Of course it does. If in some cases it were a good thing - not that such a thing would be provable one way or another - it could hardly be considered irrational. You're begging the question.
No! You are missing the point. What is revenge? Revenge isn't a type of punishment, it is a motivation for punishing and that motivation is rooted in an emotional reaction to the crime not sound objective reasoning. While it is possible that someone using sound reasoning might decide to implement the same punishment as someone motivated by revenge, that is in the end irrelevant in deciding whether or not revenge is irrational. A rational decision is distinguished from an irrational decision by the methodology used to arrive at the decision and not the results of that decision. Revenge is pretty much my definition an emotional response rather than a response based on sound reasoning.
quote:
quote: If by revenge, you mean simply the act of doing harm to a person in return for injuries inflicted on others, then we aren't really in disagreement because I have already stated a rational need to punish people for crimes. But normal revenge implies that the punishment is exacted in order to provide emotional satisfaction to the victim.
And why is there emotional satisfaction to the victim when the perpetrator is harmed? Because it's in response to the crime.
I'm not following your reasoning here. It isn't rational for a person to feel emotional satisfaction when another person is harmed, regardless of the history. Emotional responses aren't governed by the laws of reason, they are virtually by definition irrational. Saying that emotional responses are understandable or common or natural, is not equivalent to saying they are rational.
quote:Anyway, whatever you may think, vengeance (punishment) most certainly does play a role in our criminal justice system. That's partly why victims get to make statements in the sentencing phase, for example.
Since we are arguing about what should be part of our criminal justice system, this is essentially irrelevant. If vengeance is irrational and harms the over all cause of justice, it shouldn't be part of the system whether it is now or not.
Furthermore, allowing victims to make statements in the sentencing phase can serve other purposes besides determining whether or not the victim desires vengeance. Most importantly, it gives insight into the extent of harm done by the perpetrator. That isn't something which can be done from an entirely objective position since the harm was done to a conscious subject whose subjective experience as a victim of the crime is an inherent part of the damage done.
quote:
quote: Doing material harm to one person solely or even primarily for the emotional satisfaction of others is not only irrational it violates basic ethics. And that is true regardless of whether or not real emotional satisfaction obtained by the revenge or not.
So now your argument is that it's irrational because it violates 'basic ethics'?
No, although I can see why that why my original argument would be unclear. I was arguing that it is was not only irrational but also violates 'basic ethics'. Revenge is irrational because it is fundamentally an emotional response rather than a response based on sound reasoning.
quote:I think the problem here is that you're seeking to apply logical terms to very emotional matters, and to make them the only terms that should count. As long as there is a human factor involved, emotional concerns must have some place in the discussion-and that's not irrational.
I think the problem here is that you are using the terms "reasonable" and "rational" to mean "justifiable" or "worthy of consideration". But they don't. Reasonable and rational means that an idea is founded in and defensible by sound logical arguments rather than motivated by emotion.
The desire for revenge is an emotional response not a rational one. When people are injured in some way, it is very common for them to feel that hurting the perpetrator will reduce their own sense of violation. But from a purely rational perspective, that's absurd. If you poke out my eye, my vision won't be restored by poking out your eye. We just both end up blind.
Emotional responses don't always run counter to reason, but they sometimes do and this is one of those cases. People desire revenge because at some subconscious level they believe punishing the perpetrator will undo the harm that was done to them. But it doesn't, not materially or emotional. Its something psychologist call the revenge paradox. Getting revenge doesn't bring closure. It doesn't resolve peoples feelings of hurt or anger. In fact, usually it has exactly the opposite effect and makes it harder for victims to move on with their lives.
But even if getting revenge did improve the emotional well being of the victim, that wouldn't make it a rational response. The desire for revenge still wouldn't be something we humans developed as a result of cold rational processes, it originates from our emotions, it is driven by emotions. Even if revenge made people feel better, it would not necessarily follow that the resulting good emotional state out weighed the material and emotional harm done to the perpetrator. It also does not follow logically that revenge was the only way or even the best way to improve the victims emotional state. In the hypothetical eye for an eye scenario, it is not at all evident that having two blind people (one innocent and one guilty) both of whom are suffering both material and emotional trauma from blindness is preferable to having one blind person suffering from both the emotional trauma of blindness and the emotional trauma of unresolved injustice. I can not think of one logical rational argument that would clearly dictate that the emotional satisfaction of the victim out weighed the human rights of the perpetrator. In fact, from a rational stand point it would make far more sense to require the perpetrator to work to provide material compensation for the victims loss than to punish the him/her by poking out the eye. It does more realistically to relieve both the material and emotional injury than a punishment motivated by the desire to make the perpetrator suffer.
In fact, the Mosaic "eye for an eye" justice was, I am told by Jewish scholars, never intended literally nor was its intent primarily punitive. "Eye for eye" meant that the perpetrator was to restore to the victim something of equal material value to an eye. The intent was to provide material restitution to assist the victim in dealing with and overcoming the material and emotional injury and not to satisfy either the victims desire for vengeance or some abstract concept of balance.
**Edited to fix problem with the formatting of quotes.
[ October 05, 2009, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In fact, the Mosaic "eye for an eye" justice was, I am told by Jewish scholars, never intended literally nor was its intent primarily punitive. "Eye for eye" meant that the perpetrator was to restore to the victim something of equal value to an eye. The intent was to provide material restitution to assist the victim in dealing with and overcoming the material injury and not to satisfy either the victims desire for vengeance or some abstract concept of balance.
posted
Thanks for the confirmation rivka. I know we've had this discussion before and I find that insight into the Mosaic "eye for and eye" proscription to be deeply consoling. I would like to see modern criminal justice focus much more on sentences that would provide real compensation to the victim rather than solely suffering for the perpetrator. Its not that I don't think certain criminals deserve suffering. Its just that I can't figure out how making any person suffer elevates the human condition.
