Article is in the spoiler, it is just really big. Looks like it took 14 hours of deliberation to find him guilty on 3 counts. Curious what the sentencing is going to be for this.
Spoiler:
NORRISTOWN, Pa. --
Bill Cosby was convicted Thursday of drugging and molesting a woman in the first big celebrity trial of the #MeToo era, completing the spectacular late-life downfall of a comedian who broke racial barriers in Hollywood on his way to TV superstardom as America's Dad.
Cosby, 80, could end up spending his final years in prison after a jury concluded he sexually violated Temple University employee Andrea Constand at his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004. He claimed the encounter was consensual.
Cosby stared straight ahead as the verdict was read, but moments later lashed out loudly at District Attorney Kevin Steele and called him an "a--hole" after the prosecutor asked that the former TV star be immediately jailed because he might flee. Cosby denied he has an airplane and shouted, "I'm sick of him!"
The judge decided Cosby can remain free on bail while he awaits sentencing. No sentencing date was set.
Cosby waved to the crowd outside the courthouse, got into a car and left without comment. His lawyer Tom Mesereau declared "the fight is not over" and said he will appeal.
Shrieks erupted in the courtroom when the verdict was announced, and some of his accusers whimpered and cried. Constand remained stoic, then hugged her lawyer and members of the prosecution team.
"Justice has been done!" celebrity attorney Gloria Allred, who represented some of Cosby's accusers, said on the courthouse steps. "We are so happy that finally we can say women are believed."
The verdict came after a two-week retrial in which prosecutors put five other women on the stand who testified that Cosby, married for 54 years, drugged and violated them, too. One of those women asked him through her tears, "You remember, don't you, Mr. Cosby?"
The panel of seven men and five women reached a verdict after deliberating 14 hours over two days, vindicating prosecutors' decision to retry Cosby after his first trial ended with a hung jury less than a year ago.
Cosby could get up to 10 years in prison on each of the three counts of aggravated indecent assault. He is likely to get less than that under state sentencing guidelines, but given his age, even a modest term could mean he will die behind bars.
Constand, 45, a former Temple women's basketball administrator, told jurors that Cosby knocked her out with three blue pills he called "your friends" and then penetrated her with his fingers as she lay immobilized, unable to resist or say no.
It was the only criminal case to arise from a barrage of allegations from more than 60 women who said the former TV star drugged and molested them over a span of five decades.
"The time for the defendant to escape justice is over," prosecutor Stewart Ryan said in his closing argument. "It's finally time for the defendant to dine on the banquet of his own consequences."
Another prosecutor, Kristen Feden, said Cosby was "nothing like the image that he played on TV" as sweater-wearing, wisdom-dispensing father of five Dr. Cliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show."
Cosby's retrial took place against the backdrop of #MeToo, the movement against sexual misconduct that has taken down powerful men in rapid succession, among them Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey and Sen. Al Franken.
The jurors all indicated they were aware of #MeToo but said before the trial they could remain impartial. Cosby's lawyers slammed #MeToo, calling Cosby its victim and likening it to a witch hunt or a lynching.
After failing to win a conviction last year, prosecutors had more courtroom weapons at their disposal for the retrial. The other accusers' testimony helped move the case beyond a he-said, she-said, allowing prosecutors to argue that Cosby was a menace to women long before he met Constand. Only one other accuser was permitted to testify at Cosby's first trial.
Cosby's new defense team, led by Mesereau, the celebrity attorney who won an acquittal for Michael Jackson on child-molestation charges, launched a highly aggressive attack on Constand and the other women.
Their star witness, a longtime Temple employee, testified that Constand once spoke of setting up a prominent person and suing. Constand sued Cosby after prosecutors initially declined to file charges, settling with him for nearly $3.4 million over a decade ago.
"You're dealing with a pathological liar," Mesereau told the jury.
His colleague on the defense team, Katheen Bliss, derided the other accusers as home-wreckers and suggested they made up their stories in a bid for money and fame.
But Cosby himself had long ago confirmed sordid revelations about drugs and extramarital sex.
In a deposition he gave over a decade ago as part of Constand's lawsuit, Cosby acknowledged he had obtained quaaludes to give to women he wanted to have sex with, "the same as a person would say, 'Have a drink.'" The sedative was a popular party drug before the U.S. banned it more than 30 years ago.
Cosby also acknowledged giving pills to Constand before their sexual encounter. But he identified them as the over-the-counter cold and allergy medicine Benadryl and insisted they were meant to help her relax.
The entertainer broke racial barriers as the first black actor to star in a network show, "I Spy," in the 1960s. He created the top-ranked "Cosby Show" two decades later. He also found success with his "Fat Albert" animated TV show and served as pitchman for Jello-O pudding.
Later in his career, he attracted controversy for lecturing about social dysfunction in poor black neighborhoods, railing against young people stealing things and wearing baggy pants.
It was Cosby's reputation as a public moralist that prompted a federal judge, acting in response to a request from The Associated Press, to unseal portions of the deposition.
Its release helped destroy the "Cosby Show" star's career and good-guy image. It also prompted authorities to reopen the criminal investigation, and he was charged in late 2015.
The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission. Constand has done so.
I think that false reports of rape are a very low percentage - it does happen, but it happens a crazy tiny fraction of the time. But lets say 90% of the reports were lies - a percentage literally no one would think is possible. If you assume 90% are true, that's still like 6 rapes. I can't understand why this dude has people who defend him, but I guess that's how #metoo happened.
Ouze wrote: No worries, we were still on the same page.
I think that false reports of rape are a very low percentage - it does happen, but it happens a crazy tiny fraction of the time. But lets say 90% of the reports were lies - a percentage literally no one would think is possible. If you assume 90% are true, that's still like 6 rapes. I can't understand why this dude has people who defend him, but I guess that's how #metoo happened.
I think some of it is just utter disbelief. I mean, he was TV dad for a large number of people. It's hard to shake that image. Kinda like picturing Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers were actually nazis* or something. I didn't believe it myself until I read multiple news articles.
* neither of those men were nazis. In fact, they were the last two genuine good people left in the world. The above statement was added for the sake of analogy.
Interesting comment I read this morning on the enormous expense of government's conviction. Even for a crime where the accused was this obviously, clearly guilty like Cosby, it still took an incredible investment of government resources to secure a guilty plea. If other people accused of serious crimes had the wealth to fight this the way Cosby has, the whole system would collapse. The system is dependent on people pleading guilty.
daedalus wrote: I think some of it is just utter disbelief. I mean, he was TV dad for a large number of people. It's hard to shake that image. Kinda like picturing Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers were actually nazis* or something. I didn't believe it myself until I read multiple news articles.
I think a lot of people struggle to understand how someone is publicly is not necessarily how they are privately. You see this any time a neighbourhood psycho is revealed, and people comment on how they were so nice and so it surprises them they were murdering local pets or whatever. It's kind of amazing that we continue to be surprised that people can act very differently in different contexts, because we all act differently in different circumstances. But we expect other people to absolutely the same all time, so if they were polite to me, they must surely be polite and respectful to everybody else all the time.
And then its even more amazing that people got their impression of Cosby from a character he played on tv. We know he's acting, and yet we also expect that's who Cosby really was. He was playing a pretend character with a pretend name, and he wasn't even a very good actor*, but we expect that's who Cosby really was. Bizarre.
*A funny comedian no doubt, but not a good actor. Seinfeld was the same. Ray Romano was different because he was neither
News this morning said he's under house arrest and getting an ankle bracelet.. so is he not going behind bars since he's old or something? Or is house arrest usually just a temporary thing?
Every time we hear a low flying plane or chopper around here, we joke that it's Cosby trying to get outta dodge. It's local news for us here in Philly.
Necros wrote: News this morning said he's under house arrest and getting an ankle bracelet.. so is he not going behind bars since he's old or something? Or is house arrest usually just a temporary thing?
Every time we hear a low flying plane or chopper around here, we joke that it's Cosby trying to get outta dodge. It's local news for us here in Philly.
Either way, glad they finally got him.
His bail was still granted while awaiting sentencing.
It's a big year for American justice. Two of the most prolific serial rapists in American history were arrested and one condemned in short succession. It's about time we hear some good news from Uncle Sam's country.
Necros wrote: News this morning said he's under house arrest and getting an ankle bracelet.. so is he not going behind bars since he's old or something? Or is house arrest usually just a temporary thing?
Every time we hear a low flying plane or chopper around here, we joke that it's Cosby trying to get outta dodge. It's local news for us here in Philly.
