Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace
I see you all are missing the point. He's 77 years old. What exactly, can you say would be a fitting punishment for this man at this point in time? Do you send him to jail until he dies, which might be a decade, maybe two if he's in great health? What type of jail? Sending him into a general population is just begging for his premature demise. Do you give him the death penalty?
I know how the law works, thanks. I'm also aware of the *numerous* occasions where laws are changed, bent, or broken for exceptions. Remember Michael Fay? Different crime and circumstances, but that one was much more diplomatic - the US government requested leniency because they thought the punishment was too strong for the crime. Singapore only relented because the request came from the President.
Perhaps instead of spending decades insulting the French the United States could have spent it building relations that would have enabled them to extradite this man sooner (among other beneficial things between the countries of course).
Do the crime, do the time. Eye for an Eye, it's a case between the US and him, not the victim anymore. I see everyone harping on what the law is written as but not many considering the circumstances of the situation.
Consider for a moment, the article that was linked earlier by SeijiSensei. In the article is a person who will be labeled a criminal for the rest of her life for a consensual act. The fantasy of many young men became a nightmare for her as she struggles to find employment, moving constantly due to ostracism of the community. For what? How is she a sex offender for performing oral sex on someone barely over a year younger than her, with his permission? How does this one act destroy a life? Why can't she have her charges removed considering that what she was charged for is no longer considered a crime? And why don't more people fight against this stupidity?
We have rules here on the forums too. In all but a few cases, they aren't iron clad. We can and do bend them, if the circumstances require it. In some cases such examinations even cause us to revise, rewrite, or remove a rule entirely.
All I'm pointing out is that he did a crime, ruined his reputation, salvaged his career (in some circles), the victim moved on with her life, and the only people who seem to care are the US justice system, trying to save face because someone managed to evade them long enough to embarrass them. They're going to put an old man in jail, patting themselves on the back for...what? "We finally got him!" and the world will say "So? Don't you have better things to do with your time?"
Honestly...on the scale of things that make America look bad, this is hardly something of note.
|
You're missing the point of what most people are discussing around the world (at least in France).
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:
Originally Posted by Quzor
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.
|
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?