Demanding that people get what they deserve, seems far more rational and ethical when we are talking about people who have gotten worse than they deserve than it does if we are demanding that no one gets better than they deserve.
I, at least, have received a great deal in my life that was better than I objectively deserve and am profoundly grateful for it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course it does. If in some cases it were a good thing - not that such a thing would be provable one way or another - it could hardly be considered irrational. You're begging the question.
Why do you think that a good thing can't be irrational? An irrational choice is one that is not guided by reason or motivated by sound reasoning. I'm eating chocolate. Its very good. But I didn't choose to eat this chocolate logically or by sound reasoning. I did it because I felt like eating chocolate -- it was an irrational choice but not a bad choice. In fact the oldest use of the term irrational cited in the oed is "All my acts may be Irrational, and yet not sinfull". Irrational does not imply bad or even wrong, only not support by sound reasoning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I haven't really sought out Polanski's films, but his abilities as a director and writer do not negate the fact that he raped a 13-year old girl and fled to avoid punishment. Period.
I could start a drinking game the salon article, a shot of vodka each time the guy says "raped a child" and 2 shots each time he says it in italics.
I should get some friends over and make it a group activity.
Hah, Blayne, stop pretending you have friends.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, I know Blayne won't be upset about it. Anybody who wants to make a drinking game out of references to a 13 year old girl being drugged and raped (drink time!) is one cold mother-f*cker, and he don't care what people be thinking a' him. Aww yea, gangsta.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't concerned so much about Blayne as I was the rest of us who don't appreciate juvenile behavior. If we wanted juvenile level discussions, there are hundreds of other places we could go to get it. At hatrack, our goal is mutual respect -- even when the other party may not deserve it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: My wife was raped several years ago (post-puberty). I won't even try and put words to the experience, they would be woefully inadequate.
DSH, I'm sorry I did not realize your wife had been raped. I were going to were going to present the purely hypothetical situation to her rather than considering yourself in that hypothetical situation.
quote:I'm just not sure why puberty makes a difference in rape cases. (except to those who may be trying to minimize, justify or defend the crime)
Several other members have addressed this already and have explained why it is relevant even though they are not trying to minimize, justify or defend the crime. Continuing to repeat that you can't imagine any other reasons when several people have clearly described those other reasons is a bit insulting.
In case you have missed those posts, let me reiterate what others have said. Certainly the age of the victim does not change the seriousness of the crime. It can however change the appropriate response to the crime because the severity of the injuries is not the only relevant factor in sentencing. The probability of recidivism as it influences the need to protect future victims is also an important consideration. Unless you consider the probability of recidivism an irrelevant consideration when deciding how to sentence criminals, the distinction between pedophilia, rape of underage teenagers, and rape of legal adults is important even though all such crimes are equally henious.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course it does. If in some cases it were a good thing - not that such a thing would be provable one way or another - it could hardly be considered irrational. You're begging the question.
No! You are missing the point. What is revenge? Revenge isn't a type of punishment, it is a motivation for punishing and that motivation is rooted in an emotional reaction to the crime not sound objective reasoning. While it is possible that someone using sound reasoning might decide to implement the same punishment as someone motivated by revenge, that is in the end irrelevant in deciding whether or not revenge is irrational. A rational decision is distinguished from an irrational decision by the methodology used to arrive at the decision and not the results of that decision. Revenge is pretty much my definition an emotional response rather than a response based on sound reasoning.
Huh? Isn't revenge both a motive and an 'execution'? That is, someone can want revenge and then take revenge-the act of taking revenge, whatever it may be, is also revenge. I'm not sure why you're confining it to motive.
As for whether it's rational to want revenge, I think I see where our disagreement comes from. I think it's rational to expect another person, an emotional human being responding to an emotional situation, will want revenge. When looking at an imperfect system, it's not irrational to expect imperfect responses.
quote:I'm not following your reasoning here. It isn't rational for a person to feel emotional satisfaction when another person is harmed, regardless of the history. Emotional responses aren't governed by the laws of reason, they are virtually by definition irrational. Saying that emotional responses are understandable or common or natural, is not equivalent to saying they are rational.
I don't really think there are very many absolutes when it comes to human affairs, much less on such a complicated issue. You're begging the question to say it's not rational, ever, to take emotional satisfaction when, for example, your unpunished rapist gets mugged. I don't really see that just because emotions are usually irrational must mean that all decisions and responses based on emotions must by definition be irrational.
quote: Furthermore, allowing victims to make statements in the sentencing phase can serve other purposes besides determining whether or not the victim desires vengeance. Most importantly, it gives insight into the extent of harm done by the perpetrator. That isn't something which can be done from an entirely objective position since the harm was done to a conscious subject whose subjective experience as a victim of the crime is an inherent part of the damage done.
I didn't say victims taking part in sentencing phase was only to serve vengeful purposes, just that there is certainly some of that vengeance role present there. I also agree with what you think is most important...even though what you think is most important about victim participation is a fundamentally irrational thing:)
quote:No, although I can see why that why my original argument would be unclear. I was arguing that it is was not only irrational but also violates 'basic ethics'. Revenge is irrational because it is fundamentally an emotional response rather than a response based on sound reasoning.
What are 'basic ethics' would be one question. Totally subjective thing, there. Another question would be: if seeing one's victimizer suffer honestly makes one feel better, is wanting revenge really irrational? "I've been hurt and I want to feel better," is what my question boils down to.
quote:I think the problem here is that you are using the terms "reasonable" and "rational" to mean "justifiable" or "worthy of consideration". But they don't. Reasonable and rational means that an idea is founded in and defensible by sound logical arguments rather than motivated by emotion.
That's one definition of rational, yes.
quote: The desire for revenge is an emotional response not a rational one. When people are injured in some way, it is very common for them to feel that hurting the perpetrator will reduce their own sense of violation. But from a purely rational perspective, that's absurd. If you poke out my eye, my vision won't be restored by poking out your eye. We just both end up blind.