Either way, glad they finally got him.
His bail was still granted while awaiting sentencing.
I'm thinking he offs himself while awaiting sentencing. He has already lived the best years of his life, and he's going to either die in his home, or in a jail. I know if I was in his shoes, I'd probably do that.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I'm thinking he offs himself while awaiting sentencing. He has already lived the best years of his life, and he's going to either die in his home, or in a jail. I know if I was in his shoes, I'd probably do that.
With the prison system being what it is in the US, I'd probably do that if I was 18 and was looking at even five years. There's no future coming out of that then either.
Months ago, when we had a similar thread on this, I said that Bill Cosby was innocent until a judge and jury said otherwise.
I've always been uneasy with trial by media, the assumption that accusation is guilt, and the rush to abandon hard won liberties such as due process, presumption of innocence etc etc
But now that a judge and jury have spoken, I'm happy to call him a sack of gak for these crimes.
That's a pretty ridiculous stance to have. While the legal system does and absolutely should have a presumption of innocence as a legal fiction, there is nothing keeping any reasonable person from looking at the preponderance of evidence and forming an opinion on their own about the person's likely culpability.
In this case, the evidence was overwhelming that Bill Cosby was a serial rapist.
Ouze wrote: That's a pretty ridiculous stance to have. While the legal system does and absolutely should have a presumption of innocence as a legal fiction, there is nothing keeping any reasonable person from looking at the preponderance of evidence and forming an opinion on their own about the person's likely culpability.
In this case, the evidence was overwhelming that Bill Cosby was a serial rapist.
I wasn't sitting on the jury that convicted Bill Cosby, and to the best of my limited knowledge, you weren't either. If you were, and you can't say so for obvious legal reasons, I respect that. But it's probably highly unlikely that you were.
In any event, unless you were sitting in that courtroom, there would have been a ton of evidence that we wouldn't have heard in the media: police reports, forensics, shrink reports, expert witnesses etc etc etc
Do I trust the media? No. Would I expect the media to print every line of the transcript of the court procedings? Of course not, to impractical.
Do I give two hoots for Bill Cosby? No. Am I glad he's been convicted? Of course.
But in my lifetime I have seen too many miscarriages of justice, innocent men hounded and jailed, botched police investigations etc etc
Necros wrote: News this morning said he's under house arrest and getting an ankle bracelet.. so is he not going behind bars since he's old or something? Or is house arrest usually just a temporary thing?
Every time we hear a low flying plane or chopper around here, we joke that it's Cosby trying to get outta dodge. It's local news for us here in Philly.
Either way, glad they finally got him.
His bail was still granted while awaiting sentencing.
Likely his age? He unlikely to ever escape.
They have his passport.
Necros wrote: News this morning said he's under house arrest and getting an ankle bracelet.. so is he not going behind bars since he's old or something? Or is house arrest usually just a temporary thing?
Every time we hear a low flying plane or chopper around here, we joke that it's Cosby trying to get outta dodge. It's local news for us here in Philly.
Either way, glad they finally got him.
His bail was still granted while awaiting sentencing.
Likely his age? He unlikely to ever escape.
They have his passport.
He is famous. Be recognised all over.
He not running.
He has the money to do it. Hell, I would at least try. Not like he has anything to look forward to in life now. It can't really get much worse for him at this point.
Necros wrote: News this morning said he's under house arrest and getting an ankle bracelet.. so is he not going behind bars since he's old or something? Or is house arrest usually just a temporary thing?
Every time we hear a low flying plane or chopper around here, we joke that it's Cosby trying to get outta dodge. It's local news for us here in Philly.
Either way, glad they finally got him.
His bail was still granted while awaiting sentencing.
Likely his age? He unlikely to ever escape.
They have his passport.
He is famous. Be recognised all over.
He not running.
He has the money to do it. Hell, I would at least try. Not like he has anything to look forward to in life now. It can't really get much worse for him at this point.
Find a country to protect you from US. There ain't many.
There are rumblings that there may be an appeal. Apparently some of the witnesses against Cosby arguably shouldn't have been allowed to take the stand.
That and the event possibly didn't occur at the time the prosecution said it did. If that's true, it puts it just past the statutes of limitations, and thus Cosby would be unprosecutable, even if he admitted to it.
Now, I'm not saying Cosby isn't a POS. I think he is. I'm just saying that even slimeballs have rights.
I just hope that his sentence is more than just a cash pay out. Im not saying a pile of money wont help those women financially but they need more than a paycheck to help with that mental hurt he put on them
cuda1179 wrote: That and the event possibly didn't occur at the time the prosecution said it did. If that's true, it puts it just past the statutes of limitations, and thus Cosby would be unprosecutable, even if he admitted to it.
Boy, that sure seems like a pretty important point for Cosby's highly paid defense teams to have managed to miss... in two seperate trials.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well about half the world doesn't have extradition treaties with the US, that's quite a few.
OK.. True but would a country shelter a man who a convicted rapist, drugged woman, and more. Like come on. Would anyone offer mercy.
Hell no. Even if no treaty, id be kicking them to the door where they can go to there concrete box.
While I applaud the idealism, let me give a historic example. Klaas Carel Faber, Dutch SS-er and employed by the Sicherheitsdienst as one of their worst employees. When the war ended the Netherlands sentenced him to death. All good right?
Now comes the terrible part. He managed to escape prison in 1952 and fled to West-Germany. Because of his membership of the Waffen-SS he was automatically granted citizenship and extradition thereby became forbidden. The Simon Wiesenthal centre named him the most wanted Nazi war criminal in 2011-2012. The Dutch state tried to get him extradited again in 2010, which Germany resisted until 2012, the year he died in a German hospital a free man. Out of four Dutch war criminals that fled to Germany only one was eventually put on trial.
Plenty of countries have provided sanctuary to far worse. Cosby is mere peanuts compared to some of the monsters out there who lived out quiet lives.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well about half the world doesn't have extradition treaties with the US, that's quite a few.
OK.. True but would a country shelter a man who a convicted rapist, drugged woman, and more. Like come on. Would anyone offer mercy.
Hell no. Even if no treaty, id be kicking them to the door where they can go to there concrete box.
While I applaud the idealism, let me give a historic example. Klaas Carel Faber, Dutch SS-er and employed by the Sicherheitsdienst as one of their worst employees. When the war ended the Netherlands sentenced him to death. All good right?
Now comes the terrible part. He managed to escape prison in 1952 and.fled to West-Germany. Because of his membership of the Waffen-SS he was automatically granted citizenship and extradition thereby became forbidden. The Simon Wiesenthal centre named him the most wanted Nazi war criminal in 2011-2012. The Dutch state tried to get him extradited again in 2010, which Germany resisted until 2012, the year he died in a German hospital a free man.
They already got one permanent house guest, I'm sure they Don, t nerd or want to add a pervert on top.. They cannot get rid of the one have already!
True. That is a tricky case...
Though embarisment in modern media age might leverage someone to be in a tricky spot regarding what to do with your unwanted guest.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope we don't forget about Polanski, as I mentioned him on the previous page
That's true, sorry, I forgot you mentioned him. I do find it hilariously hypocritical of many famous people that are denouncing Cosby, while also supporting Polanski.
Seriously though, if there is any merit at all to Cosby's claim that this incident took place a month or more earlier than the prosecutor claim (and there is evidence) then he could very well walk. Really though, even the Prosecutor stated they don't know the exact date it took place, nor could the victim remember. They arbitrarily estimated it to be just on this side of the statute of limitations.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope we don't forget about Polanski, as I mentioned him on the previous page
That's true, sorry, I forgot you mentioned him. I do find it hilariously hypocritical of many famous people that are denouncing Cosby, while also supporting Polanski.
Seriously though, if there is any merit at all to Cosby's claim that this incident took place a month or more earlier than the prosecutor claim (and there is evidence) then he could very well walk. Really though, even the Prosecutor stated they don't know the exact date it took place, nor could the victim remember. They arbitrarily estimated it to be just on this side of the statute of limitations.
People aren't always the most rational, famous people run all levels of intelligence just like us. Polanski is very good at his profession, which is why he still has many fans and supporters. But just because he is good at what he does shouldn't mean people get to ignore the crimes he commits. But there are so many examples of people committing crimes and being protected and defended by the people around them, just because that person brings home the bacon, awards, medals etc etc. Unlike the wider MeToo movement Polanski is a bit of an odd case. Everybody keeps bringing it up, he's never going to be extradited and his victim keeps being dragged back in. I think the victim's attitude (that he made a mistake and he 's paid for it etc.) towards it now makes it easier for people to justify defending Polanski to themselves. Attitudes towards Polanski might still shift in the aftermath of MeToo, but they better shift quick because he might croak at any moment.
