Originally posted by rivka:
(I find it amusing that Orin is objecting to something he has himself been accused of, but I am easily amused.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) quote:Though I'm not going to argue the case in question, because not only does it not really matter to me, I don't actually think it matters to anybody here all that much, I personally feel that that quote is intended to suggest that injustices should not be committed against individuals accused of crimes, not really that we can't have justice if a certain number of people do not face proper prosecution.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I really liked the Salon article. It puts this in perspective very well. There is just one thing I would add. "If we don't have justice for all, we don't have justice at all".
quote:Don't we do that already to some degree? It's not a direct eye for an eye thing but the punishments rise in relation to the 'hurt' caused by the crime. Or maybe I am misinterperting or overinterperting what you wrote.
I simply think we shouldn't punish people in proportion to the hurt caused by that crime, because if we did, we would become animals.
quote:When I have heard that phrase used and used it myself it has usually been referring to a more positive sense of justice, the protecting of every single persons rights. And I do believe that the quote is very truthful in that context. But you are correct that isn't the context in which I used it this time and in this context, criminal justice, I definitely see the dangers of taking that phrase literally.
Though I'm not going to argue the case in question, because not only does it not really matter to me, I don't actually think it matters to anybody here all that much, I personally feel that that quote is intended to suggest that injustices should not be committed against individuals accused of crimes, not really that we can't have justice if a certain number of people do not face proper prosecution.
quote:Agreed. If I felt that way about Scooter Libby (and I do), then I certainly should feel that way about Polanski.
One of the most basic premises of legal justice is that no one is above the law.
quote:If I get this right, the outrage expressed comes close to that of a complaint of a violation of the Sanctuary of a church or the Sovereignty inside a nation's borders.
"It seems inadmissible ... that an international cultural evening, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by police to apprehend him," says the petition circulating in France and signed by artists including Pedro Almodovar, Constantin Costa-Gavras, Stephen Frears and Monica Bellucci.
quote:You know, it's posts like this that just epitomize why I love Hatrack.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:When I have heard that phrase used and used it myself it has usually been referring to a more positive sense of justice, the protecting of every single persons rights. And I do believe that the quote is very truthful in that context. But you are correct that isn't the context in which I used it this time and in this context, criminal justice, I definitely see the dangers of taking that phrase literally.
Though I'm not going to argue the case in question, because not only does it not really matter to me, I don't actually think it matters to anybody here all that much, I personally feel that that quote is intended to suggest that injustices should not be committed against individuals accused of crimes, not really that we can't have justice if a certain number of people do not face proper prosecution.
My concern isn't with making sure every crime is properly punished. In fact, I've spoken out about the harm that can do before. My concern is the reasons that are being used in an attempt to justify letting Polanski off the hook and those reasons all boil down to the idea that the rich and famous shouldn't have to live with the same laws that apply to the rest of us. I mean seriously, the idea that for a rich guy like Polanski, having to spend 30 years in Europe is comparable to having to spend 30 years in jail is just horrific.
I really didn't express myself well. I don't think justice requires that every crime be punished nor do I think justice requires that similar crimes should always receive similar punishment. On the contrary, I think real justice requires that we will sometimes let a guilty person go free. I think true justice demands that we take into account the context of crimes and consider extenuating circumstances. But if we consider privilege (things like wealth, fame, position, family etc) as a circumstance deserving greater leniency, we are no longer pursuing justice of any kind.
One of the most basic premises of legal justice is that no one is above the law.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by rivka:
The fact that he married his barely-of-legal age adopted daughter, presumably.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I think they are reaching far beyond suggesting film festivals should be permitted the same Sanctity of Churches or treated as Sovereign nations. Polanski, as I understand it, wasn't eve arrested at the film festival. He was apprehended on his way to the film festival.
Originally posted by sndrake:
Rabbit said:
quote:If I get this right, the outrage expressed comes close to that of a complaint of a violation of the Sanctuary of a church or the Sovereignty inside a nation's borders.
"It seems inadmissible ... that an international cultural evening, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by police to apprehend him," says the petition circulating in France and signed by artists including Pedro Almodovar, Constantin Costa-Gavras, Stephen Frears and Monica Bellucci.
As an aside, I wonder if Dems are keeping track of which Hollywood types are defending Polanski. They won't be wanting them hosting or attending any fundraisers for their campaigns - the opposition ads are pretty obvious.
quote:Well, maybe. Apparently the prosecutor has admitted to colluding with the judge to throw out the plea deal *after* he pled guilty. That prosecutor has since claimed he was lieing about this, but given how damaging the original story could be to the prosecutor's current career who knows if he was lieing then or if he's lieing now?
He had already plea bargained; had he stayed there and paid his dues he'd have been back out and still living in America decades ago.
quote:That's not at all clear. This is a quote from the victim:
The victim does not want to be the center of a media circus, not that she does not believe he deserves punishment.
quote:
I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it.
quote:Absolutely irrelevant. I agree with the Salon article linked above on this.