But people don't think, "That guy poked out my eye. Lemme poke out his eye so I can see again, dangit!" They thing, "That guy poked out my eye and I'm devastated. I want him to feel as bad as I do!" I don't think everyone who wants revenge wants revenge because they believe it's some magic reset button.
quote: Emotional responses don't always run counter to reason, but they sometimes do and this is one of those cases. People desire revenge because at some subconscious level they believe punishing the perpetrator will undo the harm that was done to them. But it doesn't, not materially or emotional. Its something psychologist call the revenge paradox. Getting revenge doesn't bring closure. It doesn't resolve peoples feelings of hurt or anger. In fact, usually it has exactly the opposite effect and makes it harder for victims to move on with their lives.
You may very well be right. I submit, though, that there may be a problem with your reasoning here, Rabbit. That being, the people most likely to consult a mental health professional after taking revenge are...people who are dissatisfied with their revenge.
quote: Demanding that people get what they deserve, seems far more rational and ethical when we are talking about people who have gotten worse than they deserve than it does if we are demanding that no one gets better than they deserve.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. In fact, that reasoning is pretty much at the heart of my opposition to the death penalty. My question is, though: why not demand both?
quote:But I didn't choose to eat this chocolate logically or by sound reasoning.
"I want to eat something that tastes good and makes me feel good. I think I'll eat some chocolate, because on the many occasions I've eaten it, it's pretty much every time tasted good and made me feel better, even if only by a tiny bit." Would you describe that decision as irrational, or based in unsound reasoning, Rabbit?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I scanned through the thread to see if anyone has commented on the time period that this took place. Bear in mind, that in 1977 the idea of date rape or acquaintance rape was unheard of. The fact is that at the time "no means yes" was a pretty successful courtroom strategy, because society accepted it as valid. One other thing is that I don't know what the history of the prevailing attitude on statutory rape has been. The reason I remember the case from 1977 was that this was the first time I heard the term. As far as I could tell at the time, most people thought it was pretty ridiculous to prosecute a man for succumbing to the wiles of a promiscuous teenage girl. But that has a lot to do with the people I was with at the time.
So all the judgement about Hollywood defending Polanski has to be seen though a lens of time. At the time, it would have been a pretty good deal to get him to plea on statutory rape, because they probably would have lost on the greater rape charges. Also, he would have had the right to face his accuser and cross examination would mean that her reputation would have been destroyed (Probably was anyway, at the time). After all, she was an aspiring model who approached Polanski to further her career. We all know that that means. Right?
quote:I feel like in some ways, this crime needs to be prosecuted not for the victim, but for society. Listening to the defenders of Polanski is extremely upsetting. It is like all the progress people have been trying to make on the rights of women to their bodies are being tossed out.
What's interesting here is that Polanski himself has created a loophole in the double jeopardy clause. If he had accepted his punishment then, this would be over, and he would have gotten a plea deal with a slap on the wrist by today's standards. But what's happening is that he was tried once by the standards of the 1970's and now he's being tried again by today's standards. That's a pretty interesting experiment to watch, and it's showing just how much progress has been made.
quote:How people can get up and claim this is a grey area, not "real" rape, etc is disgusting and ridiculous. He had three negatives on the consent issue- her age makes her unable to consent, the drug use makes her judgment questionable and lastly, she repeatedly stated no. Assault is not a requirement to rape and people need to get that idea into their heads.
Once again, the issue of time plays in here. When did you first hear that she had said "no" repeatedly? I'm sure this is the first time I have, but I've known for years that he had either plead guilty or been found guilty of statutory rape. I'm relatively sure that's where Whoopie Goldberg's "it's not 'rape' rape" came from. I'm guessing she wasn't aware of the specifics of the case and probably assumed that it was consensual sex. From what I can remember, that was the prevailing attitude of the time, and without a new event to make it newsworthy, the only thing that's been repeated is that he pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor. And in fact, I'm pretty sure that until these events opened up a new cycle of news on this issue, my judgement of the situation was pretty much just a memory of the judgment that I internalized 30 years ago.
Ok, so now it's newsworthy again, and we begin to reexamine the charges with a modern eye. I think it's interesting to watch as my own perception of the case changes, as new information is provided, and I reexamine my own preconceptions. When I first heard that he had been arrested in Switzerland, I thought: "Oh come on! Isn't this case dead yet? What do you expect to achieve?" That was largely predicated on my 30 year old judgment. But as I watched, my judgment changed. I think that's fascinating, watching your own beliefs change. It reassures me to know that I can still think openly.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Huh? Isn't revenge both a motive and an 'execution'? That is, someone can want revenge and then take revenge-the act of taking revenge, whatever it may be, is also revenge. I'm not sure why you're confining it to motive.
Yes, revenge does imply action not merely motivation. But the thing that distinguishes revenge from other a acts, many of which may be substantially similar, is the motivation. Let me give an example, "If I run over someone with my car, is it revenge?" As stated, you can't even begin to answer that question because the answer depends on why I ran the person over. Was I talking on my cell phone, or drunk, was I trying to keep them from whistleblowing or stop them from shooting at me across the street? Did they stop out in front of me so abruptly I had no time to stop or was I trying to get even because they'd been sleeping with my husband? And each one of those possibilities makes the act a different kind of act, ranging from accident, to self defense to cold blooded murder. Only the last possibility can be described as revenge. What distinguishes revenge is motivation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You may very well be right. I submit, though, that there may be a problem with your reasoning here, Rabbit. That being, the people most likely to consult a mental health professional after taking revenge are...people who are dissatisfied with their revenge.
My claim is based on numerous controlled studies which presumably controlled for that factor. Look into it yourself if you don't believe me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I want to eat something that tastes good and makes me feel good. I think I'll eat some chocolate, because on the many occasions I've eaten it, it's pretty much every time tasted good and made me feel better, even if only by a tiny bit." Would you describe that decision as irrational, or based in unsound reasoning, Rabbit?
