Roman Polanski Arrested

[KillerDog]

From a gospel perspective, those crying for blood seem to conveniently ignore the wishes of the victim. She has forgiven, feels that he has paid enough, and wants the charges dropped. What of that?

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/20..._long_ago.html

I think you are confusing our civil system for our criminal system. A criminal violation has not historically created a right to recovery. It is also perpetrated against the state, not the victim. The victim can, and in this case did, recover civilly for damages caused by the crime but the state does not have to turn a blind eye because the crime violated the "peace of the realm" or "broke the kings peace."

If your analysis was the way to go, an abused wife, who through the cycle of abuse had come to believe she deserved to have her arm broken, would be the party which determined whether the abuser would go to jail. That is not the case.

[TripletDaddy]

I think you are confusing our civil system for our criminal system. A criminal violation has not historically created a right to recovery. It is also perpetrated against the state, not the victim. The victim can, and in this case did, recover civilly for damages caused by the crime but the state does not have to turn a blind eye because the crime violated the "peace of the realm" or "broke the kings peace."

If your analysis was the way to go, an abused wife, who through the cycle of abuse had come to believe she deserved to have her arm broken, would be the party which determined whether the abuser would go to jail. That is not the case.

I am not trying to confuse the two. Just referencing (from a gospel perspective) the need for and role of forgiveness. My post was pretty clear. It was addressed to those wanting "justice." mercy seems to be the better part of justice, so when the victim has forgiven, judicial protocol seems to take a back seat.

As to your hypo, it isn't really accurate. this woman states that she was a victim, she is not perpetuating a cycle of abuse. She is exercising forgiveness.

[wuapinmon]

I think DDD makes a good point. I will disagree because I don't think anyone should be above the law, or with a pardon from the victim, side-step the law. While her forgiveness and her ability to enter a family recommendation during sentencing should be taken into account by the judge, I believe that no matter what the status is, he needs to have a reckoning. I'm rarely compelled by the expense-side argument about the justice system because if we reckoned everything based on money spent and efficiency, there would be a reason not to prosecute many people. However, I'm wishy-washy because I think the money spent on investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating drug offenders is a compelling argument (part of it, at least) for the legalization of most drugs.

[TripletDaddy]

I think DDD makes a good point. I will disagree because I don't think anyone should be above the law, or with a pardon from the victim, side-step the law. While her forgiveness and her ability to enter a family recommendation during sentencing should be taken into account by the judge, I believe that no matter what the status is, he needs to have a reckoning. I'm rarely compelled by the expense-side argument about the justice system because if we reckoned everything based on money spent and efficiency, there would be a reason not to prosecute many people. However, I'm wishy-washy because I think the money spent on investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating drug offenders is a compelling argument (part of it, at least) for the legalization of most drugs.

The law exists to serve man, not vice versa.

He has already had decades worth of reckoning. His own victim recognizes this.

It is not terribly common for a victim to be so vocal about forgiveness towards the perpetrator. It seems that we are all eagerly rejecting what is quite possibly one of the most powerful lessons of justice and mercy in years.

[byu71]

It seems that we are all eagerly rejecting what is quite possibly one of the most powerful lessons of justice and mercy in years.

Surely you are jerking our chains. This pales in comparison to say Obama calling of his attorney General on the CIA boys. I doubt the Hollywood folks would be so interested in forgiveness, mercy, justice and all that crap in that case.

[falafel]

The law exists to serve man, not vice versa.

He has already had decades worth of reckoning. His own victim recognizes this.

It is not terribly common for a victim to be so vocal about forgiveness towards the perpetrator. It seems that we are all eagerly rejecting what is quite possibly one of the most powerful lessons of justice and mercy in years.

[YOUTUBE]jWc-8E3zec0[/YOUTUBE]

[Commando]

From a gospel perspective, those crying for blood seem to conveniently ignore the wishes of the victim. She has forgiven, feels that he has paid enough, and wants the charges dropped. What of that?

It's not just a crime against the person, it's a crime against society. I don't think this slime bag should be able to sidestep the law because he's coincidentally a gifted director-- as much as Woody Allen would like to even things out with his own overrated crap. That's not how it works.