Originally posted by Sterling:
it doesn't appear that she's a driving force for punishment of the man.
quote:If you accept that premise, then yes, the victim's feelings are irrelevant.
But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."
quote:I agree. But I think its even more important to recognize that if you let Polanski off the hook, you are telling Celebrities everywhere that its OK for them to commit rape, the laws don't apply to them. You are telling people everywhere, they can escape punishment for crimes by fleeing the US. And those two precedents are very frightening.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
I think if you let Roman Polanski off the hook for raping a 13 year old girl, then you betray all the other 13 year old girls who are being raped all the time. You're telling them what happened to them wasn't all that bad after all, and doesn't warrant serious consideration.
quote:I think the article was a little off base at this point. There are circumstances in which the victim's feelings would be very relevant. In fact, I think its pretty uncommon for prosecutors to pursue a rape case if the victim refuses to press charges. The exceptions to that with which I am familiar are, notably, all cases of child rape.
Originally posted by rivka:
The Salon article says:quote:If you accept that premise, then yes, the victim's feelings are irrelevant.
But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."
(As for taking a comment on an argument personally, that's your issue. Not mine.)
quote:Yeah, it's always my problem when you act like a dismissive jerk. It wasn't directed at me, and I don't take it personally, but I still find it rude.
Originally posted by rivka:
(As for taking a comment on an argument personally, that's your issue. Not mine.)
quote:That's a practical question, not a legal one. No evidence, no case. If the only or primary evidence is testimony and you can't get testimony, then you have no case.
There are circumstances in which the victim's feelings would be very relevant. In fact, I think its pretty uncommon for prosecutors to pursue a rape case if the victim refuses to press charges.
quote:Its a practical issue, but not strictly a practical issue. Unwilling witnesses can and frequently are subpoenaed to testify in a case. Prosecutors have to decide whether or not to pursue a case. Certainly having sufficient evidence is a key factor in that. But often the decision is made before even searching to find all the evidence that may exist. In assault cases, even in cases where a person is assaulted in front of witnesses, its pretty unusual for the prosecutors to pursue the case against the victims wishes. I know there are exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:That's a practical question, not a legal one. No evidence, no case. If the only or primary evidence is testimony and you can't get testimony, then you have no case.
There are circumstances in which the victim's feelings would be very relevant. In fact, I think its pretty uncommon for prosecutors to pursue a rape case if the victim refuses to press charges.
quote:That is no longer true. In the past 10 years, many domestic assault cases have been prosecuted -- and often won -- despite the abused spouse's refusal to cooperate. IMO, that's exactly as it should be. The law should protect victims, even those who are psychologically unable to protect themselves. Maybe especially them.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
In assault cases, even in cases where a person is assaulted in front of witnesses, its pretty unusual for the prosecutors to pursue the case against the victims wishes. I know there are exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions.
quote:I'll say this once more, and then I'll let it go. You are confusing dismissing the person and dismissing the argument.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Yeah, it's always my problem when you act like a dismissive jerk. It wasn't directed at me, and I don't take it personally, but I still find it rude.
Originally posted by rivka:
(As for taking a comment on an argument personally, that's your issue. Not mine.)
quote:Its a cultural issue Orincoro. I'm not sure about orthodox Jewish culture, I'm talking about academic culture. rivka group up with a Professor as a father and works at a University and in that culture, people don't preface things with "I think" or "In my opinion", if you do, you are considered to be wishy washy and kind of stupid. In academic culture you learn that if you want people to listen to you, you don't hedge, you speak with certainty and authority. That likely causes me problems here as well. I'm accustomed to assuming people will automatically insert the "In my opinion" in front of what I say if its needed.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Yeah, it's always my problem when you act like a dismissive jerk. It wasn't directed at me, and I don't take it personally, but I still find it rude.
Originally posted by rivka:
(As for taking a comment on an argument personally, that's your issue. Not mine.)
)
quote:I've got to say I completely agree. For about a year of my life I was humiliated and bullied daily by at first one boy who then assembled a group of boys including my former friends who were too ashamed to stand up for me. It all culminated with a Chinese class trip to Beijing which unfortunately included nearly every boy who bullied me. One of the instructors noticed how bad things were for me eventually. Very close to the end of the trip, while I was being taunted he stepped in and told the boys in no uncertain terms to stop tormenting me. This might sounds stupid but I actually took their side and said there wasn't any problem and that they were just teasing me, even though at the same time I was about ready to just collapse in a sobbing heap. Part of me desperately wanted their friendship, some of those boys used to have slumber parties with me. I felt that by accepting help from an adult they would only get more angry with me and by shrugging off this teacher's assistance they would think I was...maybe not cool, but at least tolerable.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:That is no longer true. In the past 10 years, many domestic assault cases have been prosecuted -- and often won -- despite the abused spouse's refusal to cooperate. IMO, that's exactly as it should be. The law should protect victims, even those who are psychologically unable to protect themselves. Maybe especially them.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
In assault cases, even in cases where a person is assaulted in front of witnesses, its pretty unusual for the prosecutors to pursue the case against the victims wishes. I know there are exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions.
quote:Yeah, by you no doubt. But it doesn't matter, that's totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by rivka:
(I find it amusing that Orin is objecting to something he has himself been accused of, but I am easily amused.
quote:I can't be certain without going through a lot of threads, but I don't think so.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Yeah, by you no doubt.
quote:Sorry about that. I didn't realize your mother was also and academic. I didn't mean to slight her. I'm actually kind of sensitive to gender issues in academia feel a bit embarrassed that I didn't know your mother's standing.