The first sentence, the part where I state my desires, the desire to taste good things and feel good things is irrational. The rest is perfectly sound reasoning but it rests entirely on a presumption that is neither defendable nor refutable rationally. There is no logical reason why I would want to taste good things or feel good things. And even if I could come up with one, that is basically irrelevant because I didn't. I don't want to eat chocolate because of a series of logical arguments and reasons I have carefully and rationally considered. I want eat chocolate because I like it. Liking it isn't an objective phenomenon arrived at by the result of sound reasoning. I like it because I like it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My claim is based on numerous controlled studies which presumably controlled for that factor. Look into it yourself if you don't believe me.
How would they control for that factor, though? I'll look, I'm inexperienced at searching through medical studies so it'll take awhile, but I am genuinely curious how such a factor could be controlled for.
quote:The first sentence, the part where I state my desires, the desire to taste good things and feel good things is irrational. The rest is perfectly sound reasoning but it rests entirely on a presumption that is neither defendable nor refutable rationally. There is no logical reason why I would want to taste good things or feel good things. And even if I could come up with one, that is basically irrelevant because I didn't. I don't want to eat chocolate because of a series of logical arguments and reasons I have carefully and rationally considered. I want eat chocolate because I like it. Liking it isn't an objective phenomenon arrived at by the result of sound reasoning. I like it because I like it.
While the first part, the statement of desires, may be irrational, that doesn't mean everything that comes after must also be irrational. I mean, that's a very simple straightforward self-evaluation. "Eating this food makes me feel good and it tastes good." If that opinion is grounded in sufficient experience, eating that food when you want to taste something good and feel good...I don't understand how you can say that's irrational or illogical.
It's not logical to want to feel good things?
quote:p]Logic:[/b] 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
In noe of those definitions do I see anything that says something cannot be logical or rational if it involves even the tiniest bit of the illogical or the irrational.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Don't worry, I know Blayne won't be upset about it. Anybody who wants to make a drinking game out of references to a 13 year old girl being drugged and raped (drink time!) is one cold mother-f*cker, and he don't care what people be thinking a' him. Aww yea, gangsta.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not talking about the best possible outcome. I'm talking about what's reasonable. Even in that perfect world, it would still be reasonable for a wronged person to want revenge. That's simply a natural emotional response to being seriously hurt for darn near everybody.
The desire for revenge, as a grand whole, is reasonable. Not all specific desires for revenge are.
quote:'Justice'.
...Not all desires to do harm to one who has done harm fall under that heading for me; "revenge" is inexact, but "justice" is too broad.
quote:If you believe the drugging and raping of children and then attempting to get away with it are so rare as to be unlikely to be repeated, I'm afraid you're badly misinformed, Sterling. There are something like half a million registered sex offenders living in the country today, and those are the ones we catch and convict. As for celebrities in jail, the only thing the inconsistent and periodic punishment of celebrities really teaches is that being a celebrity isn't a guarantee of getting away with things-but that it helps quite a bit, especially if you're a really rich celebrity.
But the specific ability to evade capture as a) a foreign national with citizenship in other countries and b) an individual with enough wealth and connections to be able to escape the country, with those aiding that escape most likely being perfectly aware that they're contributing to a fugitive's flight from justice, is quite rare. It doesn't seem the kind of case where a would-be criminal is going to say, "Well, if rich and famous Polanski was able to get away from his crime, so will I." I don't have anything in front of me for specifics (and I am, again, delighted to receive further information), but my suspicion is that for assailants without those resources, much more depends on things like the willingness of the victim to come forward and accuse, which doesn't seem likely to change with regard to this case one way or another (except in as much as the media scrutiny may be unhelpful.) And most rapists' hope for getting away with their crimes do not lie with fleeing after trial and before sentencing, but in keeping their crimes from ever coming to light, which is certainly not the case here.
quote:If you said what would be an appropriate punishment in your last post, I'm afraid I missed it. As for erring on the side of leniency, I really don't understand what reasoning someone would use to be lenient on Polanski, or why they would embrace such reasoning in the first place. The man raped a child, and has never been punished for it. Far from punishment, he's continued to live for decades in the lap of luxury.
My understanding is that he believed he would spend the next fifty years in prison if he remained for sentencing. That's not a good reason for leniency in the rape charge, but I would consider it a mollifying factor in the flight. He's also a first offender who pleaded guilty, reached a settlement with his victim and paid it, and, to all available evidence, has not re-offended.
quote:Why should the original motivator for an action be completely set aside once it's time to do something about it? It should be remembered, but not relied upon as the primary driving force. Outrage is what gets us to take actions that put things on the table for decision, after all.
And this isn't a complicated societal problem. It's actually quite straightforward.
That he did a despicable thing is straightforward. Questions like whether we may try to punish him for everyone else who has done similar despicable things, or what punishment would best benefit society are not necessarily straightforward at all. It would be easy to write him off as a monster and lock him away for the rest of his life. Would it be accurate? Would it be useful to society? And if the answer is "yes", is that because outrage makes for simple answers?
quote:First off, whoever said that by punishing Polanski, the only people deterred are just like him? C'mon Sterling, that's a straw man.
It was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I grant. But, again, as it presently stands, a wealthy and famous man has evaded capture- up until now- by the skin of his teeth, with the help of an expensive legal team, and only by remaining in exile from several countries, and at the cost of permanent infamy (no, I am not saying that any of those constitute sufficient punishment for his crime, or even that they might necessarily be considered "punishment" at all.) How many people are likely to take this case as evidence of the likelihood that they, personally, could "get away with it?" I feel for the anger and frustration of victims of similar crimes, but I don't feel like this case is likely to break the camel's back on deterrance either way it goes at this point.
quote:Second, it's not a 'persecution complex' that makes someone flee jail for committing a crime. It's called 'not wanting to go to prison'. Polanski may very well have a 'persecution complex', but it certainly has no bearing on this matter, to the point I wonder why you even mention it.