As for Cosby's claim, I don't think it holds that much merit. Why has he only brought it up now? It comes across as a stalling tactic. Cosby is old, a few years of legal back and forth might just see him die in his own bed, which is what I assume they are aiming at right about now.
True, but he is a good example of someone famous managing to evade justice. Granted Cosby doesn't really have another country to run to like Polanski did.
Cosby is on suicide leave as opposed to suicide watch. It is interesting that a man who is extremely likely to receive sentencing sufficient to ensure he dies in prison is home on bail post conviction. This is extremely unusual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.
Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender
Ouze wrote: I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.
Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender
Not to rain on your "age checking" parade, but Polanski had asked the mother of the girl if he could do a photo shoot with her. Not only that, apparently he made her pose topless for the first shoot. And then second time he raped her.
But good luck with your sympathy pass on raping a 13 year old I guess
Orlanth wrote: Cosby is on suicide leave as opposed to suicide watch. It is interesting that a man who is extremely likely to receive sentencing sufficient to ensure he dies in prison is home on bail post conviction. This is extremely unusual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.
Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender
Yeah, you do not ever get sympathy passes for rape. It doesn't matter what dark things are happening in your life. You never, under any circumstances, get a fething sympathy pass for rape. Holy feth.
Orlanth wrote: Cosby is on suicide leave as opposed to suicide watch. It is interesting that a man who is extremely likely to receive sentencing sufficient to ensure he dies in prison is home on bail post conviction. This is extremely unusual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.
Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull.
She was 13. You don't accidentally get 'jailbaited' by a 13 year old.
On top of that Polanski drugged and raped her after she said 'no'. This is not a case of "seriously officer, she said she was 18", it was rape regardless of her age. And it amazes me that people will defend him over it.
But good luck with your sympathy pass on raping a 13 year old I guess
There is a lot of spin and rumour on the Polanski case, a lot of he said she said and a lot has been embellished over time. We simply don't know what is true and what is hype. There is enough discrepancy that multiple extradition attempts have failed, and European countries don't harbour rapists without reason.
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
But good luck with your sympathy pass on raping a 13 year old I guess
There is a lot of spin and rumour on the Polanski case, a lot of he said she said and a lot has been embellished over time. We simply don't know what is true and what is hype. There is enough discrepancy that multiple extradition attempts have failed, and European countries don't harbour rapists without reason.
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
You're just digging that hole deeper. What I mentioned is what the victim directly stated herself to a grand jury. But I guess the spin includes you thinking she might be lying
And European countries have harboured far far worse for no reason. But if that's your defence I'd like to redirect you to my story above about (West-)Germany harboring a convicted Nazi war criminal from the Netherlands until his death in 2012.
The arbitrary notion of why people deserve sympathy is just plain weird.
You're just digging that hole deeper. What I mentioned is what the victim directly stated herself to a grand jury. But I guess the spin includes you thinking she might be lying
Decades later. Pople can easily convince themselves of details about events in their youth. It is unsafe evidence.
And European countries have harboured far far worse for no reason. But if that's your defence I'd like to redirect you to my story above about (West-)Germany harboring a convicted Nazi war criminal from the Netherlands until his death in 2012.
Actually that doesn't happen. the Germans comply with Nazi hunters, they don't have much choice, and prosecute cases that even the Israelis consider unsound prosecutions. However smart Nazis dont advertise their crimes, you have to find them.
The arbitrary notion of why people deserve sympathy is just plain weird.
Just plain humane. Do you have to any idea about how horribly and messily Sharon Tate died, and everything about the case was public? If that happened to someone you loved it would put you over the edge one way or another.
Consequences like this have been an effective moral defence, for good reason. This doesn't make any alleged action by Polanski acceptible, but it does mitigate some of his responsibility.
When you add that to an unsafe prosecution it is understandable why Swiss and French legal authorities have repeatedly refused extradition. France is not a legal la la land, they have justice there, and their legal system has said non to extradition, get over it.
You are just a random joe on 'the internets' who feels salty over Polanski. Those who have refused extradition are lawyers and prosecution services of established sovereign nations, with respect for rule of law. I'll take their expertise over yours.
You're just digging that hole deeper. What I mentioned is what the victim directly stated herself to a grand jury. But I guess the spin includes you thinking she might be lying
Decades later. Pople can easily convince themselves of details about events in their youth. It is unsafe evidence.
Decades later? You do realize her stating this to the grand jury was before Polanski had even been sentenced or fled the country? Spin indeed.
And European countries have harboured far far worse for no reason. But if that's your defence I'd like to redirect you to my story above about (West-)Germany harboring a convicted Nazi war criminal from the Netherlands until his death in 2012.
Actually that doesn't happen. the Germans comply with Nazi hunters, they don't have much choice, and prosecute cases that even the Israelis consider unsound prosecutions. However smart Nazis dont advertise their crimes, you have to find them.
So that whole story that is independently verifiable by journalist of a convicted Nazi war criminal didn't happen. Man I wonder what it took to make that up, they even got the Jews involved!
Wiesenthal Center Urges Germany to Accede to Dutch European Arrest Warrant for Escaped Nazi Executioner Klaas Faber Living in Bavaria
November 25, 2010
Jerusalem – The Simon Wiesenthal Center today called upon the German authorities to accede to a Dutch European arrest warrant issued yesterday for the incarceration of escaped Dutch SS-executioner Klaas Faber, currently residing in Ingolstadt, Bavaria, who is currently third on the Center’s list of “Most Wanted” Nazi war criminals. In a statement issued today by its chief Nazi-hunter, Israel director Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the Center noted that Faber, who was convicted in Holland for his role in the murder of 22 persons after the war, escaped in 1952 to Germany, which has hereto rejected Dutch extradition requests, since Faber was the beneficiary of the infamous “Fuhrer directive” of 1943 which granted automatic German citizenship to foreign Nazi collaborators.
According to Zuroff:
“We welcome this step by the Dutch government and urge the German authorities to arrest Faber immediately so that the can finally serve his well-deserved punishment. The fact that this murderer of so many innocent people has been protected by Germany for so many decades is a travesty and sends a message that even those convicted of multiple murders can escape justice. Faber’s victims, their families, and Dutch and German society deserve that he finally be punished for his crimes.”
The arbitrary notion of why people deserve sympathy is just plain weird.
Just plain humane. Do you have to any idea about how horribly and messily Sharon Tate died, and everything about the case was public? If that happened to someone you loved it would put you over the edge one way or another.
Consequences like this have been an effective moral defence, for good reason. This doesn't make any alleged action by Polanski acceptible, but it does mitigate some of his responsibility.
When you add that to an unsafe prosecution it is understandable why Swiss and French legal authorities have repeatedly refused extradition. France is not a legal la la land, they have justice there, and their legal system has said non to extradition, get over it.
You are just a random joe on 'the internets' who feels salty over Polanski. Those who have refused extradition are lawyers and prosecution services of established sovereign nations, with respect for rule of law. I'll take their expertise over yours.
Having something horrible happen to you doesn't give you carte blanche to commit horrible acts! How does that in any way mitigate responsibility. He willingly raped a 13 year old and then fled the country. And there is nothing alleged about it, the man got convicted
You do realize France was reexamining his extradition before he fled France too, because France thought maybe they shouldn't be downplaying this? France dropped public support for Polanski back in 2009. The only reason Polanski wasn't extradited from Switzerland in 2010 was because the US made a mistake in the request, not because the man is innocent..
Your claims are based on a lack of knowledge and frankly insane.
For what it's worth, He wasn't 'convicted'. Polanski accepted a plea deal. The judge decided to ignore the plea deal and hit him with the hammer so Polanski fled. It's been suggested that he wouldn't have to serve the sentence if he returned because of what the judge did.
But the judge ignoring the rule of law and acting as a vigilante is one of the reasons that he wasn't extradited.
Not saying that what Polanski did was acceptable. Especially since more accusations have surfaced. But there are reasons that he hasn't been extradited that would not apply to Cosby.
Yeah the plea deal situation wasn't handled well, but man a plea deal that lets you walk away from raping a 13 year old wasn't much better.
.
You can argue about whether the plea should have been offered or not. Once it's accepted in good faith, having a judge disregard it is beyond the pale. Still, this is not anywhere similar to the Cosby situation as he was actually convicted.
