statements of support for Mr. Polanski. But many others in France have expressed outrage at that support and said he should face justice for the crime.

While it’s clear that the film industry forgave Mr. Polanski long ago, should society separate the work of artists from the artists themselves, despite evidence of reprehensible or even criminal behavior?


Jay Parini, writer
Mark Anthony Neal, professor, African American studies
Geraldine A. Ferraro lawyer
Damon Lindelof, TV executive producer
Mark Bauerlein, professor of English
Charlie Finch, art critic
Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic
Judith Surkis, professor of history and literature
Jonathan Gilmore, philosophy professor

Click here to read the opinions of each of those people.

This one is very interesting though


Quote:
Hollywood Hypocrisy

Geraldine A. Ferraro, a lawyer and a former member of Congress, was the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984.


“A male is guilty of rape in the second degree when, being eighteen years old or more, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female less than fifteen years old. Rape in the second degree is a class D felony.”

That is the current law in New York. When I was prosecuting these cases in Queens in the 70’s the law required that the child be less than 14. The legislature tightened it. But there is no doubt that California had the same protections for children when Polanski was prosecuted in California for having intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. It still does.


Why has no one from the movie business, no one who supposedly stands up for the rights of women and girls, spoken up in support of finally bringing this man to justice?
This is the definition of statutory rape. Notice, it doesn’t talk about force and it doesn’t talk about consent. Neither are needed. The statute is meant to protect children. A 13-year-old can’t consent to intercourse with a man over 18, and certainly not with a man in his 30’s.


Polanski was convicted of a serious crime in the 70’s. He chose to abscond to France and because he had money and connections, has lived a charmed life, unhindered by his obligations to society. The message is, rich guys can get away with anything … or wait — is it only rich guys with friends in Hollywood? The statute of limitations for rape does not toll simply because 31 years has passed. And victims cannot “forgive” the rapist. The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.

Last edited by Narona; 2009-10-05 at 11:49.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-06, 09:16   Link #158
LynnieS
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
Swiss rejects Polanski's bid on release
Quote:
BERN, Switzerland – Roman Polanski lost his first bid to win his freedom Tuesday as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected an appeal by the 76-year-old to be immediately released from prison, an official said.

"We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight," said ministry spokesman Folco Galli, explaining the decision.
Well, yes, the earlier run Roman Polanski did years ago would count against his being allowed to leave Switzerland or be freed on parole before the hearing.

I'm just a bit puzzled here by this one bit in the article...
Quote:
However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country, on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced to the additional time.
Okay, so the time that is still outstanding is just 48 days out of the original 90? And following after that would be a "voluntary deportation" after which, he may have a hard time returning to the U.S. legally? So for the first, was the extra 1.5 months (after already serving 1.5 months) that painful, and for the second, how would it be worse than his current situation where he couldn't go to any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.?
__________________
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!
LynnieS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-06, 16:26   Link #159
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
Swiss rejects Polanski's bid on release
Well, yes, the earlier run Roman Polanski did years ago would count against his being allowed to leave Switzerland or be freed on parole before the hearing.
They have some common sense. Given his past deeds, I think the decision is understandable.

Quote:
I'm just a bit puzzled here by this one bit in the article...
Okay, so the time that is still outstanding is just 48 days out of the original 90? And following after that would be a "voluntary deportation" after which, he may have a hard time returning to the U.S. legally? So for the first, was the extra 1.5 months (after already serving 1.5 months) that painful, and for the second, how would it be worse than his current situation where he couldn't go to any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.?
The man is weird (I bet "highly egocentric"). He could have come back to the US when his lawyer had the opportunity to dismiss the case ealier this year, but he didn't.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-06, 16:34   Link #160
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
I'm just a bit puzzled here by this one bit in the article ... Okay, so the time that is still outstanding is just 48 days out of the original 90? And following after that would be a "voluntary deportation" after which, he may have a hard time returning to the U.S. legally? So for the first, was the extra 1.5 months (after already serving 1.5 months) that painful, and for the second, how would it be worse than his current situation where he couldn't go to any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.?
Yeah, this part had me confused as well. It was only 48 days. One month and a half wouldn't really have done him a lot of harm and he might have actually had better freedom of movement within other countries with the extradition treaty. He would've been deported from the US, meaining he would've paid for his crime within the boundaries of the country where he carried out the offence. That being said, I doubt any European country would've looked at him the wrong way if he paid the last 48 days. Guess he was an idiot on top of being a coward.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.