Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Rearden_Steel

Switzerland under diplomatic fire on Polanski

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Why is everyone defending this guy? Any one who says he should be released should be ashamed of themselves! I also hate it when the press say he was charge with "having sex with a underage girl". He drugged and raped a child!! Europe has completely lost its damn mind.

San Diego Reader:

It doesn’t change the facts, which are that at Jack Nicholsons house, he lured a 13-year-old girl over there saying he wanted to do a photo shoot with her. He drugged her (alcoholic) drink, and forced himself on her (that was my nice way of saying he sodomized her).
Edited by Rearden_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you believe all the celebrities that are now coming to his defense?? This is yet another reason for me to hate hollywood even more. And that interview of him where he actually said he can't bring himself to understand what was wrong with it. What a sleaze. I really hope Switzerland and the California DA don't back down on this. Please let him spend the rest of his life in prison!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that should be taken into consideration here is that his victim was compensated in a civil suit and now wants the case to be dropped. I think when a rational adult victim of a crime does not wish to press charges, no one else has any right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that should be taken into consideration here is that his victim was compensated in a civil suit and now wants the case to be dropped. I think when a rational adult victim of a crime does not wish to press charges, no one else has any right to do so.

But she was thirteen at the time it happened. If her parents pressed charges at the time of the incident what ever she thinks now is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware of the civil suit.

Edited by Rearden_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A civil suit is a different matter than a criminal suit.

One does not negate the other, nor does guilt or innocence in one predict guilt or innocence in the other.

She did file civil suit which was settled.

Now he must answer not only for child-rape but for fleeing which again, was breaking the law.

As to her wanting this dropped she has said over and over again she wants it dropped because she hates having to go through this over and over again, with the embarassing details being dragged out over and over again, with people judging whether or not she was partially to blame... over and over again.

Think about it.. if someone drugged and sodomized you as a child would you want vermin like Whoopi Goldberg discussing the details publicly every few years?

Here's what the dirtbag himself had to say about it:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeld...ttle-girls-too/

(edited to add link)

Edited by QuoVadis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that should be taken into consideration here is that his victim was compensated in a civil suit and now wants the case to be dropped. I think when a rational adult victim of a crime does not wish to press charges, no one else has any right to do so.

I think the opposite. Crime versus tort. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the opposite. Crime versus tort. Look it up.

I had initially thought like David, but after clearing away the false notion that "what the victim wants" should somehow govern law, I've come to agree with you on it. It's nice that he's made a bunch of great movies, but in a rational system, justice must be served.

It's unfortunate that he had to drag it out for so long and cause the victim even more anguish. A rational victim would be blaming him for this, not the system.

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that should be taken into consideration here is that his victim was compensated in a civil suit and now wants the case to be dropped. I think when a rational adult victim of a crime does not wish to press charges, no one else has any right to do so.

That could establish a horrible precedent to the effect that raping a child carries no jail time if one pays off blood money first.

In the second place, Polanski also fled the law at the time, and he should at least be tried for that.

Some crimes are prosecuted only when the victim files charges, others do not require any action by the victim. This is sensible and inarguable in cases like murder, where the victim cannot act. But I see a good case for prosecuting rape regardless of the victim's wishes on the matter. For one thing it is the state's job to protect individual rights. That means, among other things, deterring potential criminals from commiting crimes. In the instance of rape, it should mean prosecuting all reported rapes, with or without the victim's consent of cooperation, simply because rapists shouldn't be allowed to run free.

If a woman doesn't want to see her rapist prosecuted she can refrain from reporting the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like my justice to send everyone who rapes a girl to jail. I don't understand why it would be a good idea to leave that up in the air, for anyone to decide, even the victim.

We either have a society where people respect rights or be punished, or we have one that only exists to solve conflicts, when they occur. I can't imagine how the latter could be objective, if it leaves it up to victims to decide whether a crime goes punished or not, and somone could buy their way out of respecting rights. (which would imply that someone could sell their own rights, and even become a slave, to be traded in a slave market).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We either have a society where people respect rights or be punished, or we have one that only exists to solve conflicts, when they occur.

I agree that a judicial process can either provide restitution or punishment. However, I don't think that anything other than restitution can be objective, if we are speaking of "equal harm for harm." An eye-for-an-eye policy is inherently arbitrary and emotionalistic. Furthermore, punishing criminals is triply unjust, as it forces unrelated third parties (taxpayers) to pay for incarceration, does not provide any restitution to the victim, and punishes the criminal for the (unknowable) desired social outcomes rather than his own actions.

if it leaves it up to victims to decide whether a crime goes punished or not, and somone could buy their way out of respecting rights.

It is entirely proper for an offender to repay his victim for a crime. This in no way absolves them of the need to respect rights. Such an assumption is based on the premise that wealth is distributed arbitrarily to people, rather than being a reward for virtue.

(which would imply that someone could sell their own rights, and even become a slave, to be traded in a slave market).