Sorry, but I don't think it's okay that creepy old guys lure 13 year olds to their actor-buddy's ass-lair under the ruse of taking pictures in order to slip them some Quaaludes and go to town on their private orifices. That's just me--different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[LA Ute]

The law exists to serve man, not vice versa.

He has already had decades worth of reckoning. His own victim recognizes this.

It is not terribly common for a victim to be so vocal about forgiveness towards the perpetrator. It seems that we are all eagerly rejecting what is quite possibly one of the most powerful lessons of justice and mercy in years.

I think you are absolutely right about the personal lessons. I do think that might miss the legal/cultural point, however. Mercy and justice in our legal system need a place to be exercised, and in this case that place is in court, in front of a judge. The judge (and even the D.A.) should take all of the factors you mention into account in sentencing. He/she should also take into account Polanski's flight, as well as the punishment involved in being basically banned from the USA and the U.K. for 32 years. Just close the matter once and for all, I say.

The more disturbing aspect of this little drama for me is the response by some of our elites in the entertainment industry. In an L.A. Times op-ed this morning Harvey Weinstein referred to Polanski's "so-called crime." Excuse me? He plead guilty!

[UtahDan]

The law exists to serve man, not vice versa.

He has already had decades worth of reckoning. His own victim recognizes this.

It is not terribly common for a victim to be so vocal about forgiveness towards the perpetrator. It seems that we are all eagerly rejecting what is quite possibly one of the most powerful lessons of justice and mercy in years.

But if you are correct, then in effect he has been allowed to pick his own penalty. The system just doesn't work if you incentivize that. I see no reason why, if appropriate, he should not be extended mercy. By the judge.

Forgive me if you have said, but are you suggesting he ought to get mercy from the judge or mercy in the form of not having to complete the trial process?

[TripletDaddy]

Surely you are jerking our chains. This pales in comparison to say Obama calling of his attorney General on the CIA boys. I doubt the Hollywood folks would be so interested in forgiveness, mercy, justice and all that crap in that case.

To your first point, I am not.

To your second point, I am not even sure why it is relevant to Roman Polanski, so I can't answer. What about Mata Hari? Or Three Mile Island?

[byu71]

To your first point, I am not.

To your second point, I am not even sure why it is relevant to Roman Polanski, so I can't answer. What about Mata Hari? Or Three Mile Island?

We are on the same page. How you felt about my relevance is exactly how I felt about the relevance you put on the Polanksi thing.

[TripletDaddy]

But if you are correct, then in effect he has been allowed to pick his own penalty. The system just doesn't work if you incentivize that. I see no reason why, if appropriate, he should not be extended mercy. By the judge.

Forgive me if you have said, but are you suggesting he ought to get mercy from the judge or mercy in the form of not having to complete the trial process?

What incentive, precisely? Leaving the country (a popular and talented director unable to reside in the global epicenter of his craft...his career undoubtedly could have been even bigger if he had direct access to Hollywood), being a known and public rapist, and living with that stigma forever. If other criminals wish to flee and never return to the US (literally) for almost 40 years, then we have, in essence, accomplished one of the goals of the US judicial system....we get the criminals off our streets. It isn't a perfect solution, but neither is wasting a bunch of time and money bringing this guy in for a token sentencing. Talk about incentivizing the wrong behavior!

I think the DA should close the case and move on to the next issue. LAPD and the Feds have way bigger issues to deal with.

[TripletDaddy]

We are on the same page. How you felt about my relevance is exactly how I felt about the relevance you put on the Polanksi thing.

Well, this thread was about polanski. I was opining on polanski and his victim.

You were cross referencing Obama and the CIA.

I can see your confusion.

[byu71]

Well, this thread was about polanski. I was opining on polanski and his victim.

You were cross referencing Obama and the CIA.

I can see your confusion.

My bad. I will admit I haven't read the CUF rule book on discussions. I didn't know you weren't allowed to make comparisons or talk about anything except the specific thing the thread was about. I will try to do better.

[TripletDaddy]

My bad. I will admit I haven't read the CUF rule book on discussions. I didn't know you weren't allowed to make comparisons or talk about anything except the specific thing the thread was about. I will try to do better.

Which needs more work....your sarcasm or your golf?