Originally posted by rivka:
Both of my parents are academics, an I've spent most of my life in an academic environment of one sort or another.
quote:I'm really glad to hear that and fully agree that the Law especialy needs to protect those who are unable or unwilling to protect themselves.
Originally posted by rivka:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Rabbit:
[qb] -- and often won -- despite the abused spouse's refusal to cooperate. IMO, that's exactly as it should be. The law should protect victims, even those who are psychologically unable to protect themselves. Maybe especially them.
quote:No need to apologize.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Sorry about that. I didn't realize your mother was also and academic. I didn't mean to slight her. I'm actually kind of sensitive to gender issues in academia feel a bit embarrassed that I didn't know your mother's standing.
Originally posted by rivka:
Both of my parents are academics, an I've spent most of my life in an academic environment of one sort or another.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't know if I've ever mentioned it here. Both my parents have their PhDs from Princeton (where they met). In fact, my mom was one of the first women to get a PhD in math from Princeton. Unlike my dad, she has no publications to speak of, and gave up the tenure track when I was an infant. She is a long-time adjunct, and quite happy that way.
quote:The quote in question was in response to
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Absolutely irrelevant. I agree with the Salon article linked above on this.
Originally posted by Sterling:
it doesn't appear that she's a driving force for punishment of the man.
quote:to which it is perfectly relevant. I certainly don't think a victim's wishes are the only factor in deciding a criminal's punishment; matters such as Stockholm Syndrome make that more than apparent. But at the very least one should consider the victim's take on the situation, if only to pause long enough to consider why, if it is, the outrage displayed by the public is disproportionate to that displayed by the person who was most directly affected by the crime. That society wants someone to be punished doesn't necessarily make the punishment they'd exact justice. And when "society" comes into the matter, it becomes all the more important to consider what reaction is most useful to society, which rarely resembles an outraged drive for revenge.
Originally posted by scholarette:
The victim does not want to be the center of a media circus, not that she does not believe he deserves punishment.
quote:Only if you consider a media circus an inevitable part of prosecution. I don't.
Originally posted by Sterling:
The quote in question was in response to
quote:to which it is perfectly relevant.
Originally posted by scholarette:
The victim does not want to be the center of a media circus, not that she does not believe he deserves punishment.
quote:I don't see how that follows. Back to the example of the abused spouse, I can be every bit as outraged on behalf of an abused wife who is so cowed she tries to defend her abuser from prosecution.
When the victim or their wishes becomes "irrelevant", so does much of the case for personal outrage.
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Only if you consider a media circus an inevitable part of prosecution. I don't.
I do wish we had stronger laws protecting victims from the media.
quote:Yes. Thus my comment about Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not saying that the wishes of the victim should overrule a wider need to see justice done, whether those wishes swing more towards "hang the demon" or "but he's just misunderstood." But it certainly is good reason to pause, to ask why we're more angry than the victim (and yes, we may be right to be more angry than the victim) and to ask, especially many years after the fact, if we really think we have a better handle on what happened than the person who was actually suffering the effect of the crime.
I don't see how that follows. Back to the example of the abused spouse, I can be every bit as outraged on behalf of an abused wife who is so cowed she tries to defend her abuser from prosecution.
quote: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.
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
This is kinda old news, but I haven't seen it yet on the 'rack. If I'm being repetitious, I apologize.
CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html?iref=newssearch
A Salon column I pretty heartily agree with: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
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.
quote:Its still hilariously overused. Drinking game is on!
Originally posted by Noemon:
She. Kate Harding is a woman. And she's making a point, Blayne.
quote:I agree, and I'd add to that; I wish we had stronger laws protecting the accused from the media as well. See the recent Hofstra University rape case, and the Duke University rape case for the especially negative effects on the falsely accused, and the damage wrought by prosecutors and the media in the rush to vilify, expose, and denounce the accused before the accused become the guilty.
From rivka:
I do wish we had stronger laws protecting victims from the media.
quote:Lets make that a shot of whiskey.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you are going to have the game, you need to match times Kate Harding says "raped a child" with the number of time other media source say "a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Since that misleading phrase, which appears over and over again in new reports, is precisely what Harding is trying to counter by repeatind "raped a child".
quote:That's a good one, but also doesn't apply to the Polansky case. He already put in his guilty plea and can be pretty well be presumed to be guilty of running out on his sentence.
