2009-10-01, 03:35 | Link #121 | |
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-01, 03:37 | Link #122 |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Once again no one is advocating him to be released. People are assuming again that there is a one-for-all punishment befitting the entire spectrum regardless of circumstances.
I may be out of line by saying this, but this is how I interpret those seeking the "lock him up and throw away the key, if not fry him on the chair" approach: it's a simple desire to satiate the hunger for vengeance. To me it's nothing more than revenge; vengeance on a person for the wrong that he has done. But once vengeance is served cold, then what? The person is dead/locked up, but what does it do in the long run? It prevents the person from doing it again, obviously, but what else? Will a simple life or death sentence cause change in society? Will it cause say a change in the person, assuming he is capable of remorse and change, or maybe even change in others in similar situation? There are far too many possible effects that may come from different perceived solutions, and you would want the best. This to me is simply a "Lock him up now, let's figure everything else out later" mentality. A simple generic punishment no matter the circumstances limits the possibilities. Remember that the term for these things is "Correction", but what exactly is corrective about simply putting someone in jail or in the chair and forgetting the person ever existed?
__________________
|
2009-10-01, 03:40 | Link #123 | |
It's the year 3030...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 39
|
Quote:
On the other hand, they could levy a HEFTY fine against the man, and place him under psychological surveillance for the remainder of his life, as an act of probation. This would also include any probationary fines he would incur as a result of this sentence. And, of course, the best part is that all of this costs us EXACTLY NOTHING! The beauty of probation is that all of the expenses are the responsibility of the defendant. Now, instead of costing our government $20,000 a year, over the next 10 years for 1 person (remember, that's only for Polanski...keep adding another $20,000 for each person with at least 1 year jail time still left to serve), we've successfully made (presumably, and undershooting), $1,000,000 to put towards something worth while. Forgive me for not being more calm about this issue but, again, this isn't just a case of "a criminal should be punished for the crime." We're entering the realm of looking at where the most benefit can be gained from his sentencing not, as MeoTwister5 said, using the "...hand of justice in criminal prosecution and punishment..." to smite the offender. That's very idealistic of you, especially considering how good America is at making sure that celebrities, or people of sufficient fame, are held above the law.
__________________
Last edited by Quzor; 2009-10-01 at 16:23. |
|
2009-10-01, 04:00 | Link #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
^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. That is, if he even does go to jail (and he is not just sentenced with Time Served). And if he does, 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 and make it out after a year (which was, more or less, probably going to be the maximum on his original sentence anyway). That being said, I was really interested to see what Polanski would have done with Harris' The Ghost (before this attempted extridiction occured). Oh well, I hope someone else picks up the title... |
2009-10-01, 04:07 | Link #125 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2009-10-01, 04:11 | Link #126 | ||
It's the year 3030...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 39
|
Quote:
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:
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
__________________
Last edited by Quzor; 2009-10-01 at 04:22. |
||
2009-10-01, 04:22 | Link #127 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
^I edited my post a little. I agree that jail seems very unreasonable, but not because it is a waste of money (though it is), but because it would not serve the DA to try and get him put in prison. Specifically, even if Polanski was extradited tomorrow, had his sentence read by next Monday, and imprisoned the that evening, within a week's time a new court case would be introduced (whether civil or criminal, I am not sure, they would probably attempt to reopen the original case with new evidence), and a media circus would develop around the new case. I can just imagine Polanski's attorneys raising such a stink in the court that no one would be left standing, and all those present would find their careers more or less over.
So, a plea bargining of some sort seems like the best option available for the DA, and, like you mentioned, a hefty fine seems like the more legitimate solution to this messed up case. In the end, I do agree that jail seems to serve no purpose in this case. Besdies a moral victory (of sorts) against the idea of rape (etc), there is no real "happy" solution to this mess. |
2009-10-01, 04:26 | Link #128 |
It's the year 3030...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 39
|
^ Ah, apologies then. I didn't catch the edit as I was frantically searching the internet for those incarceration figures.
As for The Ghost, I'm sure someone else will pick it up, much the same way that Spielberg jumped all over A.I. after Kubrick passed.
__________________
|
2009-10-01, 04:32 | Link #130 |
It's the year 3030...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 39
|
A sad, but true statement. Hollywood is such a great example of this, and I don't think anyone here could say otherwise. Hell, we could probably just start a thread listing the names of famous people who have paid their way out of punishments, and have it at 100 pages before lunch.
__________________
|
2009-10-01, 06:23 | Link #132 | ||
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
The main point is not the sentence (so far), it's to not abandon the charges against him as if he was above the normal people and even above the "stars". Nor to give any special treatments to a fugitive (like allowing him to not be present at the trial when the sentence has to be pronounced) As cooley said it, Polanski is trying to make his own laws, as if he had the right to choose to not be charged. But he has no right to choose to evade the US Justice, nor the righ to choose if he can be charged or not. You're comparison is not good. What was discussed in Michael Fay's case is the punishment, not to "judge him or not" or "extradite him or not". Even "if" the sentence in Polanski's case could be not harsh (like a few people like you are suggesting), He has to be extradited, he has to be judged. He has to be present for a sentence to be pronounced (that's the US law in the california state) Like any other people. The Justice don't have to abandon the charges (that's what Polanski wants given his Lawyer. he doesn't even discuss the sentence, he just wants the charges to be dropped for his two crimes. You're defending that too?), nor to pronounce a sentence without him being present. There's no reason to make a special case about this part of the law. He can walk, he's in good health, hence he can come to the trial. Plus, there's even less reason to accept him to not be present since he is a fugitive. Even stars come to the trials for the sentences to be pronounced, you know. It would mean Polanski is even above the stars that you're talking about. (and P.S., about France, France didn't have the right to extradite him. It would have meant to disregard the law that says that we don't extradite a person who has the French nationality (Polanski or common people, it's like that here). You then expect France to disregard its law and to our presidents to act as dictator.) Quote:
Last edited by Narona; 2009-10-01 at 07:16. |
||
2009-10-01, 07:55 | Link #133 |
Part-time misanthrope
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
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. |
2009-10-01, 08:02 | Link #134 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Capitalism cedes deserved power to those who work hard but it also gives undeserved power to those born with ancestral money. Communism gives non-meritorious power to those in control but it creates a more unmerited equal majority. I think we need limited merit equality. |
|
2009-10-01, 11:32 | Link #139 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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.
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).
__________________
|
2009-10-01, 11:36 | Link #140 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|