It has been suggested that Polanski was not merely fleeing the possibility of going to jail- notably, he'd already spent 42 days in maximum security as a result of trying to resolve things with the justice system- but that he was fleeing what appeared to be a grandstanding and public declaration that he was going to be sentenced far more severely than the plea deal he had agreed to, and far more severely than similar crimes have been punished, possibly to the point of spending the rest of his life in prison. And that his prior experiences made him leery of authority's abuses of power.
I do not have enough evidence to truly judge his rationale for fleeing. But I do think there is a case to be made that he fled not to escape all punishment, but excessive punishment.
quote:Why do you keep bringing up 'excessive' punishment? I can't help but wonder, since you mention it so often, what you feel would be 'excessive' criminal justice for raping a child.
Even rapists deserve a chance, eventually, to rehabilitate and repair the damage they have caused. If Polanski had remained and served a fifty year sentence, he most likely would have died in jail. Even if he spends a more typical fifteen years in prison at this point, it would likely be a life sentence. There is an argument that that is as much as he deserves, but I don't think that here and now, it is best for society. I'm not averse to him spending some time in jail, to him spending the rest of his life on parole, to him spending the rest of his life making public service annoucements against sexual abuse and donating his entire fortune to womens' shelters. But locking up someone who hasn't repeated his crime in thirty years only serves the public's sense of outrage, not the greater good.
To reverse the question: is Polanski so absolutely defined in your mind as this one thing and nothing else that there's any sentence he could receive that you would consider excessive?
quote:I don't see how you can seriously claim there is 'virtually no chance' he'll repeat.
He's a seventy-six year old man who hasn't had any charges pressed against him in thirty-one years.
quote:He's a sex offender, and repeat offenses are not uncommon with such criminals, not at all.
And yet if we are judging one case, we must judge it as one case.
quote:As for whether he feels remorse, that question is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether he should be punished at all. That's a question for sentencing, not for determining whether he gets to keep living the high life.
I've never suggested he shouldn't be punished at all. As far as "living the high life", if the issue is truly the crime in his past, it shouldn't matter whether he's been living in mansions or caves.
quote:Can you point to even one thing Polanski has done since his crime to 'atone' for his actions? He's not interested in atoning. He's interested in moving on with his life with as little difficulty as possible. It does society at large a serious disservice to cater to such desires as you're suggesting.
Actually, yes. He made a civil settlement with the victim, which most likely he could have kept up in the air indefinitely if he'd chosen. The victim has said she believes he's sorry for his actions.
I do not know if he is. And I will keep saying that, but I must here make clear: neither do you.
If, as you have said, society must work for justice and not revenge, we need to punish Polanski, both for his crimes and for the reassurance of those who suffer similar crimes. But we should stop short of leaving nothing but a smoking hole in the ground.
quote:It's also about the rule of law, about the idea that people should be treated equally before the law.
Then we cannot entirely overlook the possibility that when Polanski fled, it was in the face of being treated inequally before the law.
quote:About, among other things, the idea that people who rape children go to prison. It's strange bordering on outright weird, in my opinion, that anyone anywhere would object to putting unrepentant child rapists in prison.
It would be weird. And I'm not.
quote:And that's what Polanski is: an unrepentant child rapist.
I'm glad I'm not charged with judging that. That he raped a child, I am not disputing in any way.
As far as the issue of pedophilia goes: I'm not entirely convinced that having sex with one underaged woman qualifies the man as a pedophile in the standard sense (sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.) He's been married to three mature women, including his present wife. With expanded evidence of an ongoing pathological disorder or repeate offenses, I'd probably have fewer qualms about a life sentence.
If there is one thing I would like to see come of the matter above all, it would be a public apology and acknowledgement of wrongdoing by Polanski. He's plead guilty, but there are many who say it was done to avoid punishment. There are too many who would let him off altogether, and the trivializing of a serious crime would be most effectively rebuked by contest from its perpetrator.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not logical to want to feel good things?
Feeling alone is not logical. Wanting to feel is not logical. If you think it is, please construct a logical argument for wanting to feel good things.
quote:In none of those definitions do I see anything that says something cannot be logical or rational if it involves even the tiniest bit of the illogical or the irrational.
I wouldn't expect that kind of thing in a definition. Definitions do not generally seek to be rigorous and complete. But the rules of logic themselves do in fact preclude the inclusion of anything illogical or irrational. In a logical proof of 1000 steps, if even one step violates some logical principal, the entire proof is flawed and its conclusions are illogical.
But beyond that, you seem to be missing the point entirely. I wasn't eating the chocolate because I had gone through the line of reasoning you suggest. I did not sit down and reason through the options. I did not consciously think "I want to eat something that tastes good because that will make me feel happy." That wasn't the thought that went through my mind. No the only conscious thought that went through my mind was "I want chocolate".
Making a rational decision demands conscious thought. If I did not engage in a conscious rational process consistent with sound reasoning, it wasn't a rational decision even if the decision is found post hoc to be logically sound.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the fear is that criminals will think, well, if I run away to a foreign country, I can get away with it. I think that the message people are getting is that date rape is not that big a deal, not worthy of prosecuting. That is a message that has been very prevalent in our society anyway and this case reinforces that view. And if date rape is not that big a deal, that it is ok to force sex as long as you don't assault them, then yes, more people will be raped.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The desire for revenge, as a grand whole, is reasonable. Not all specific desires for revenge are.
Certainly, I agree with that.
quote:...Not all desires to do harm to one who has done harm fall under that heading for me; "revenge" is inexact, but "justice" is too broad.