Wasn't he convicted of sex with a minor as part of his plea deal?
I don't count taking a plea deal as convicting someone. People take a plea deal for things they haven't done all the time.
Yeah the plea deal situation wasn't handled well, but man a plea deal that lets you walk away from raping a 13 year old wasn't much better.
.
You can argue about whether the plea should have been offered or not. Once it's accepted in good faith, having a judge disregard it is beyond the pale. Still, this is not anywhere similar to the Cosby situation as he was actually convicted.
Of course, that was extremely unprofessional and dangerous to the legal foundation of the whole justice system. Yet it is important to consider if the system isn't too lenient on certain individuals. Would the same have happened to run of the mill other man #1?
Different from Crosby of course. But this whole Polanski bit started off as a notion that somebody famous and recognizable couldn't be on the run, which arguably Polanski was and technically still is. Its possible Crosby could make a run for it, I have no idea how his financials look.
I don't count taking a plea deal as convicting someone. People take a plea deal for things they haven't done all the time.
Doesn't this needlessly complicate things? People get convicted for being guilty by a jury while it laters turn out they are innocent frequently as well. Both rest on the presumption of guilt, while in neither case it has to be true. In that sense it wasn't "allegedly", he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old as part of his deal. I'm not saying convicted means 100% guilty because that's almost an impossible guarantee, convicted just means convicted.
Its the same line Cosby is running with now, that he got falsely convicted as guilty while the evidence isn't correct.
skyth wrote: For what it's worth, He wasn't 'convicted'. Polanski accepted a plea deal. The judge decided to ignore the plea deal and hit him with the hammer so Polanski fled. It's been suggested that he wouldn't have to serve the sentence if he returned because of what the judge did.
But the judge ignoring the rule of law and acting as a vigilante is one of the reasons that he wasn't extradited.
I don't think that's right...
The Judge don't HAVE to accept ANY plea deal as it's not always between the prosecutor and the defendant.
Not saying that what Polanski did was acceptable. Especially since more accusations have surfaced. But there are reasons that he hasn't been extradited that would not apply to Cosby.
He's famous and "with" powerfully connected people... THATS why he's in a place where extradition isn't possible.
If the judge isn't going to accept the plea deal that needs to be known before the guilty plea is entered not a surprise afterwords. Plus in this case the judge was setting the sentence for the crimes he was accused of which was way more than the crime he pleaded guilty to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I see a big difference between taking a plea deal as compared to going through the trial or just pleading guilty without a deal.
skyth wrote: If the judge isn't going to accept the plea deal that needs to be known before the guilty plea is entered not a surprise afterwords. Plus in this case the judge was setting the sentence for the crimes he was accused of which was way more than the crime he pleaded guilty to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I see a big difference between taking a plea deal as compared to going through the trial or just pleading guilty without a deal.
Fair is fair, I understand why you would have trouble with the term convicted with plea deals. Regardless though, in the case of Polanski he never denied the sex in itself, just the rape part.
Yeah. Not denying he did wrong and deserved to be punished. Like I said, it's possible (And in my opinion you should) take issue with the fact that a plea was offered. But justice has to work for everyone. You can't make exceptions for people who are accused of doing heinous things. Those people, especially, should have things work in an ordered and predictable manner. It's kind of the same thing as convictions being thrown out because evidence was collected illegally.
But getting things back on topic. Holding up Polanski as an example of 'rich famous person who fled and can't be extradited' to say that Cosby could get away with the same thing is not a good match. Cosby had an actual trial where the rules were followed.
Well its a bit of semantics but the original argument was because they were famous and well recognized they couldn't run. Not exactly about the extradition. Cosby could just hide in a country without an extradition treaty. But at 80 I don't see him attempt it now, better keep appealing and stay home, who knows how long that might keep him out of prison.
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.
However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.
However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."
I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.
However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."
I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.
I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.
She was 13. You don't accidentally get 'jailbaited' by a 13 year old.
Actually that happens more often than you might think. 15-17 is way more common but 13 can happen.
Yeah, sure, you keep telling yourself that. If being an apologist for statutory rape is the hill you want to die on, you go ahead and do that, but it'd behoove you to understand that in this particular case, Polanski knew exactly how old his victim was when he drugged and raped her.
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.
However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."
I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.
I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.
No, not really anymore. The Tate family does. I feel for the family. Polanski gets nothing from me.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget Roman Polanski. He fully admitted to drugging a 12 year-old and forcibly raping her. He then fled to Europe and has been free since.
Polanski didn't admit to drugging and raping her. He was offered a sweetheart deal where he could plea guilty to sex with a minor and be sentenced to time already served. He took that deal. That's his only admission regarding the case, unless you include the victim's out of court with settlement, which would be a stretch as it included no admission of guilt from Polanski.
I'm not defending Polanski, not at all. Not only do I think he did exactly what the victim claimed, I think the other accusations of rape against Polanski are also credible. But it's important to get the facts right, he never admitted to drugging and forcibly raping her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: That's true, sorry, I forgot you mentioned him. I do find it hilariously hypocritical of many famous people that are denouncing Cosby, while also supporting Polanski.
Not really. The whole prosecution of Polanski was a cluster feth, and as much as I think the guy is a child rapist, he was also being absolutely shoe horned by the judicial system (he pled guilty on the sweetheart deal, then learned the judge was going to ignore the deal and hit Polanski with 50 years).
You said you care about rights, and respect Cosby is entitled to his even though we know what he did, but the same would also be true for Polanski.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender
There are three or four other accusations from women that are pretty convincing.
The Judge don't HAVE to accept ANY plea deal as it's not always between the prosecutor and the defendant.
Regardless of what judges do and don't have to do, enticing a guilty plea with a sweetheart deal and then watching a judge ignore that deal and give a lengthy sentence is the opposite of justice.
Regardless of what judges do and don't have to do, enticing a guilty plea with a sweetheart deal and then watching a judge ignore that deal and give a lengthy sentence is the opposite of justice.
Especially when the people often taking plea deals are those with low income who are relying on public defendants who are underfunded and overworked.
Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.
I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?
Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?
I am 100% on board with boycotting folks like that after the fact, and I have no problem with companies refusing to hire them or letting them be involved with projects. But what about their past projects? What about movies or shows I have enjoyed in the past, am I now no longer supposed to enjoy them?
I don't know if it would be a good thing to be able to take the earnings of people who were convicted and apply them to victim compensation funds, maybe have Cosby's royalties from his shows be funneled into organization fighting against rape and helping rape victims. But then you are taking money from a future estate that would benefit his future heirs.
I don't have any kind of good answer here, but it is a question I frequently ask myself.
Its a hard question. So many people worked on it to make something great that gets ruined by a single person. Personally its hard, the movie is still good, but rewatching it the only thing you can think when you sse the actor is what he did. For directors that is more detached, because they aren't on camera, so the stigma clings to the movie less as you aren't constantly reminded. Its also quite flawed, would I need to look up and remember all the movies a director made? Cause not knowing who made it might end up with me enjoying the movie versus one I have more of a negative perceptiin towards if I had known.
But that is the same for most art, how many painters or writers have dark pages that we know nothing about and still enjoy their work. When we go to a museum how can we be sure none of the artworks wasn't created by a monster. Is there the burden to look into those things beforehand? I think that's going down an unimaginable rabbithole.
d-usa wrote: Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.
I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?
Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?
I am 100% on board with boycotting folks like that after the fact, and I have no problem with companies refusing to hire them or letting them be involved with projects. But what about their past projects? What about movies or shows I have enjoyed in the past, am I now no longer supposed to enjoy them?
I don't know if it would be a good thing to be able to take the earnings of people who were convicted and apply them to victim compensation funds, maybe have Cosby's royalties from his shows be funneled into organization fighting against rape and helping rape victims. But then you are taking money from a future estate that would benefit his future heirs.
I don't have any kind of good answer here, but it is a question I frequently ask myself.
On an individual scale, if I stated that I found value in someone's work or maybe in a message they were making, and someone refuted it not on the basis that the message is wrong or bad, but that the person involved is a gakky human being, then I'm pretty sure that it is literally an ad hominem in progress, isn't it? Put another way, if gakky people create wholesome works of art, can't you judge the work of art upon its own merit?
The last thing I want to do is defend lifetime rapists, but I feel more inclined to still believe in the relative merit of the works they were a part in creating. Otherwise you have to draw a line in the sand between when someone becomes so "bad" that any work they participate in is invalidated, or you have to basically refuse to consume any media at all, because if you dig enough there will be something bad to say about anyone or anything.