I don't know what premises led you to this conclusion. To "sell rights" is a contradiction in terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not prosecuting a crime based on a victim's whims also leaves the system up to many abuses.

In the case of domestic violence, for instance, in most cases once DV is reported it is out of the victim's hands. Why? Because for a long time victims were intimidated into not pressing charges. The same could happen with rape. If you don't want it prosecuted don't report it.

Re: crime vs tort

So you have a problem with the parents of OJ Simpson's victims filing civil suit?

Case in point for why the woman just wants this over with: (this article contains details of the crime taken from court documents and victim testimony)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roman-...5958&page=1

Lets say at 13 you were drugged, raped and sodomized. That would fuck one up a little, no?

Lets say you get on with your life and 30 years later you have a spouse, a job, children, a life and neighbors.

Lets say it comes back up in the news and now everyone that knows you, everyone that doesn't know you and everyone in your workplace has access to stories detailing you getting sodomized as a child.

You might just want it to end.

But the stories are out there whether the dirtbag goes to jail or not.

He needs to pay.

Its a shame that so many actors and directors I admire are coming to his defense. I will never, ever support their endeavors with my money again.

I find it facsinating how many self proclaimed "feminist" actresses are attacking the victim and defending this asshole. Apparently rape is only rape when you aren't an "artiste".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But she was thirteen at the time it happened. If her parents pressed charges at the time of the incident what ever she thinks now is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware of the civil suit.

Yes, I'm not sure how to resolve the wishes of her parents at the time versus that of the adult now. But nevertheless, she, not her parents, is the victim. Polanski should face the consequences of trying to evade justice, but I don't think he should be punished for a crime he has paid sufficiently (in the victim's eyes) for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impression I got from your earlier post was that since she was compensated in some (undisclosed) form in a civil suit that a criminal case was moot. Pardon me if that was not your intention.

Again I have to state that it isn't, in our legal system, up to the victim to decide the punishment of the perpetrator.

If that were the case there'd be a lot of dead rapists. B)

The reason to lock up a rapist goes beyond punishment for the crime against the individual. It is also meant as a deterrent and to remove from society one who would be a threat to others. Polanski notoriously made light of his crime joking about how everyone would "fuck little girls" if they could get away with it and was often photographed after fleeing from his crime covorting with underaged girls. His attitude toward the victim and to the crime certainly would point toward repeat offenses.

The reason the woman wants this over with is she sees herself revictimized by the press.

If Polanski has spent the paltry 90 days in jail he was supposed to she never would've had to go through this anyway.

Picture that NINETY DAYS for drugging and raping a child.

13 is what 7th or 8th grade..?

Picture a kid in 7th or 8th grade having that done to them... 3 months in jail? Of which he served 42 days before fleeing?

That bears repeating... do you have any relatives or kids in 7th grade? Take a look at them, imagine that done to them and say to yourself.."42 days in jail". Seems insane doesn't it?

Letting Polanski off would be sending a very bad message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'm not sure how to resolve the wishes of her parents at the time versus that of the adult now. But nevertheless, she, not her parents, is the victim. Polanski should face the consequences of trying to evade justice, but I don't think he should be punished for a crime he has paid sufficiently (in the victim's eyes) for.

Whatever her age and opinion is now the case has to be presented under the circumstances at the time it was committed. When she was thirteen she was the responsibility and property of her parents. Whatever she thinks or says now is ex post facto.

Edited by Rearden_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like the aegean stables in here today.

Governments must defend rights in a principled, objective way. When a crime is objectively defined and justified, selectively enforcing it is corrupt. The victim's wishes are not relevant.

Children are not property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that a judicial process can either provide restitution or punishment. However, I don't think that anything other than restitution can be objective, if we are speaking of "equal harm for harm." An eye-for-an-eye policy is inherently arbitrary and emotionalistic. Furthermore, punishing criminals is triply unjust, as it forces unrelated third parties (taxpayers) to pay for incarceration, does not provide any restitution to the victim, and punishes the criminal for the (unknowable) desired social outcomes rather than his own actions.

Why is it unknowable that punishment deters crimes? (Deterring crimes being the desired social outcome)

It is entirely proper for an offender to repay his victim for a crime. This in no way absolves them of the need to respect rights. Such an assumption is based on the premise that wealth is distributed arbitrarily to people, rather than being a reward for virtue.

I assumed nothing about the source of wealth, my sole assumption is that the role of government is to use retributive force against those who commit crimes, in a manner that is objective.

You are correct, wealth is a reward for virtue, the wealthy can be assumed to be virtuous in at least one aspect of their life. Should government discriminate based on virtue, then, while punishing a person for a crime against another?

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting my comment from Facebook:

Note the altruist premise of Polanski's defenders: the victim should be sacrificed for the sake of the "social value" of his films. What a non-surprise that the man who led the campaign in his defense is the conservative philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...