For me, justice is often a thing of motives. If someone has done harm but has gone unpunished, well, anyone seeking justice would seek to address that situation, wouldn't they? Sometimes that will lead to inflicting unhelpful suffering-prison. But sometimes it might also lead to inflicting extremely helpful suffering, such as rehab or something.
quote:But the specific ability to evade capture as a) a foreign national with citizenship in other countries and b) an individual with enough wealth and connections to be able to escape the country, with those aiding that escape most likely being perfectly aware that they're contributing to a fugitive's flight from justice, is quite rare.
So now, the 'sending a message' portion of our criminal justice system can only be applied towards criminals whose circumstances exactly match previous criminals? I'm afraid that doesn't make much sense. Especially since right now the message being sent is also, "Y'know, not everybody thinks raping children is such a big deal." To be very, very clear, I'm not talking about you here. I'm talking about folks like Whoopi Goldberg of the 'rape'-rape remark.
quote: quote:If you said what would be an appropriate punishment in your last post, I'm afraid I missed it. As for erring on the side of leniency, I really don't understand what reasoning someone would use to be lenient on Polanski, or why they would embrace such reasoning in the first place. The man raped a child, and has never been punished for it. Far from punishment, he's continued to live for decades in the lap of luxury.
My understanding is that he believed he would spend the next fifty years in prison if he remained for sentencing. That's not a good reason for leniency in the rape charge, but I would consider it a mollifying factor in the flight. He's also a first offender who pleaded guilty, reached a settlement with his victim and paid it, and, to all available evidence, has not re-offended.
What this amounts to is: because so far as we know he hasn't done it again, and he paid his way out of it, no jail time. And for the record, it's my understanding that he hasn't paid that settlement.
And quite frankly, I don't consider, "I did something awful now I face awful punishment," to be a mitigating factor in the flight. Does it make sense? Well, of course, who wants to go to prison for fifty years? Should it be viewed favorably? Of course not.
quote:It would be easy to write him off as a monster and lock him away for the rest of his life. Would it be accurate? Would it be useful to society? And if the answer is "yes", is that because outrage makes for simple answers?
Who said anything about writing him off as a monster? I wouldn't say he's 100% monster. The fact of the matter is, you can pile as much complexity and nuance as you like on the discussion, but ultimately you're still left facing this plain and simple truth: he knowingly had sex with a 13 year old girl (which is, in itself, aside from the drugging, rape, in most folks' eyes), and has been unpunished for it.
That is a major injustice, Sterling. Huge. It's not outrage that leads to the simple answer, it's a straightforward rational examination of the facts. The fact that outrage leads to a similar simple answer is not surprising, since the outrage is fueled by the simple enormousness of the major injustice.
quote:How many people are likely to take this case as evidence of the likelihood that they, personally, could "get away with it?" I feel for the anger and frustration of victims of similar crimes, but I don't feel like this case is likely to break the camel's back on deterrance either way it goes at this point.
I think you're attributing an awful lot of rationality to criminals. Do you believe sex-offenders, before they commit their crimes, carefully analyze political and crime news, foreign and domestic, before deciding to go through with their crimes?
quote:To reverse the question: is Polanski so absolutely defined in your mind as this one thing and nothing else that there's any sentence he could receive that you would consider excessive?
Well, sure. The death penalty. Though to be honest, I'd only consider that 'excessive' in some senses, not others.
Here's justice: maximum allowable sentence under the law for the crime, as well as breaking his fortune and giving it to related charitable causes. Your complaint that that amounts to a life sentence...exactly who would Polanski have to blame for that, Sterling! C'mon! You're literally talking about rewarding the guy for his flight. Can you understand how unreasonable that sounds? Polanski gets less time because he's evaded justice for so long?
quote:And yet if we are judging one case, we must judge it as one case.
And yet you've repeatedly brought up his behavior after the crime, Sterling. You can't have it both ways. You're definitely not judging it as one case, either. You're bringing in all the happenstance and circumstances of decades into the question too-those that favor Polanski, anyway.
quote:Actually, yes. He made a civil settlement with the victim, which most likely he could have kept up in the air indefinitely if he'd chosen. The victim has said she believes he's sorry for his actions.
I do not know if he is. And I will keep saying that, but I must here make clear: neither do you.
If, as you have said, society must work for justice and not revenge, we need to punish Polanski, both for his crimes and for the reassurance of those who suffer similar crimes. But we should stop short of leaving nothing but a smoking hole in the ground.
As I've said above, I don't think he actually ever paid that settlement.
Being sorry for one's crimes is nice. It doesn't come close to outweighing other factors, however. Barely moves the scales, in fact. As for remorse, if a known criminal doesn't say, "I regret my actions," I'm perfectly fine saying, "They don't regret their actions." Polanski has had literally decades to say otherwise, yet to my knowledge has not, ever. He'll sue to uphold his reputation, though.
And as for a smoking hole in the ground...that's not something to be avoided in and of itself, as you continually suggest. It should be avoided if that serves the interests of justice. Your argument is that the just punishment would be a life sentence at this point...but that's nobody's fault but Polanski's.
quote:Then we cannot entirely overlook the possibility that when Polanski fled, it was in the face of being treated inequally before the law.
Sure, perhaps this is true. Perhaps he was about to be treated inequally before the law. He sort of balanced the scales on that one, though, by living free inequally before the law for decades afterwards, though. Equality before the law? As you've said, very few people are able to have the options he's had.
quote:It would be weird. And I'm not.
OK, I'll amend my statement to: 'people objecting to child rapists spending much time in prison.'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: My understanding is that he believed he would spend the next fifty years in prison if he remained for sentencing. That's not a good reason for leniency in the rape charge, but I would consider it a mollifying factor in the flight. He's also a first offender who pleaded guilty, reached a settlement with his victim and paid it, and, to all available evidence, has not re-offended.
Sterling, where did you get this "understanding?"