Well, other than Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers. They're both saints beyond even the harshest scrutiny.
d-usa wrote: Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.
I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?
Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?
I am 100% on board with boycotting folks like that after the fact, and I have no problem with companies refusing to hire them or letting them be involved with projects. But what about their past projects? What about movies or shows I have enjoyed in the past, am I now no longer supposed to enjoy them?
I don't know if it would be a good thing to be able to take the earnings of people who were convicted and apply them to victim compensation funds, maybe have Cosby's royalties from his shows be funneled into organization fighting against rape and helping rape victims. But then you are taking money from a future estate that would benefit his future heirs.
I don't have any kind of good answer here, but it is a question I frequently ask myself.
This is a deep and widespread issue. Ultimately, if we judged and excluded everything everyone ever did by their very worst acts, especially as seen by contemporary eyes, we would have very little left in this world.
I think its perfectly fine to enjoy things like a Polanski film or Cosby show reruns or House of Cards and whatnot, realize there are flawed individuals involved, acknowledge their sins and put the material in context when appropriate, but that neednt devalue the material entirely.
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
On the other hand, if I don't go out and purchase the boxed set because I don't want Bill Cosby to get any of my money, all kinds of people who didn't drug and rape anyone also don't get any of my money.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
On the other hand, if I don't go out and purchase the boxed set because I don't want Bill Cosby to get any of my money, all kinds of people who didn't drug and rape anyone also don't get any of my money.
It's not an easy answer for me.
Oh, I don't have that problem, I torrent everything, win/win
That said, not everything has a simple or nice answer, and that does suck.
However in Cosby's case at least, if you went out and bought a Cosby show DVD set tomorrow, Cosby would likely not see a cent. He is going to jail for a long time, is already a very old man, and his assets are about to be torn apart and fought over and I'm sure will remain an entertaining shitshow for years, so you can probably not feel too bad about that.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
On the other hand, if I don't go out and purchase the boxed set because I don't want Bill Cosby to get any of my money, all kinds of people who didn't drug and rape anyone also don't get any of my money.
It's not an easy answer for me.
My girlfriend feels similarly about those kinds of things. I suspect that, with enough time/intimacy digging into any person's life, one could find something horrible enough that they've done or thought to make one unwilling to patronize them.
But I think of humans as mostly bad, with a few good examples. Others look at humans differently. All depends on your world view, maybe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The alternative to me just feels like the modern version of book (or record) burnings, and that kinda stuff makes me uncomfortable.
This is a subject I've pondered quite often. I'm a tuba player in my municipal band, and thus quite a bit into marching music. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan made some pretty amazing marches. I've got no moral qualms about liking these marches, no more than enjoying Wagner despite the man being a complete douche. In my case there's obviously not the issue of giving Wagner or Nazi Germany money though, but still.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
Ofc, if that person has been convicted and ordered to pay their victim(s) compensation that money will bypass their pockets entirely until the damages have been paid. Boycotting them might also hurt the victims if there's too little worth to pay it all right now. So one has to gauge whether it's more important to ruin the artist (and his publishers etc) than letting him earn money to pay the victims.
My personal example isn't anything as horrible as rape, but might still shock some. The Norwegian Black Metal scene of the early 1990s caused some damage in Norway - church arsons mostly, but also a couple of murders. Some of the guys in Emperor were involved in both, but I still like their music. Their releases while some were in prison most certainly paid for a lot of the damages incurred, and head composer Ihsahn who makes records under his own artist name these days is one of the best artists to be found if you want somewhat experimental heavy. The way the Norwegian prison system handled them they're now productive members of society and I see no reason to not buy the music or go to a show if they play. For the record, while I largely despise organised religion, burning churches isn't really the way to fight it IMO.
And when you get outside art even terrible people sometimes come up with something we think is a good idea today. The damn Nazis of all people came up with modern animal protection laws, making owners responsible for keeping their animals safe and sound!
Spetulhu wrote: The way the Norwegian prison system handled them they're now productive members of society and I see no reason to not buy the music or go to a show if they play.
That sounds reasonable for Norway then. In America our prison systems leave them despised third-class citizens virtually unable to possess a job. There are some who believe this is not enough.
Ouze wrote: No worries, we were still on the same page.
I think that false reports of rape are a very low percentage - it does happen, but it happens a crazy tiny fraction of the time. But lets say 90% of the reports were lies - a percentage literally no one would think is possible. If you assume 90% are true, that's still like 6 rapes. I can't understand why this dude has people who defend him, but I guess that's how #metoo happened.
I think some of it is just utter disbelief. I mean, he was TV dad for a large number of people. It's hard to shake that image. Kinda like picturing Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers were actually nazis* or something. I didn't believe it myself until I read multiple news articles.
* neither of those men were nazis. In fact, they were the last two genuine good people left in the world. The above statement was added for the sake of analogy.
You know, I recently heard some internet scuttlebutt that the new Mr. Rogers documentary "Won't you be my neighbor?" began because the director was trying to find dirt on him to show he wasn't as good as we all think he was, and that after nearly 6 years the director gave up because he couldn't find anything negative.
As for the other question about "can I enjoy the cosby show"
Yes. Yes you can. Bill Cosby the TV dad was an ideal. Bill Cosby the real person, is a human being who has made very serious mistakes and will pay for them for the rest of his life.
Of course you can still appreciate the Cosby show. That's like saying you can't give props to Gandhi for promoting social equality even though he was entirely racist towards Blacks.
d-usa wrote: Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.
I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?
Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?
I think it depends on the work in question and the way we engage with that piece of art.
I find it hard to imagine myself enjoying The Cosby Show now, because a lot of that show is about how charming Bill Cosby is, not as role he played, but from his personal charm as a performer and person. When the charm is gone, there's not much show left. In contrast, House of Cards had Kevin Spacey as a villainous president, who abused his power for lots of things including rape, so there's no problem there. I mean, there's lots of other reasons not to watch House of Cards, because man that show got dumb, but the example is there.
But that gets to the next issue, on whether we should choose not to watch that stuff, on a moral issue. That I'm not so sure about. As Disciple of Fate points out, a lot more people than that one scumbag were involved in making it. Does our morality change if the scumbag is on screen, or if he directed, or wrote the script, or was the caterer? What if it was a producer who greenlit the film and put the talent together, but didn't actually take part in the making of the film? I don't think that works.
However, there is another factor again to consider. Salma Hayek made Frida, it was a passion project of hers, and Weinstein produced. During production he insisted she do a lesbian scene, and threatened to pull the plug if she didn't. She eventually included it. What do we do about that? It's a film Hayek is proud of, it's a good movie, and the scene in question is... uh yeah. But it was shot and put in the film against Hayek's wishes, because a sleaze made her do it, not for any artistic reason, and probably not for any commercial reason either.
In the case of Kevin Spacey and rewatching his stuff...he may have been a monster, but he played a monster in Se7en. So I can safely still enjoy that. Even Lex Luthor in Superman. Or Horrible Bosses. Actually...I’m noticing a trend...he’s an awful human being who generally plays an awful human being.
Never watched the Cosby show, and didn’t follow anything on RP (although just from this thread, disappointed Natalie Portman defended him, as she’s one of my favorite actresses).
d-usa wrote: Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
Totally feel your pain. A lot of my favorite movies/actors have been affected by #MeToo and the Weinstein mess. I haven't come up with a solution to the problem, either. I'd like to be able to separate an artist from their art, but like you say, I don't want to benefit them financially through my viewing their art. For DVDs I own or movies I've already downloaded the damage is done. For newer releases I am still on the fence on how to ethically move forward.
More recently I've been struggling with the Roseanne television reboot because of Roseanne Barr's personal opinions on conspiracy theories. I just don't want to support someone who treats reality like an a la carte buffet, so I haven't watched her show since the premier (after which I learned how off the rocker she is). The problem is I LOVE the old Roseanne episodes, and I genuinely appreciate that Roseanne Barr staffed her writers room with a decent mix of viewpoints/opinions/political leanings. But, she is a contrail believing idiot and her name is on the show, so what am I to do?
Boycott because of her opinions and ignore the efforts of the hundreds of other people working on the show or quietly hold my nose and view?
d-usa wrote: Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
Totally feel your pain. A lot of my favorite movies/actors have been affected by #MeToo and the Weinstein mess. I haven't come up with a solution to the problem, either. I'd like to be able to separate an artist from their art, but like you say, I don't want to benefit them financially through my viewing their art. For DVDs I own or movies I've already downloaded the damage is done. For newer releases I am still on the fence on how to ethically move forward.