I agree, and I'd add to that; I wish we had stronger laws protecting the accused from the media as well. See the recent Hofstra University rape case, and the Duke University rape case for the especially negative effects on the falsely accused, and the damage wrought by prosecutors and the media in the rush to vilify, expose, and denounce the accused before the accused become the guilty.
quote:Right because South Park has never done anything in poor taste.
And it HAS been over 23 years, South Park says it can be funny now and thus it is.
quote:I'm not sure why you say it's 'perhaps' reasonable for a victim of a crime to want revenge. Unless it's one in a string of crimes done and crimes done back, isn't wanting (not talking about taking) revenge perfectly reasonable if someone has wronged you?
It is understandable, and perhaps reasonable, for the victim of a crime to want "revenge"- to want the perpetrator of that crime hurt. To want them to pay, perhaps literally, for the harm they have done. It may be that it is necessary for the victim to regain a sense of equilibrium, to feel that things like what happened to them don't "just happen"; that the world doesn't stand idly be when they do.
quote:I don't think society is an agent of revenge when it does something like this, though. It's part of the difference between justice and revenge. Justice has a much broader scope than revenge, even though quite often in application the two may look similar. Justice is about not only ensuring the victim is recompensed, somehow, but also that society at large is served. Revenge is only ever really concerned with those specifically wronged.
"Society"- us- can be an agent of revenge, forcing a criminal to pay remuneration for what they have done and to suffer- usually time in jail- for the crime. Society doing so helps prevent excessive "revenge", creating standards for different crimes.
quote:I don't think society should ever be in the revenge business, but must always be in the justice business-sometimes even when the actual victim or victims no longer want it.
But I feel that it is only society's place to act as an agent of revenge when revenge is the victim's desire, a necessary part of their vindication and recovery.
quote:Criminals aren't punished by society just as a message to society-they're also punished by society as a message to other criminals and potential criminals. One vitally important, though not very tangible, aspect of the justice system is to ensure it's known that some things won't be tolerated. In Polanski's case, child rape, fleeing justice, and the idea that fame, wealth, etc., cannot erase one's crime. That if you wrong someone else, you don't get to decide how you will be punished or when you are punished enough-particularly if you haven't been punished at all.
Society should be looking to make sure the criminal doesn't injure again; perhaps to provide deterrance from similar crimes; to reassure "society" at large that the crime is an anomaly, that by and large they are safe and protected.
quote:Outrage can be an extremely productive emotion. I think there are very few meaningful social and political movements - for better or worse, of course - that didn't have a heaping helping of outrage at their center. You're talking about prevention, reassurance, and deterrence as though those are the only factors to consider.
While we as individuals may feel outrage at a crime, it is counter-productive to those goals and even dangerous for "us" as a society to allow ourselves to become outraged and seek, not prevention and reassurance and deterrance, but revenge.
quote:Well...in my mind, you haven't really. You're being extremely general and vague. What do you think about this particular case? Is seeking to apply punishment for raping a child now, decades later, when the victim of the crime says she wants to put it behind her, would that be 'revenge', and should society not seek that out?
I can give examples, but I rather hope that if I've stated myself with reasonable clarity, some have already come to mind.
quote:I think in a perfect world, ideally, it would be possible for a victim to look past the hurt done them towards healing both themselves and the perpetrator, assuring that both can become part of "the whole" again.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I'm not sure why you say it's 'perhaps' reasonable for a victim of a crime to want revenge. Unless it's one in a string of crimes done and crimes done back, isn't wanting (not talking about taking) revenge perfectly reasonable if someone has wronged you?
quote:I think society can act, in part, as an agent of revenge; that it does so both to allow the victim vindication and to prevent the victim and their loved ones from seeking further, perhaps violent, redress. In this way, though, it's again beneficial for "us" to take a step back. To the victim, the perpetrator is spending fifteen years in prison so that they suffer from isolation, lost productive time, etc. in return for the pain the victim has felt. To society, the perpetrator is spending fifteen years in prison so that they won't re-offend, learn to recognize the consequences of their actions, and perhaps can be rehabilitated. The objectives differ; the desires overlap.
I don't think society is an agent of revenge when it does something like this, though. It's part of the difference between justice and revenge. Justice has a much broader scope than revenge, even though quite often in application the two may look similar. Justice is about not only ensuring the victim is recompensed, somehow, but also that society at large is served. Revenge is only ever really concerned with those specifically wronged.
quote:Perhaps we agree. I use the term "revenge" with some hesitancy; there just doesn't seem to be a better word available.
I don't think society should ever be in the revenge business, but must always be in the justice business-sometimes even when the actual victim or victims no longer want it.
quote:I recognize this. This is what I mean when I refer to "deterrance".
Criminals aren't punished by society just as a message to society-they're also punished by society as a message to other criminals and potential criminals.
quote:I hesitate with regard to this only in two factors. One, it seems like the various factors in Polanski's case are so unusual that they are unlikely ever to be repeated, so I can't help but wonder whom exactly we might seek to deter (and there are certainly enough celebrities going to jail in the news to keep the public aware that fame does not make one above the criminal justice system.) Two, that the desire for deterrance and the visibility of the case not cause an excessive punishment either to "make an example" of the man or to make him subject to all the punishment of those perceived as "getting away with it."