Going back to the Daily Beast transcript of the plea bargain hearing, here is what Polanski stated he understood - for the record:
quote:He also knew the sentence Polanski he was facing: “What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked Gunson.
“It’s one to fifteen—twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.
“Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?” the prosecutor next asked
“Yes,” responded Polanski.
Polankski faced a formidable potential maximum sentence - but not one of fifty years. It would have been a maximum of twenty (I don't know what portion he would have had to serve to qualify for parole).
But these were the rules and possibilities all along. Nothing changed.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other interesting element to the case is why the judge seemed to change his view. Polanski was photographed engaging in PDAs with a different teenage girl. So, for the judge determining sentencing, the possibility of him being a repeat offender increased greatly. If you want to convince someone that you have rehabilitated, are sorry for your past actions and aren't going to have sex with teenagers anymore, groping a teenager in public is not a bright move.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, do you see a difference between what Roman Polanski did and someone who grabs a 4 year old from a playground and rapes her?
I think that without lessening the seriousness of Roman Polanski's crime - there is no question in my mind that it was rape and, if what has been reported is true, rape 3 times over* - it is important for many reasons to distinguish this kind of rape from other kinds of child rape. Blurring the distinctions is, IMO, unhelpful.
*her age, the drugs, that she said "no" - any of the three would make this rape.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, do you see a difference between what Roman Polanski did and someone who grabs a 4 year old from a playground and rapes her?
Technically? Yes, there is obviously a difference. Rather like the difference between murdering someone by shooting them in the head or murdering them by cutting the brake cables in their car, really.
Here's a question for you: do you think calling what Polanski did 'raping a child' really blurs any distinctions? And if so, why is it actually unhelpful?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One obvious difference is the difference in psychology that has already been mentioned. The motivation and pathology (if that is the right word) are very different and need to be understood differently.
If she had been sixteen where the age of consent was 17, would it still be lumped in with the rapist of a 4 year-old? Again, as far as I am concerned, this would still be rape.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are all technical differences. One serial killer might kill by strangling. Another might kill by offing weak old people in the hospital, like the 'Number One Fan' from Misery. The motivations and such would obviously be different, because of course the methods and gratifications would be different.
Morally speaking, though...what's the difference? I suppose there's a case to be made that the rape of a child is worse than the rape of an adolescent or adult, because there is more innocence violated and the victim is even more helpless. But I don't think that's what you're getting at, or am I mistaken?
If you're asking the question because it's important to determine what sort of therapy he gets in prison, eh, I'll agree that's important.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am just trying to see if you make any distinctions when it comes to sex with minors. I think those distinctions are important. An 18 year old who has sex with his almost 16 girlfriend (or even wife*) is not the same as a 40 year old who has sex with a 13 year old and neither of those are the same as an adult who has sex with a 6 year old and none of those are the same as a 50 year old "grooming" a minor as a sexual partner even if he waits until it is legal before intercourse*.
Even if the only recourse we have is the blunt instrument of putting someone in jail, I think it is important to understand the difference. For example, when they get out of jail, must we keep them away from contact with children?
*In several states and countries, it is legal to marry a 14 year old or even younger with parental (and sometimes court) permission. Loretta Lynn was married at 13 for example.
posted
I do, but we're not really talking about 'sex with minors', we're talking about 'nonconsenting sex with minors' here. A 13 year old cannot consent. Perhaps in a society where things were radically different and both men and women were raised to be adults at 13, I can see how potentially they could consent.
We don't live in such a society, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My feeling has always been that the law should have a reasonable amount of discretion concerning legal ages, especially when charges of statutory rape are involved. For instance, a 25 year old propositioned by a 17 year old or even a 16 year old who fails to verify or even ask the partner's age is, though perhaps foolish, in my mind not criminal in his or her behavior.
There should be some approach to the law that establishes criminal sexual behavior according to a multi-pronged test, and as far as I know that is the case in some states, where variable acceptable ages for intercourse are enumerated in the law, and even more variability exists in application of the law. So for instance, criminal sexual misconduct with a minor would have to be reasonably shown to a) fall outside the statutory age requirements, ie: one person is too young, b) be shown to be committed knowingly, or else negligently (meaning the person either knew, or reasonably should have known the other person was too young), and c) I'm trying to express a requirement that states basically that the offending person was not under any kind of duress or involuntary chemical impairment, and took the course of action that led to the incident of their own free will ie: younger partner drugs older person to get them in bed for some reason, impairing judgment.
I imagine that in practice these factors are often or at least sometimes considered in individual cases. What I don't like to see is as kmb pointed out, the arbitrary statutes effecting cases in which there is really no malfeasance easily demonstrated.
Now, in the Czech Republic, in keeping with the trend of Czech laws favoring individual liberties over social restrictions, they have taken the somewhat more straightforward route, and simply lowered the age of sexual consent to 15. This, combined with the prostitution gray area in the law, means that there are professional working prostitutes in this country at the age of 17 (the age at which a person can be employed without work permits). While I object to the latter result of the two laws, I think there is something somewhat persuasive about the former. To illustrate: while it can be quite common for a 17 year old to look and act sexually mature, and so be found attractive by overage partners (who may mistake the person's age, or find the law to be in conflict with their reason), this is not true of people 14 or 15 years old. At that age, the diciness of a sexual relationship is quite clear, so while the law allows it at 15, any normal sexually mature person will be over the required age limit. The obvious problem is that this places quite a few people in the "legal" category, who are not sexually or emotionally mature. The culture here is to allow that part of a person's behavior and decision making to be handled within the family or community, rather than within the law. But this is very in keeping with Czech and overall Slavic culture to begin with- the idea is that it should be legal to walk down the street drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette with your shirt off, but not that a respectable person is going to do this kind of thing anyway. Slavs look at legislating morality as a total waste of time and energy, and I agree most of the time.
