|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| kabrams wrote: |
This is the reason why you are not allowed to bring a woman/girl's sex life into the court when it comes to rape cases.
Because somehow, the fact that she was not a virgin has something to do with the fact that a man raped her.
Once again, she "could be lying" because, let's face it! She was good looking and "exposed" to a lifestyle that could lead to having sex with adults! She wasn't a virgin, so that means there is a possibility about her lying about being raped!
Wow. I cannot believe in 2009 someone is actually making this argument.
Also, he didn't have sex with her, he RAPED her. Like, what aren't you getting about that?
She said no. He raped her. LOL. Am I gonna have to repeat it again? Saying no and then continuing with what you're doing is NOT sex. It's rape. |
I'm as surprised as you are that many people simply cannot grasp that he raped a minor. Got it, people? A minor. As in below the age of consent. |
And he skipped out on his court dates. And then was invited back to appear while it was hinted he'd be treated leniently. Its hard to imagine a less sympathetic defendant without throwing in a dead body. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:48 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Yup. He skipped out on sentencing.
Not sure why it took this long, but statutes of limitations don't even apply here.
I assumed he was savvy in extradition treaties.
As long as we're on, I'll point out that Arthur C Clarke was never guilty of anything, unlike Polanski. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Roman Polanski refused bail by Switzerland
| Quote: |
The Swiss justice ministry refused Polanski's request because of the risk he would flee the country, Folco Galli, a spokesman for the ministry, told the Associated Press.
"We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight," he said.
|
Chuckle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| As long as we're on, I'll point out that Arthur C Clarke was never guilty of anything, unlike Polanski. |
Eh? What's this about ACC? What am I missing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| As long as we're on, I'll point out that Arthur C Clarke was never guilty of anything, unlike Polanski. |
Eh? What's this about ACC? What am I missing? |
Back in 1998, Clarke supposedly admitted to a life of pedophilia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kabrams wrote: |
I am not justifying what he did, but in the 1970s it was legal to have sex with 13yr olds in Europe. . |
Polanski took full advantage of that one: he had sex with 15 yr old actress Nastassja Kinski soon after fleeing sentencing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski
At year after the incident...Polanski is reported by the BBC here as saying""I've been tortured by this for a year and that's enough."
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
In his movies..justice and morality play no part- his characters suffer entirely random and ironic fates devoid of any pattern. Life is chaotic: survival and fortune is down to chance and luck. Its how his own life has actually been lived.
This perspective of reality may also be the reason he has never shown any remorse for his actions. Finally getting locked up in the US would then, kind of turn his worldview on its head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Roman Polanski depressed, unsettled in Zurich jail, lawyer says
"I found him to be tired and depressed," Temime told the Sonntag newspaper.
He was quoted in the newspaper NZZ as saying Polanski "seemed very dejected when I visited him."
Swiss authorities last week rejected Polanski's request to be released from jail. The director's representatives have said they plan to fight the efforts of L.A. prosecutors to bring the director back to California.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/roman-polanski-depressed-unsettled-in-zurich-jail-lawyer-says.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
...Just incase anybody's still interested....
US asks Switzerland to extradite Polanski
Fri., Oct . 23, 2009
ZURICH - The United States has formally asked Switzerland to extradite film director Roman Polanski, who fled sentencing in California on child sex charges in 1977, the Swiss Justice Department said on Friday.
The department said it would make a decision on extradition based on a hearing and on information provided by Polanski's lawyer.
In a statement, it said Polanski would be able to appeal against its decision to the Swiss Federal Criminal Court and, in the last instance, the Federal Supreme Court.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33444890/ns/entertainment-celebrities |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Judicial misconduct? Judges are not obligated to respect plea agreements. |
That was not the judicial misconduct in this case. It was the following: after agreeing with the prosecution and defense attorneys on the plea bargain, Judge Rittenband called them into his chambers just before the hearing. He said wanted to avoid criticism from the press that he did not sentence Polanski harshly enough, and instructed them to do the following: the prosecutor would ask for a prison sentence, and the defense ask for no jail time. He would then render his decision as agreed. Both lawyers felt weird about it but agreed.
When he asked them to do it a second time after Polanski was brought back from Europe (before he fled), both the prosecution and defense agree this was out of line, a motion to recuse was made, and Rittenband was forced to get off the case.
| Ytuque wrote: |
| The only judicial misconduct was allowing a pedophile to flee the country rather than lock him up. |
Pedophilia is a preferential attraction to prepubertal children. Not only was Geimer not prepubertal, but there is no other evidence from Polanski's life that he has a sexual preference for children.