One vitally important, though not very tangible, aspect of the justice system is to ensure it's known that some things won't be tolerated. In Polanski's case, child rape, fleeing justice, and the idea that fame, wealth, etc., cannot erase one's crime. That if you wrong someone else, you don't get to decide how you will be punished or when you are punished enough-particularly if you haven't been punished at all.
quote:Yes, outrage can be useful as an instigator. But I think when the time comes to consider action, or policy, or law, outrage has to be put aside. What I keep seeing from outrage is a desire for simple answers, direct action, immediate results. There are few problems on a societal level that can be dealt with thus, and plenty that can be made worse.
Outrage can be an extremely productive emotion. I think there are very few meaningful social and political movements - for better or worse, of course - that didn't have a heaping helping of outrage at their center.
quote:In this particular case... Again, I'm glad it's not for me to say. But for what it's worth, here it is.
Well...in my mind, you haven't really. You're being extremely general and vague. What do you think about this particular case? Is seeking to apply punishment for raping a child now, decades later, when the victim of the crime says she wants to put it behind her, would that be 'revenge', and should society not seek that out?
quote: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.
I think in a perfect world, ideally, it would be possible for a victim to look past the hurt done them towards healing both themselves and the perpetrator, assuring that both can become part of "the whole" again.
quote:That's basically what I just said. Sometimes revenge and justice have the same application, but that doesn't make them the same.
I think society can act, in part, as an agent of revenge; that it does so both to allow the victim vindication and to prevent the victim and their loved ones from seeking further, perhaps violent, redress. In this way, though, it's again beneficial for "us" to take a step back. To the victim, the perpetrator is spending fifteen years in prison so that they suffer from isolation, lost productive time, etc. in return for the pain the victim has felt. To society, the perpetrator is spending fifteen years in prison so that they won't re-offend, learn to recognize the consequences of their actions, and perhaps can be rehabilitated. The objectives differ; the desires overlap.
quote:'Justice'.
Perhaps we agree. I use the term "revenge" with some hesitancy; there just doesn't seem to be a better word available.
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.
quote: One vitally important, though not very tangible, aspect of the justice system is to ensure it's known that some things won't be tolerated. In Polanski's case, child rape, fleeing justice, and the idea that fame, wealth, etc., cannot erase one's crime. That if you wrong someone else, you don't get to decide how you will be punished or when you are punished enough-particularly if you haven't been punished at all.
I hesitate with regard to this only in two factors. One, it seems like the various factors in Polanski's case are so unusual that they are unlikely ever to be repeated, so I can't help but wonder whom exactly we might seek to deter (and there are certainly enough celebrities going to jail in the news to keep the public aware that fame does not make one above the criminal justice system.) Two, that the desire for deterrance and the visibility of the case not cause an excessive punishment either to "make an example" of the man or to make him subject to all the punishment of those perceived as "getting away with it."
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.
I think I've already said something about what would seem to me appropriate punishment. Honestly, I'm glad that it's not my decision to make. It would be very easy to err either on the side of excess or the side of leniency.
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.
Yes, outrage can be useful as an instigator. But I think when the time comes to consider action, or policy, or law, outrage has to be put aside. What I keep seeing from outrage is a desire for simple answers, direct action, immediate results. There are few problems on a societal level that can be dealt with thus, and plenty that can be made worse.
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.
I feel some skepticism that there are a lot of wealthy foreign nationals with the means and ability to flee overseas and a persecution complex to make them feel that it would appropriate for them to do so in the face of punishment for similar crimes that they intend to commit and need to be deterred. I do see some merit in the continued need, amidst America's tendency to deify the famous, to remind that fame is not immunity to the law. I also recognize value in pacifying other victims of similar crimes, again recognizing that neither factor should lead to excessive punishment.
quote:I don't see how you can seriously claim there is 'virtually no chance' he'll repeat. He's a sex offender, and repeat offenses are not uncommon with such criminals, not at all. 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.
There is virtually no chance that Polanski will repeat the crime. I do not feel I am in a position to judge whether he feels remorse for his actions; certainly the number of prominant people who would minimize his crime is unfortunate, to say the least. I would like for him to apologize, if only to rebuke those that would deny the crime.
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.
I would like Polanski to spend the rest of his life atoning for and repairing what crimes like his have done. I am far from certain that is best accomplished by him spending the rest of his life in jail, or that that is what is best for society.
quote:The maximum possible jail time allowable under California law for his crime at the time he committed it is what I would seek. As for why? Well, I would seek that out if it were still the 70s and he'd just committed his crime, frankly. First, the crime itself is so heinous as to demand in my opinion such a response-the harshest society can give, both for the victim's sake, and for victims of similar crimes, and as a message to society at large.