More recently I've been struggling with the Roseanne television reboot because of Roseanne Barr's personal opinions on conspiracy theories. I just don't want to support someone who treats reality like an a la carte buffet, so I haven't watched her show since the premier (after which I learned how off the rocker she is). The problem is I LOVE the old Roseanne episodes, and I genuinely appreciate that Roseanne Barr staffed her writers room with a decent mix of viewpoints/opinions/political leanings. But, she is a contrail believing idiot and her name is on the show, so what am I to do?
Boycott because of her opinions and ignore the efforts of the hundreds of other people working on the show or quietly hold my nose and view?
Eh, Conspiracy Theories don't really bother me that much. I have some RL friends that believe some silly stuff. We were talking about how ridiculous it is one night that people believe in contrails. It would take a massive converup to pull off and we all agreed it was silly. So the conversation shifted to water fluoridation. One of my friends swiftly told us we were being controlled through water fluoridation. My mind was blown that one of my friends was that crazy. He is still my friend, just a little dumb. Luckily, I have gotten him away from the crazy conspiracy theory political podcasts.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.
Totally feel your pain. A lot of my favorite movies/actors have been affected by #MeToo and the Weinstein mess. I haven't come up with a solution to the problem, either. I'd like to be able to separate an artist from their art, but like you say, I don't want to benefit them financially through my viewing their art. For DVDs I own or movies I've already downloaded the damage is done. For newer releases I am still on the fence on how to ethically move forward.
More recently I've been struggling with the Roseanne television reboot because of Roseanne Barr's personal opinions on conspiracy theories. I just don't want to support someone who treats reality like an a la carte buffet, so I haven't watched her show since the premier (after which I learned how off the rocker she is). The problem is I LOVE the old Roseanne episodes, and I genuinely appreciate that Roseanne Barr staffed her writers room with a decent mix of viewpoints/opinions/political leanings. But, she is a contrail believing idiot and her name is on the show, so what am I to do?
Boycott because of her opinions and ignore the efforts of the hundreds of other people working on the show or quietly hold my nose and view?
Eh, Conspiracy Theories don't really bother me that much. I have some RL friends that believe some silly stuff. We were talking about how ridiculous it is one night that people believe in contrails. It would take a massive converup to pull off and we all agreed it was silly. So the conversation shifted to water fluoridation. One of my friends swiftly told us we were being controlled through water fluoridation. My mind was blown that one of my friends was that crazy. He is still my friend, just a little dumb. Luckily, I have gotten him away from the crazy conspiracy theory political podcasts.
They normally don't bother me from civilians, but public personas who have a wide reach with their opinions, well, I think that changes things dramatically. A public voice legitimizes fringe ideas. Especially given the climate of disbelief in facts, and the seeming eagerness for some people to throw logic and reason out the window in order to believe whatever most aligns with their other entrenched beliefs.
I have some friends who shared their Illuminati fears with me one night over beers and while it gave me a new found perception of them, they don't have 609k Twitter followers potentially believing whatever crap falls form their mouthes. Dear sweet Rosie has that many followers and can do a lot of damage with her misguided beliefs so that sort of power is not something I want to reinforce.
d-usa wrote: Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.
I'm not seeing it tbh. Actors perpetually insist that fans should create a hard mental distinction between them as people and any parts that they play - hell, Shatner has recorded a whole awful, awful, just really bad pity-party album on that theme - so that's the attitude I've cultivated, plenty of other actors have said or done things I consider repugnant; I choose not to let that affect my enjoyment of characters they've played.
And getting precious about them maybe earning some money from that enjoyment seems odd to me. I guarantee you that you funnel a substantial portion of your income every month to people and corporations who're responsible for lots of monstrous things, it's an inescapable reality of global capitalism.
d-usa wrote: Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.
I'm not seeing it tbh. Actors perpetually insist that fans should create a hard mental distinction between them as people and any parts that they play - hell, Shatner has recorded a whole awful, awful, just really bad pity-party album on that theme - so that's the attitude I've cultivated, plenty of other actors have said or done things I consider repugnant; I choose not to let that affect my enjoyment of characters they've played.
And that goes the other way around too, as many actors have found out. Playing the "evil" role in a long-running TV series (or "solves problems with his fists guy", or whatever) have often made watchers think the real person is like that, failing to separate the character from the actor. Which ofc does make it even more disturbing for fans when someone they always considered to be a nice person - based only on their TV/movie roles - is revealed to be quite a nasty person in real life.
Spetulhu wrote: And that goes the other way around too, as many actors have found out. Playing the "evil" role in a long-running TV series (or "solves problems with his fists guy", or whatever) have often made watchers think the real person is like that, failing to separate the character from the actor. Which ofc does make it even more disturbing for fans when someone they always considered to be a nice person - based only on their TV/movie roles - is revealed to be quite a nasty person in real life.
One of the most extreme example of this I know of comes from an old French Canadian movie called Aurore l'enfant martyr. It was a drama produced in the 50's based on a real life event centered around a young girl, about 10 years old, named Aurore who was abused and tortured for years by her step mother who finally killed by basically poisonning her by forcing her to drink dishwasher soap (the actual real cause of death of hte child on which the movie was based). The most tragic part about the movie and the real life event was that she lived in a little village where everybody knew she was badly abused. The local priest knew thanks to confession that the step mother fantasised about killing the girl who told the same priest she was tortured and was wondering why. Anyway, the performance of the actress playing the step mother was fantastic. It even holds up quite well today despite 70 years, but that performance ruined her life. People identified her as her character. Nobody in the small Quebec movie industry of the time wanted to hire her as they feared she would be immediatly identified as the villeness. People spit on her and insulted her in the streets. She reseived death threats and copious letters of insults. Her neighbours stopped talking to her and looked at her suspiciously when she was with her child. It's a pretty sad story and a cautionnary tale about the sometime small line between fact and fiction within some people. Up to a center point, we are all a bit vulnerable to it. Many of us might think an actor is tough because he or she plays tough character, or sophisticated for the same reasons.
Back in the 1970's the actress that portrayed Mrs Olsen on Little House on the Prairie made people uncomfortable in public, although in real life she was super nice.
The opposite of that is also true. "good guy" characters are often portrayed by some real donkey caves. A friend of mine got a good video of Avery Brooks (Captain Benjamin Sisco of Star Trek DS9) being less than cordial with a preteen kid that simply asked for an autograph.
d-usa wrote: Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.
I'm not seeing it tbh. Actors perpetually insist that fans should create a hard mental distinction between them as people and any parts that they play - hell, Shatner has recorded a whole awful, awful, just really bad pity-party album on that theme - so that's the attitude I've cultivated, plenty of other actors have said or done things I consider repugnant; I choose not to let that affect my enjoyment of characters they've played.
And that goes the other way around too, as many actors have found out. Playing the "evil" role in a long-running TV series (or "solves problems with his fists guy", or whatever) have often made watchers think the real person is like that, failing to separate the character from the actor. Which ofc does make it even more disturbing for fans when someone they always considered to be a nice person - based only on their TV/movie roles - is revealed to be quite a nasty person in real life.
Heck, Alan Hale Jr. - who played The Skipper on Gilligan's Island - took a cut in pay when he took the role, because he wanted to move away from always playing the black hats.
Most children grow out of thinking their favourite film star is really a superhero. Soap audiences seem to be quite bad at this separating life from fiction, actors playing villains in soap operas often describe getting hate mail. It’s baffling people are so dumb, maybe it says something about the general intelligence of the audience. It sounds snobbish, but I really don’t think audiences watching intelligent dramas commonly have the same issues.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Most children grow out of thinking their favourite film star is really a superhero. Soap audiences seem to be quite bad at this separating life from fiction, actors playing villains in soap operas often describe getting hate mail. It’s baffling people are so dumb, maybe it says something about the general intelligence of the audience. It sounds snobbish, but I really don’t think audiences watching intelligent dramas commonly have the same issues.
Soap operas are just really committed to maintaining kayfabe.
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.
However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."
I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.
I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.
This.
However to add to that there was a dodgy case against Polanski that was mishandled badly.
Peregrine speaks of 'convicted child rapist', the more accurate description is a plea bargained defendant. Plea bargaining s one of those aberrations in the US legal system more interested in file keeping than crime solving. Plea bargained and factual are often greatly separated. The case against Polanski was so unsound that extradition has been refused by competent legal authorities. If it is good enough for them it should be good enough for me.