And see above.
| Mr Pink wrote: |
The problem I see with this case is: in the 1970s the attitude towards sex and sex with minors was different. This is shown by the fact he was going to get a 90 day sentence. In today's super sensitive politically correct climate, there is currently a witch hunt going on in America against anyone who screws an underage girl.
If they are putting 18yr old guys in prison for banging 17yr old girls, Polanski doesn't have a prayer.
I am not justifying what he did, but in the 1970s it was legal to have sex with 13yr olds in Europe. In America, they were not busting people for having sex with minors to the extent the PC police have today. So, if the deal was the rape aspect, and she has decided not to pursue charges, why is this still news?
Also, think about the fact that this guy hasn't be able to freely travel for the past 30 years. Isn't that worse in many ways than a 90 day sentence?
|
Not only that, but this man's mother was killed at Auschwitz, and his wife murdered by Charles Manson's gang.
In the original case, all the parties agreed to no prison time except for the 90-day "evaluation." After the new judge came on the case, again all parties agreed there should be no further prison time. The defense, prosecution, two judges, and the victim all agreed to this. The man should be left alone.
But if one is to insist, a case can be made for him to receive some punishment for fleeing, but in no case should it exceed what he would have gotten for the original conviction.
| Quote: |
| I guess I am old enough to know that you cannot look through the current witch hunt lens against pedophiles when talking about something that occurred 30 years ago. |
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Not only that, but this man's mother was killed at Auschwitz, and his wife murdered by Charles Manson's gang. |
And why is this relevant?
Are you saying that the law should leave him alone because of this?
Does past suffering grant one a special exemption which allows one to rape a minor at least once in one's life?
If a guy were to hold you down and force his pink unwrapped snickers bar up your delicate anus, despite your request that he did not, would you then grant him a special exemption on learning of his past suffering?
I can't help wondering if you are a champion of NAMBLA too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Not only that, but this man's mother was killed at Auschwitz, and his wife murdered by Charles Manson's gang. |
And why is this relevant?
Are you saying that the law should leave him alone because of this? |
I should have known better than to appeal to your humanity.
But no, the law should not leave him alone because of this. The law should pass judgment on his flight from sentencing. It should not surpass what he was to get under the agreement for the index crime. The law should also leave him alone because that is the victim's wish.
| Quote: |
| I can't help wondering if you are a champion of NAMBLA too. |
Ad hominem all you like. I am not a mod and won't descend to return it in kind.
Anyway, ages of consent in America are set too high and enforced in a bizarre fashion, as in this case:
13-year-old Girl Charged as BOTH VICTIM AND OFFENDER in the Same Case Involving her 12-year-old Boyfriend.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| The law should also leave him alone because that is the victim's wish. |
I think this is a dangerous principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| The law should also leave him alone because that is the victim's wish. |
I think this is a dangerous principle. |
But you can bet that if the victim were screaming for his hide, they'd be sure to take it into account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interested wrote: |
You read it. But you still feel this is merely an issue of underage sex, and not a predator who forced his sexual organ into an unwilling and frightened victim. And you are concerned about how fair he will be treated.
Personally, I don't think it is very fair to be forcibly penetrated in both the vagina and anus, when you are a frightened little girl, and my sympathy for this gentleman is negligible. |
Interested, I am sorry that apparently you have been more traumatized by this event than the victim.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| The child sexual abuse witch-hunt was not yet in such high gear in those times. |
Fixed it for you.
| Quote: |
| It is precisely because we don't deem the average 13 year old child to have much common sense that we have laws put in place on the very assumption that a 13 year old child is not in a position to consent to being sexually penetrated. |
Biologically, a menstruating female is no longer a child. In some places, 13-year-olds can legally have sex (like Korea) and/or get married.
| gypsyfish wrote: |
| Mr. Pink wrote: |
I never said he should get away with what he did. I said the punishment he is going to get is going to be far worse than what he would have gotten in the 1970s. Thus, is it fair to throw the book at the guy?
He is an idiot all around, which I stated earlier. I just hate seeing posts about people who want the book thrown at the guy. |
So what punishment do you think is appropriate? |
I think Mr. Pink and I agree that what Polanski did constitutes sexual abuse of Geimer. The questions are how much trauma did she suffer, and how much punishment is appropriate. The answers to both are the same: some, but not very much.
I think it appropriate to impose the sentence that the prosecution, defense, victim, and two judges came to a consensus upon, plus a punishment for fleeing which does not exceed that of the original agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| The law should also leave him alone because that is the victim's wish. |
I think this is a dangerous principle. |
But you can bet that if the victim were screaming for his hide, they'd be sure to take it into account. |
That's also a dangerous principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