What would you seek, and why?
quote:Blayne has a point. The Salon writer is very concerned that we accept the horror of what Polanski did, and to that end bludgeons the reader with evocative, specific descriptions of his crimes.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you are going to have the game, you need to match times Kate Harding says "raped a child" with the number of time other media source say "a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Since that misleading phrase, which appears over and over again in new reports, is precisely what Harding is trying to counter by repeatind "raped a child".
quote:In my eyes, it's pretty reasonable since the legal name of the crime - 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor' - doesn't really convey the truth of the crime at all.
Blayne has a point. The Salon writer is very concerned that we accept the horror of what Polanski did, and to that end bludgeons the reader with evocative, specific descriptions of his crimes.
quote:Has Polanski ever denied that he drugged and then raped a child? To my knowledge all he or his lawyers have ever claimed is that there was judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. In light of his flight, and his lack of denying the charges, I don't see how it's unreasonable to go with the actual victim's story.
The problem I have with it is that Polanski was accused of those things, and actually pled guilty to "a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". I realize that statutory rape laws might make it accurate to say that what he pled guilty to was the rape of a child, but statutory rape is not what Harding wants to reinforce happened.
quote:Why does she take them as indisputable? Could it be because he's not disputing them?
So beating into our heads the severity of his actions, with anatomical and dialogical specificity, is inappropriate. Condemn what he admitted to, fine. Condemn fleeing justice, fine. Take as indisputable fact a bunch of unproven allegations and use them as a rhetorical bludgeon, I roll my eyes.
quote:In fairness to scifibum's argument, he plead guilty only to a portion of the charges, if I'm not mistaken, as part of a plea deal, specifically the 'unlawful sex with a minor' part. My bafflement comes from my confusion that anyone would take issue with someone objecting to that dry legalese when we're talking about a 13 year old.
He plead guilty at the original trial. Once someone pleads guilty to a crime, I find it acceptable to remove "allegedly" from any statements regarding the crime.
quote:I think we are down to splitting hairs. All the charges made against Polanski are relevant. It is true that Polanski plead guilty to only one part of the charges, and that should be noted. But the remaining charges have not been dropped because Polanski violated the terms of the plea bargain by fleeing sentencing. I think in considering the seriousness of the case in general, it is important to consider the full accusations against him -- not merely the charge to which he plead guilty.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
In fairness to scifibum's argument, he plead guilty only to a portion of the charges, if I'm not mistaken, as part of a plea deal, specifically the 'unlawful sex with a minor' part.
quote:Unless I misunderstand dramatically, scifibum isn't objecting to "dry legalese" when he objects to your description. The problem is that the punishment you recommend for Polanski is based on a psychological assessment of pedophiles. That psychological assessment is inappropriate because although this crime may legally have been the same as pedophilia, psychologically it simply is not. One of the big problems with sexual predator laws as they stand in many parts of the US, is that they don't allow the judges to use any discretion. Under these laws an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year girl friend is a pedophile and is punished with laws intended for pedophiles which is just absurd. No matter how much you disapprove of teenagers having consensual sex, it simply isn't psychologically or morally equivalent to pedophilia.
My bafflement comes from my confusion that anyone would take issue with someone objecting to that dry legalese when we're talking about a 13 year old.
quote:The desire for revenge is understandable but I will never agree that it is remotely reasonable. Revenge is not restorative. It does not undo the harm the victim experienced. The desire for revenge is a mockery of true justice. It seeks "balance" by degrading everyone. If punishing criminals is no more than society fullfilling the victims desire for revenge, then it should not be done.
It is understandable, and perhaps reasonable, for the victim of a crime to want "revenge"- to want the perpetrator of that crime hurt. To want them to pay, perhaps literally, for the harm they have done. It may be that it is necessary for the victim to regain a sense of equilibrium, to feel that things like what happened to them don't "just happen"; that the world doesn't stand idly be when they do.
quote:Why not answer the question yourself. Men and boys are sometimes raped too and yet it is rare for them to imagine themselves as a victims of such a crime.
Originally posted by DSH:
ife if she would have preferred to be raped pre-puberty rather than post-puberty, or if being raped post-puberty was OK.
quote:No it wouldn't. Because something is "natural" does not make it reasonable. The desire for revenge is irrational. There is no logical defense for acting on the emotion. Darn near everybody has at some point experienced the full gambit of emotions, anger, lust, greed, envy, and darn near everybody knows that it isn't rational to act on those emotions.
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.
quote:Except the punishment I recommend isn't based solely on Polanski's pedophilia (until such time as he actually defends himself against such charges, I'm fine calling it that), but just as much on the drugging and repeatedly raping part.
Unless I misunderstand dramatically, scifibuThe problem is that the punishment you recommend for Polanski is based on a psychological assessment of pedophiles.
quote:How do you know that? Heck, I've looked online to decide for myself, and only found one photograph of her. And even there, in what I suspect (though I can't be sure) is a 'glamor shots' style photograph, she looks very underage to me.
That psychological assessment is inappropriate because although this crime may legally have been the same as pedophilia, psychologically it simply is not.
quote:Ummm...yes, of course it isn't. How is that relevant to this discussion, though? Pointing out that sometimes our sex-offense laws are unreasonable? Well, sure, I'll agree with that. Certainly not in this case, though.