That appeals to me in part, if only because I find the state of American law to be so ridiculous- a person who is legally ineligible to have a sexual relationship one day, is on the next day legally allowed to star in porn films and have promiscuous sex with as many partners as one desires. That's the kind of bipolarity that I think causes a lot of angst in America.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I have noted the nonconsent part already. Nobody is saying that any of those are anything but very bad things with the possible exception of the 18 year old and the girlfriend.
I think the differences matter. If you don't, that is okay.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The impression is that the judge was prepared to overlook the standard sentencing guidelines and somehow had the jurisdiction to do so. Whether this is accurate or not, it's definitely a mainstream contention.
Rakeesh, I apologize; I had a lengthy reply written that seems to have gotten obliterated in the process of cross-tabbing. I'll just restate a couple of points from it briefly. I was unaware that Polanski had delayed payment of his settlement and that it possibly has yet to be paid; this is a sound argument against remorse. Also, while I think a fifteen year sentence (about usual for rape in CA) would be fair in the sense of meeting the standard, I'm not certain it's the best use of time and resources; a shorter sentence with parole, community service, and restitution might be better for society as a whole, especially given a scarcity of resources for dealing with violent offenders more likely to re-offend.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Do you consider deterring future crimes, either by the perpetrator in question or other members of society, to be an important consideration when sentencing criminals? I get the impression you do not. If that is correct, you probably shouldn't bother reading the rest of what I have to say because it builds on this premise. Instead, explain to me why you don't think deterring future crimes is something that should be considered when punishing criminals.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Those are all technical differences. One serial killer might kill by strangling. Another might kill by offing weak old people in the hospital, like the 'Number One Fan' from Misery. The motivations and such would obviously be different, because of course the methods and gratifications would be different.
What exactly do you mean by technical differences? Do you mean they are differences that only matter to particular specialists but are other wise irrelevant? If so, I disagree. The question at hand is whether they are differences which should be considered in sentencing the perpetrator of a crime. By your analogy, you seem to think they are not, but your analogy is not appropriate. A difference in the kind of victim one seeks is not equivalent to a difference in the kind of weapon one chooses, because different strategies are required to deter criminals who seek out particular types of victims. A person who murders the guy who was having an affair with his wife is less likely to be a repeat offender than the guy who murders random people he pulls of the street. That's something that is worth considering in the sentencing of the criminal even though both are very heinous crimes. If we are confident that pedophiles (rapists who target prepubescent children) are more likely to be repeat offenders than rapists who attacked adults or teenages, that is an important consideration.
If we think that deterring future crime is an important aspect of punishment, then it is very important that we accurately consider the factors involved and how they might influence future crimes. Hence identifying the differences in psychological factors behind the crime isn't a technicality. It is central to the question of deterence which is an important goal of criminal justice.
quote:Morally speaking, though...what's the difference? I suppose there's a case to be made that the rape of a child is worse than the rape of an adolescent or adult, because there is more innocence violated and the victim is even more helpless. But I don't think that's what you're getting at, or am I mistaken?
It certainly wasn't what I was getting at. All of these crimes are so morally repugnant to me that it is difficult to even consider which one is worse. They are all over the top of my bad scale. I suppose if I really had to make a choice, child rape triggers my sense of moral outrage at least a bit more. But I definitely don't feel comfortable concluding its morally worse to rape a child than an adult and certainly would not approve of using the differences in my level of moral outrages as a factor in determining appropriate punishment. I don't think that is what anyone here has been arguing.
quote:If you're asking the question because it's important to determine what sort of therapy he gets in prison, eh, I'll agree that's important. [/QB]
You are getting closer, but it is important not just in determining the sort of therapy he gets in prison. Its important in determining the appropriate length of the sentence, when and under what conditions he/she will be considered for parole, and whether additional restrictions should be included once the person is paroled. And its appropriate to consider those factors because of their potential impact on future crimes.
[ October 06, 2009, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Hoisted on my own petard.
Rabbit, why are you racist against petarded people?
Petards are not a race and holding a bias against people who explode is completely rational. Petards are dangerous. We need to keep them away from our children.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know? There have been a couple of threads here lately about why there's so little activity on Hatrack these days. I might have more enthusiasm if people replied to my posts. I might even reply to their replies. Kinda keeps things going.
But I've noticed a trend lately that my posts are either ignored while the thread continues, or that my post is the last one in the thread. Is is just me, or was my post in this thread really so pointless as to be ignored?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a good post, Glenn. I didn't respond as I was mostly arguing with Rakeesh at the time, but your post made sense to me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marci Hamilton of Findlaw's Writ had an interesting article regarding this subject. The following in particular drew my attention.
quote: Currently, Polanski is sitting in a Swiss prison fighting extradition after finally being arrested for his crime. His lawyers are fighting to keep him from having to face United States law. And many among Hollywood's elite are signing petitions in his favor. He is a great artist, they and the French say, so just leave him alone.
Therein lies the recipe for the perpetuation of child sex abuse. If you close your eyes to the first known victim, then you are choosing to let the child predator move on to the next one. Adults who prey on adolescent and teenage children rarely limit themselves to one victim, and Polanski is no different. He had a "romantic relationship" – to use the common euphemism here -- with Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15. Do the Hollywood icons rushing to his defense believe that he limited himself to sex with only two underage girls? Come on. The safe money is that they even know of some of the other victims.
At least twice that the public is aware of he was with underage girls (consentual or not). This desire to have relationships with pubescent girls suggests that Polanski could be a hebephile. Like pedophiles, hebephiles prefer younger partners, and it is unlikely that he would stop with only one or two victims. IMO, it seems likely that his wealth and status would give him easier access to people the age he prefers. He needs to be punished so that people in this country understand that molestation and sexual abuse will not be tolerated. Living in a mansion in France, continuing his career relatively unimpeded (not being able to pick up his Oscar in person is not a detriment to his career) is not serving jail time. Just as priests being moved to another diocese when complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior are made does not correct the problem.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
