[hip hop bunny hop]

What he said? Dude pled guilty for his crimes, and then when he realized the sentence would be stiff, he bailed. He should pay.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

He plead guilty to statutory rape in a plea bargain. So, please recognize that he did not plea guilty for all the crimes he was charged with.

The plea bargain detailed that he would attend a mental health facility, and the judge would take & act upon the recommendation of said facility.

After roughly two months in the facility, said facility stated he needed no further treatment and should be released back into society.

The media and public were outraged that the judge wasn't putting this man in a pillory, so one of the prosecutors warned Polanski's lawyer that the judge was backing out the deal, and essentially stated that all signs pointed towards a kangaroo court.

So, Polanski fled to Europe. He also settled with the girl and her family out of court, by the by.

[Kylie]

Honestly, what is the point? Who is this justice benefiting? It isn't going to benefit the victim because she's already said she wants people to just forget about it. The guy has lived for 30 years with this on his conscience, he's a different person by now and is seriously unlikely to repeat that offence.

Because it only proves that justice truly can't be served and the justice system doesn't work. Dude did a crime, pled guilty to something, and should pay for that crime. If the guy would have just sucked it up and paid for his crimes, this wouldn't be a problem.

That's why he should pay for his crimes. Even if you've changed and have remorse, it doesn't excuse you from accepting your punishment from the law for crimes you've committed.

[ninurta]

Honestly, what is the point? Who is this justice benefiting? It isn't going to benefit the victim because she's already said she wants people to just forget about it. The guy has lived for 30 years with this on his conscience, he's a different person by now and is seriously unlikely to repeat that offence.

The justice is benefiting society as a whole, and every other person he may victomize. I can't even believe someone can talk about how something must if been troubling him and stuck on his conscience, he didn't care about the image of him raping that girl being on that girls conscience, and if he did, all the more reason he should be locked up.

[millie_(A)TCK]

I think it's a matter of them reporting on a simple fact that Hollywood is outraged by it, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think the general non-Hollywood public feels the same as the Hollywood elitist crowd.

I get annoyed when people can be excused from things, whether it be rudeness on a simple scale, or committing crimes, on a much larger scale, because they possess some sort of talent. It's like this talent is your get out of jail free card. It annoys me, and I think it annoys the general public, regardless of where they find themselves on the political spectrum.

As far as the Huffington Post is concerned, a casual look of articles pertaining to Roman Polanski show that they're not all favorable toward him.

Examples of what I mean: this and this

You're correct there, not all of the Huffington Post nor all Liberals are in support of Polanski. It's just all the support I've seen has come from the liberal media which is disturbing as they're suppose to be the most progressive in female rights and equality yet they're more bias in this case than the conservatives. I do agree with everything you've so far said.

[Kylie]

Millie- You bring up a very good point. Where is the outrage from the feminists in this case? Like I stated previously, the woman forgives him, because just because you forgive someone for something, doesn't mean you gave them permission to do it in the first place? I was reading a conservative blogger recently, and she mentioned this very same fact. (I like to read both sides, cause that's how I roll.) It disturbs me greatly that there really isn't a prominent feminist who is speaking on behalf of this woman and how justice, no matter how many years after the fact, should be served. This girl was only 13 when this took place. She was given alcohol, given drugs, and he had his merry way with her.

Urgh.

[millie_(A)TCK]

I hadn't noticed that, yes where are all the feminists in all this?

[The Clockwork Rat]

There are feminists on PoFo?

[millie_(A)TCK]

I am a feminist but I meant celebrity feminists. Why has no celebrity feminist commented yet on the Polanski Case.

But on another note I found a celebrity that's spoken out against Polanski. This is why I love Chris Rock, he calls it out for what it is, it's rape, rape!

http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-o ... -rape-rape

[The Clockwork Rat]

I'm not denying it was rape but like some other crimes, if it was done that long ago, there's little point in going back to it since no-one is going to benefit and justice for justice's sake is kinda pointless.

[millie_(A)TCK]

It sends out a message that no matter how long it takes, no crime goes unpunished. It creates a deterrence affect.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Oh dear, back to deterrence. The death penalty is a deterrent, correct? So why do the US and Japan have such massively different homicide rates? Why, when neither of them use execution, do Russia and Norway have a similar difference? Perhaps deterrence isn't as effective as people make out.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Deterrence takes a back seat to the issues of poverty. Governments seeking to reduce crimes are better likely to succeed if they work at combatting poverty, creating rehabilitation programs but they too need to punish those who break the law.
If deterrence never did work, children molesters wouldn't be so quick to go to countries where they could get away with molesting children because of ineffectiveness of the police in enforcing laws protecting children, such as Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines etc. Rape rates would be the same in countries where there is wide-spread anarchy such as the Congo and Sierra Leone as they are in countries where the state is in control and where rape is criminal and the laws on it enforced.

[Silence]

It's fucking stupid to say liberals support him, he's a director so it's understandable that his friends in Hollywood are going to support him, and it just so happens that many of those are liberals. I'd have to say even though i doubt it will do much good as he's not at all likely to re-offend at this stage, he should still stand trial for his crime.

[millie_(A)TCK]

It's fucking stupid to say liberals support him,

Read through the rest of the thread. Its only two pages long. I've addressed this rebuttal to the OP.

[The Clockwork Rat]

If deterrence never did work, children molesters wouldn't be so quick to go to countries where they could get away with molesting children because of ineffectiveness of the police in enforcing laws protecting children, such as Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines etc.

Child molestation is a quite different psychology to rape. On that point I concede that it was bad form to compare rape to murder. However, rape and murder are more frequently "heat of the moment" crimes whereas going abroad to molest children requires far more premeditation.

So I also concede that perhaps putting Polanski away could impact on whether another rape occurs. I suppose that if putting him away does made another potential rapist think twice then yes, he should be imprisoned.

[hip hop bunny hop]

That he already had forced confinement in a mental health facility for two months, and said facility said he need not be imprisoned any longer and he was rehabilitated, makes no difference to those of you who say he needs to be punished?

[The Clockwork Rat]

That he already had forced confinement in a mental health facility for two months, and said facility said he need not be imprisoned any longer and he was rehabilitated, makes no difference to those of you who say he needs to be punished?

I think we've moved onto utilitarianism now, in that we're looking at how keeping him inside would prevent people from thinking that they could rape someone, run away for a while and come back without any problem.

[PBVBROOK]

Another one of these threads. The New York Time slammed Polanski. Amy Goodman on Democracy Now slammed Polanski.

The Nation reported this:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/479379/roman_polanski_has_a_lot_of_friends

Of course Whoopie Goldberg made excuses for him as did some Hollywood morons but Liberals. I think not.

So the only answer to this question is .....THEY DON'T.

[Huntster]

It's fucking stupid to say liberals support him, he's a director so it's understandable that his friends in Hollywood are going to support him, and it just so happens that many of those are liberals.

Imagine that!

Any conservatives you know of making excuses for his sorry ass?

[Silence]

Imagine that!

Any conservatives you know of making excuses for his sorry ass?

You think that if it was a famous conservative in this position, their friends wouldn't support them?