No matter how much you disapprove of teenagers having consensual sex, it simply isn't psychologically or morally equivalent to pedophilia.
quote:You seem to be using a different definition of 'reasonable' than I was. I never suggested the desire for revenge was actually a good thing, or that taking revenge helped-though frankly I'm not willing to agree with you that taking revenge must be, in all cases, universally negative for all involved. I merely said that I don't think it's unreasonable for a person wronged to want revenge, in the same way it's not unreasonable for a person who bangs his shin really hard on a coffee table in the dark to shout and hop on one foot. And yes, we've all experienced the full gamut of bad emotions, but thankfully very few of us have experienced them to the extent that they consume our waking hours. People are changed by such experiences, and while I don't say taking revenge in response to such changes is a reasoned response, it's still reasonable for people to want it. Even though I still think we as a society should insist they don't take it.
No it wouldn't. Because something is "natural" does not make it reasonable. The desire for revenge is irrational. There is no logical defense for acting on the emotion. Darn near everybody has at some point experienced the full gambit of emotions, anger, lust, greed, envy, and darn near everybody knows that it isn't rational to act on those emotions.
quote:That's not the only purpose of the criminal justice system. Nor should it be, since preventing all crime will always be impossible.
The point of criminal justice is to prevent crime. Punishment plays a very important role in that, not even primarily because a locking people up keep them from committing crimes. As a society we rely on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people will follow the rules. Even the most oppressive societies can not enforce laws even in a fraction of 1% of the population flaunt them. The thing is, that most people are only willing to follow the rules if they have faith that nearly everyone else will too. Unless people believe that you can't benefit by breaking the rules, they will have little incentive to keep them.
quote:Very under age, and pre-pubescent are different. Applying the psychological profile of a pedophile to someone who has had sex with a teenager who has entered puberty is fallacious. I'm not saying the later it a lesser crime, but it is a different crime driven by different motivations and psychological conditions.
How do you know that? Heck, I've looked online to decide for myself, and only found one photograph of her. And even there, in what I suspect (though I can't be sure) is a 'glamor shots' style photograph, she looks very underage to me.
quote:We don't really know whether anyone is a pedophile or not. We have no evidence to suggest the Polanski is a pedophile. Even if every charge made against him is true, it wouldn't make him a pedophile in the sense you are using when you talk about recidivism.
We don't really know whether Polanski is a pedophile or not, it seems to me. I sure as hell hope not, really, because if he is re-offending becomes much more likely, and he's been roaming free for a long time
quote:That's a non-sequitur. The fact that we will never be 100% successful in preventing crime does not mean that shouldn't be our aim. The way you phrase it, makes it sound like it is impossible to prevent any crime at all, which is pointedly absurd. A an effective criminal justice system does reduce crime. An ineffective criminal justice system does lead to a rise in crime. Those are established facts.
That's not the only purpose of the criminal justice system. Nor should it be, since preventing all crime will always be impossible.
quote:No, it's not, because I was responding to something you said. Nowhere did I say or even suggest that if we can't prevent all crime, we shouldn't try to prevent any. Nothing I said made it sound like I said that, either. The only thing I said was that since we'll never be able to prevent all crime, 'preventing crime' should not be the sole justification for our criminal justice system. Because there will always be crime, and we'll need a system in place to deal with it once it happens, not just prevent it from happening in the future.
That's a non-sequitur. The fact that we will never be 100% successful in preventing crime does not mean that shouldn't be our aim. The way you phrase it, makes it sound like it is impossible to prevent any crime at all, which is pointedly absurd. A an effective criminal justice system does reduce crime. An ineffective criminal justice system does lead to a rise in crime. Those are established facts.
quote:The reason I haven't given you a reason to think crime prevention shouldn't be the central focus of the criminal justice system is that I don't disagree that it should be the central focus. As for 'nothing has been suggested here except revenge', well, that's not true either. Unless you call 'revenge' any action not geared towards preventing future crimes.
You haven't given me any reason to think that crime prevention shouldn't be the central or even only focus of criminal justice? I am willing to consider other benefits of criminal justice beyond prevention, like restitution for example. But nothing has been suggested here except revenge -- and I find the idea of society carrying out vengence on criminals to serve no useful purpose -- it only degrades us all.
quote:No it doesn't. It depends I suppose on what you mean by revenge. 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. 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 of obtained by the revenge or not.
As for revenge being irrational, well, that depends solely on whether or not one agrees that taking revenge will always be bad.
quote:I thought the term, or at least I think the term some people are grasping for here, is ephebophilia.
Pederasty is the term for being attracted to adolescent and teenage boys usually between 12 and 17.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Ah, yes. And that works for girls, too and is more clinical than pederasty which is more social.
Originally posted by Tstorm:
quote:I thought the term, or at least I think the term some people are grasping for here, is ephebophilia.