Polanski deserves some sympathy for what happened to his family, it may have set him on a dark path. He is responsible for his consequent actions, but then so are prosecuting authorities. No case against him was proven, we only have hearsay and fumbled out of courtroom deals. That is not enough to condemn a man in Switzerland, the Swiss authorities kept Polanski under house arrest for nine months to give an extradition case a chance. That was a fair shot and it ended with Polanski being a free man.
Orlanth wrote: The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.
Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.
I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.
However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."
I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.
I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.
This.
However to add to that there was a dodgy case against Polanski that was mishandled badly.
Peregrine speaks of 'convicted child rapist', the more accurate description is a plea bargained defendant. Plea bargaining s one of those aberrations in the US legal system more interested in file keeping than crime solving. Plea bargained and factual are often greatly separated. The case against Polanski was so unsound that extradition has been refused by competent legal authorities. If it is good enough for them it should be good enough for me.
Polanski deserves some sympathy for what happened to his family, it may have set him on a dark path. He is responsible for his consequent actions, but then so are prosecuting authorities. No case against him was proven, we only have hearsay and fumbled out of courtroom deals. That is not enough to condemn a man in Switzerland, the Swiss authorities kept Polanski under house arrest for nine months to give an extradition case a chance. That was a fair shot and it ended with Polanski being a free man.
1. Not "this", giving a man sympathy is entirely different than what you said.
Orlanth wrote: Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender
2. No, an accurate description is man who forced himself on a 13 year old. Polanski never denied having sex, you can't have consensual sex with a 13 year old, regardless of his protest against the rape allegation. Hearsay? We have a 13 year old victim testifying in court what Polanski did, exactly the opposite of hearsay
3. The extradition case wasn't given a chance. The DoJ made a mistake on the extradition request, he walked out on a technicality, not because the request was given a fair shot.
Dreadwinter wrote: Shhh, you are ruining the narrative! Poor Polanski only took a plea deal saying he raped a 13 year old! Poor poor Polanski, think of his family!
The plea deal was for a sentence that did not reflect raping a 13 year old. Polanski took that offer showing something was wrong somewhere.
You don't offer wrist slap plea deals for child rape, if you do its likely because the conviction is unsound. That is how plea bargaining works often a plea bargain differs from the truth considerably, its the point of a plea bargain. The focus is on the deal not the admission. If you dont want huge international question marks over your justice system don't use the plea bargain system.
The actual narrative is that Polanski was never convicted of child rape, or anything else, we have a plea deal which doesn't reflect the alleged offence, an attempt to renege on the plea deal by prosecuting authorities, a subsequent abscondment to foreign countries with advanced legal systems that have repeatedly refused to extradite and a double helping of trial by media.
My 'narrative' has nothing to do with going easy on child rapists, it is on actual justice. Polanski has never been properly convicted, as no case against him has been proven and the prosecution has failed and extradition has also failed. I believe that the words 'innocent until proven guilty' have a price, if this means that questionable individuals go free because the system failed or was incompetent or corrupted then so be it. The fact that Polanski is himself a (secondary) victim of a terrible crime sugar wraps this enough to be easier to swallow.
The conviction was unsound? You mean the case? No, the problem was that there was no witness so it would turn into a he said she said case. A plea deal was offered to get at least something out of it. The problematic part is that we don't know exactly why it got offered but it did not reflect what happened which is why the incredibly problematic cancelling of the deal happened.
Innocent until proven guilty is nice and all, but Polanski never denied the sex with a 13 year old. You started off stating he was jailbaited and got a sympathy pass, that's a pretty big narrative to craft. I guess actual justice doesn't extend to looking at what the victim stated.
Orlanth wrote: You don't offer wrist slap plea deals for child rape, if you do its likely because the conviction is unsound.
Unless you're offering a celebrity a deal, or buying into sexist "she looked 18"/"she probably wanted it"/"she was wearing a short skirt and tempting him"/etc nonsense, or merely using plea bargains to keep your conviction rate numbers high for the upcoming election. I'm not sure why you're defending him here, he admitted to having sex with her and that's child rape. The only possible dispute is whether or not he drugged her and raped her by force while she said no, or merely abused his power to coerce her into it.
The fact that Polanski is himself a (secondary) victim of a terrible crime sugar wraps this enough to be easier to swallow.
And it shouldn't in any way do this. Anything Polanski suffered previously has nothing to do with the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl.
Dreadwinter wrote: Shhh, you are ruining the narrative! Poor Polanski only took a plea deal saying he raped a 13 year old! Poor poor Polanski, think of his family!
The plea deal was for a sentence that did not reflect raping a 13 year old. Polanski took that offer showing something was wrong somewhere.
You don't offer wrist slap plea deals for child rape, if you do its likely because the conviction is unsound. That is how plea bargaining works often a plea bargain differs from the truth considerably, its the point of a plea bargain. The focus is on the deal not the admission. If you dont want huge international question marks over your justice system don't use the plea bargain system.
The actual narrative is that Polanski was never convicted of child rape, or anything else, we have a plea deal which doesn't reflect the alleged offence, an attempt to renege on the plea deal by prosecuting authorities, a subsequent abscondment to foreign countries with advanced legal systems that have repeatedly refused to extradite and a double helping of trial by media.
My 'narrative' has nothing to do with going easy on child rapists, it is on actual justice. Polanski has never been properly convicted, as no case against him has been proven and the prosecution has failed and extradition has also failed. I believe that the words 'innocent until proven guilty' have a price, if this means that questionable individuals go free because the system failed or was incompetent or corrupted then so be it. The fact that Polanski is himself a (secondary) victim of a terrible crime sugar wraps this enough to be easier to swallow.
He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.
He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.
You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.
Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
What do you do?
For the record this happens all the time in the US, only that child rape rarely, if ever, gets linked to a wristslap. It did in Polanski's case, that is utterly unusual.
So for the last time Polanski too a plea deal that doesnt add up. Look at the deal not the allegation. One could slap a criminal with a beef of stealing the moon and a smart defendant will accept if it means serving less time than the crime they actually did.
He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.
You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.
Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.
As a general rule, whatever you admit to doing under a plea bargain is usually a lower offense than what you would be facing in court.
I am fairly certain that if neither him, nor anybody else, would admit to child rape if he could have a shot at "only" being convicted of inappropriate conduct with a minor together with a shot at being found not-guilty. That's how plea bargains work: If you have a case for Murder, you offer a plea for manslaughter. If you have a case for multiple rapes, you offer a plea for one rape. If you have a case for child rape, you offer a plea for child abuse.
In a plea, everybody gets less than what they want. The prosecutor gets a conviction for a lower crime and a shorter sentence than what they would like, but they are not taking a risk of a "not guilty" in open court. The defendant gets a guilty verdict with a (usually) known sentence, but they are not taking a risk of a "guilty" verdict for more severe charges in open court and are not looking at even longer sentences. Sure, the prosecutor could get a guilty to every single charge they throw at him and send someone to the chair. But they could also watch someone charged with murder walk out of the court room. An innocent person might beat the murder charge in open court, or they might get the death penalty. A plea bargain removes the uncertainty for both parties, with the prosecutor "only" getting a conviction for manslaughter and the defendant "only" going to prison for 20 years.
Polanski admitted to having sex with her, maybe a 13 year old made all the moves and regretted her decision, maybe the victim was really the aggressor, maybe she just regretted her decision, maybe she was asking for it, maybe [insert generic whataboutism argument used in every rape], we don't know the details. But, for what it's worth, we have his admission to the rape. Maybe it was a coerced admission, maybe they had more dirt on him that was ever made public and admitting to one rape was the best case scenario for him, we don't know. But I think all of his complaints against the plea deal was not that he admitted to something he didn't do, it's that the judge didn't hold up his end of the deal. So we can take that for what it's worth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: . Look at the deal not the allegation. One could slap a criminal with a beef of stealing the moon and a smart defendant will accept if it means serving less time than the crime they actually did.
If there is enough lack of evidence, nobody is going to plead. A smart defendant would look at the sky, point at the moon, and laugh at the prosecutor. That is one thing you pay your defense lawyer for, to give you expert advise on what kind of case the prosecutor has and what your chances in court are looking like.
Bill Cosby ‘s sentencing date hasn’t been set, but will be in 2-3 months. That gives him time to be with his family, get his affairs in order and then suffer a self-induced heart attack.
They say Kenneth Lay’s (Enron) heart attack was not a suicide, but i’ll always suspect otherwise.
kronk wrote: They say Kenneth Lay’s (Enron) heart attack was not a suicide, but i’ll always suspect otherwise.