Pederasty is the term for being attracted to adolescent and teenage boys usually between 12 and 17.
quote:A difference in sentencing in number of years?
Originally posted by DSH:
@ Rabbit
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.
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)
quote:I don't know if it is likely to make a difference to the victim (although I imagine it can, sometimes). But it might make a big difference in how to prevent recidivism and to what extent punishment creates deterrence for other potential criminals (which in turn might guide what else needs to be done). This is not to assess the size/seriousness of the crime, but to recognize that there are different kinds of criminal, and how society manages its response to each kind can differ.
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)
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.
No it doesn't.
quote:And why is there emotional satisfaction to the victim when the perpetrator is harmed? Because it's in response to the crime. 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. But so does mercy-that's why the criminal does, as well.
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.
quote:So now your argument is that it's irrational because it violates 'basic ethics'? Still begging the question, Rabbit. Not that I disagree with you, but I don't take it as an objective fact as you appear to.
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 of obtained by the revenge or not.
quote:THIS.
Originally posted by scholarette:
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. 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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB]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.
No it doesn't.
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.
quote:And why is there emotional satisfaction to the victim when the perpetrator is harmed? Because it's in response to the crime.
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.
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:So now your argument is that it's irrational because it violates 'basic ethics'?
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.
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.
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.
quote:Correct.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Hah, Blayne, stop pretending you have friends.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: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.
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
This is kinda old news, but I haven't seen it yet on the 'rack. If I'm being repetitious, I apologize.
CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html?iref=newssearch
A Salon column I pretty heartily agree with: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
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 should get some friends over and make it a group activity.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by DSH:
@ Rabbit
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.
quote: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.
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)
quote:Don't kid yourself. Rubbing his nose in it doesn't seem to have taught him anything yet you simply can't resist the temptation.
Originally posted by jebus202:
Ok, ok, be boring, but Blayne will never learn if you don't rub his nose in it.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB]
quote:No it doesn't.
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: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.
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: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:)
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: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.
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:That's one definition of rational, yes.
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.
quote: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.
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.
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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
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?
But I didn't choose to eat this chocolate logically or by sound reasoning.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
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.
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: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.
"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?
quote: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.
My claim is based on numerous controlled studies which presumably controlled for that factor. Look into it yourself if you don't believe me.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:It takes one to know one.
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:*must resist... too easy of an opening... must have higher standards... gargh...*
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
That really depends on whose tongue and whose cheek we are talking about.
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.
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.
'Justice'.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
First off, whoever said that by punishing Polanski, the only people deterred are just like him? C'mon Sterling, that's a straw man.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:He's a seventy-six year old man who hasn't had any charges pressed against him in thirty-one years.
I don't see how you can seriously claim there is 'virtually no chance' he'll repeat.
quote:And yet if we are judging one case, we must judge it as one case.
He's a sex offender, and repeat offenses are not uncommon with such criminals, not at all.
quote: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.
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.
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.
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.
quote:Then we cannot entirely overlook the possibility that when Polanski fled, it was in the face of being treated inequally before the law.
It's also about the rule of law, about the idea that people should be treated equally before the law.
quote:It would be weird. And I'm not.
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.
quote:I'm glad I'm not charged with judging that. That he raped a child, I am not disputing in any way.
And that's what Polanski is: an unrepentant child rapist.
quote: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.
It's not logical to want to feel good things?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Certainly, I agree with that.
The desire for revenge, as a grand whole, is reasonable. Not all specific desires for revenge are.
quote: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.
...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: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.
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.
quote: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.
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: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.
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: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?
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:Well, sure. The death penalty. Though to be honest, I'd only consider that 'excessive' in some senses, not others.
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: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.
And yet if we are judging one case, we must judge it as one case.
quote:As I've said above, I don't think he actually ever paid that settlement.
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: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.
Then we cannot entirely overlook the possibility that when Polanski fled, it was in the face of being treated inequally before the law.
quote:OK, I'll amend my statement to: 'people objecting to child rapists spending much time in prison.'
It would be weird. And I'm not.
quote:Sterling, where did you get this "understanding?"
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: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).
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Are you asking to be kissed?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
That really depends on whose tongue and whose cheek we are talking about.
quote:This is what's "making the rounds". Examples:
Originally posted by sndrake:
Sterling, where did you get this "understanding?"
quote:
Orignally posted by The Rabbit:
Maturity isn't boring
quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
It also apparently doesn't appreciate tongue-in-cheek.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
That really depends on whose tongue and whose cheek we are talking about.
quote:No, just failing to resist the obvious opening.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Are you asking to be kissed?
quote:Rape!!!
Originally posted by Orincoro:
:kisses The Rabbit:
quote:You've got me there. I'd question the claim if I hadn't cycled through the Czech republic.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I just assumed you meant me. And anyway, in Czech, "no" means "yes."
quote:Rabbit, why are you racist against petarded people?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Hoisted on my own petard.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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]
quote: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.
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Rabbit, why are you racist against petarded people?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Hoisted on my own petard.
quote: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.
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.