Man I know what you mean. I'm not really one for conspiracy theories but I could totally be convinced Ken Lay is still alive in some non-extradition treaty now.
Cosby lived a full and wealthy life. If he had gone down 15-20 years ago it might have had some impact. But at 80 you might as well put him in a care home for the few years of difference it makes. He is too old to be properly sentenced beyond a few years, if he even lives to see a prison cell that is. Not a very satisfying end for his victims, but its at least some measure of justice. What kind of prison can he expect?
Well, it's not all about how much he suffers. For all of the women he raped, it's a sense of closure, of finally being able to tell their story and hearing "I believe you".
it's even enough to sway those people who can look at someone accused by 60 people of rape in the exact same method over decades, and handwave that away unless there was a criminal conviction.
daedalus wrote: And what's the alternative? You let someone accused by 60 people or rape in the exact same method over decades just go, because they're old?
Nah, I think I'll pass on that one. Too little too late, but still better than nothing.
No of course not. I never meant to imply he should be let go. I'm just saying is his life in prison is going to be all that different from people cooped up in retirement homes 24/7, because lets face it, at 80 you don't tend to be the adventuring type anymore. I also don't assume his going to max sec.
Cosby already had a life most of us can only dream of (minus the horrific rape). He got to 80 without seeing a jailcell. He should most definitely go to prison. I'm just wondering how much he will be punished at that age. It is justice, but it doesn't feel like justice when he could keel over after a month or so.
Yeah, I know. It's a frustrating situation for the victims and for society. I just can't think of anything else that could be done to make it better. Of the two things that could have happened, this is at least the closest to a 'win' we get.
daedalus wrote: Yeah, I know. It's a frustrating situation for the victims and for society. I just can't think of anything else that could be done to make it better. Of the two things that could have happened, this is at least the closest to a 'win' we get.
Perhaps a financial settlement to help his victims, I assume something like that might be in the works?
As far as trials go, this is a good outcome, that would be improved upon by a speedy appeal to reduce stalling.
Thinking about a person of that age, and trying to put myself in the shoes of a person that age, you don't really have much left at that point. Yeah, you got money, but that counts less at 80 than I think it does younger. The thing I can think of that you'd probably preoccupy yourself with is what you are leaving behind. Assuming you possess any sort of ego at all, the mark you left upon the world is probably something that you spend those years thinking about, at least a little.
In that sense, genuine punishment did occur. He might not live to see it, but the name Cosby is going to be blackened with his actions for at least the span of living memory. That's pretty powerful, particularly when you consider the amount of things his name is attached to.
Well I'm not sure, but I assume he's still leaving behind a boatload of money to his family, who have kept up their support. I mean it is his family, but still dissapointing to see. Will they still make money off his legacy/shows after he dies as well?
I forsee 60 civil suits for damages against his estate. That's why his family are protesting so hard. The gravy train is leaving the station, and they might not be on it.
He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.
You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.
Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.
As a general rule, whatever you admit to doing under a plea bargain is usually a lower offense than what you would be facing in court.
I am fairly certain that if neither him, nor anybody else, would admit to child rape if he could have a shot at "only" being convicted of inappropriate conduct with a minor together with a shot at being found not-guilty. That's how plea bargains work: If you have a case for Murder, you offer a plea for manslaughter. If you have a case for multiple rapes, you offer a plea for one rape. If you have a case for child rape, you offer a plea for child abuse.
In a plea, everybody gets less than what they want. The prosecutor gets a conviction for a lower crime and a shorter sentence than what they would like, but they are not taking a risk of a "not guilty" in open court. The defendant gets a guilty verdict with a (usually) known sentence, but they are not taking a risk of a "guilty" verdict for more severe charges in open court and are not looking at even longer sentences. Sure, the prosecutor could get a guilty to every single charge they throw at him and send someone to the chair. But they could also watch someone charged with murder walk out of the court room. An innocent person might beat the murder charge in open court, or they might get the death penalty. A plea bargain removes the uncertainty for both parties, with the prosecutor "only" getting a conviction for manslaughter and the defendant "only" going to prison for 20 years.
Polanski admitted to having sex with her, maybe a 13 year old made all the moves and regretted her decision, maybe the victim was really the aggressor, maybe she just regretted her decision, maybe she was asking for it, maybe [insert generic whataboutism argument used in every rape], we don't know the details. But, for what it's worth, we have his admission to the rape. Maybe it was a coerced admission, maybe they had more dirt on him that was ever made public and admitting to one rape was the best case scenario for him, we don't know. But I think all of his complaints against the plea deal was not that he admitted to something he didn't do, it's that the judge didn't hold up his end of the deal. So we can take that for what it's worth.
We don't know, what we know is that he accepted culpability for a misdemeanour crime as benefiting the wristslap sentence in the plea deal. How that misdemeanour offence it labelled is less relevant if the accused is not being tried as a felon.
If the prosecution services had properly charged him with child rape from the outset we would not be having this conversation. Either he would be inside, and out by now, or he would be aquitted. The fact that they did so raises questions about the surity of the evidence.
It is hard to defend someone accused of child sex crimes because I am going against the flow of the mob, but the principle of law has to be the same for everyone. The US legal system offered Polanski a minor sentence for a big label crime. How there is such a thing as misdemeanour child rape is beyond me, but that was the law as it was applied in his case. To remain ethical we have to go by the law, not mob instinct. The law failed and that is that.
feeder wrote: I forsee 60 civil suits for damages against his estate. That's why his family are protesting so hard. The gravy train is leaving the station, and they might not be on it.
Cosby's family can protect a portion of the assets. Legal separation and all that. Cosby's money is divided out as per a legal settlement and the plaintiffs can have Cosby's portion.
They have no right to his families money though, unless there is proof of culpability. A greedy lawyer will try and take more though, as they get a % of anything they take. The Cosby family will be wise to have a legal settlement now, if they havent done so already.
This is what happened to Larry Nassar, his wife got a quickie divorce which was uncontested. Nassar didnt contest so his own kids will not be out of pocket. In the trial back in January a number of the 'sister survivors' refused claims against Nassar for the sake of his family, a number knew Nassar;'s kids personally. I can respect that, but other claimants lawyers will nab the lot anyway unless funds and assets are legally seperated.
I have zero problems with Cosby's or Nassar's relatives claiming the lions share of the respective estates so they can maintain their way of life. If Cosby is wise he will not oppose this but will cooperate with giving his wife and kids as large a share as possible. He can't divest the lot though, the state argues on the accused's behalf to spare monies for claimants, and technically so the convicted has money to live on post release. Though the latter isnt a plausible consideration is Cosby's and Nassar's cases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: To remain ethical we have to go by law? Law can be unethical too, it is entirely up to those who make and/or wield the law how ethical the law is.
Yes this is true. Sometimes criminals walk on technicalities, though loopholes should be closed. In Polanski's case the prosecution was bungled. It is the prosecutors fault if Polanski is offered a misdemeanour child rape rap; it is their fault if that doesnt make sense, and it is also not Polanski's fault if a plea bargain is reneged upon by a judge.
It's a plea bargain, not a point of truth, Polanski agreed to allow himself to be labelled as a child rapist if the consequences were a misdemeanour wristslap. in a plea bargain this doesnt otherwise make an admission of guilt, the admission is conditional and doesnt even have to be factually accurate. Without the plea agreement there is no ownership of the label of child rapist on Polanski, not without a trial.
The case against Polanski has never been tested with burden of proof, technically he remains innocent.
To be technically innocent but also a labelled child rapist under law is a moral aberration. I can see why Swiss and French defence teams were able to repeatedly kick this into touch, and why he remains at liberty in those countries and will remain so.
Frankly the whole principle of plea bargaining is fethed. The Polanski case is just an extreme example.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To remain ethical we have to go by law? Law can be unethical too, it is entirely up to those who make and/or wield the law how ethical the law is.
Yes this is true. Sometimes criminals walk on technicalities, though loopholes should be closed. In Polanski's case the prosecution was bungled. It is the prosecutors fault if Polanski is offered a misdemeanour child rape rap; it is their fault if that doesnt make sense, and it is also not Polanski's fault if a plea bargain is reneged upon by a judge.
It's a plea bargain, not a point of truth, Polanski agreed to allow himself to be labelled as a child rapist if the consequences were a misdemeanour wristslap. in a plea bargain this doesnt otherwise make an admission of guilt, the admission is conditional and doesnt even have to be factually accurate. Without the plea agreement there is no ownership of the label of child rapist on Polanski, not without a trial.
The case against Polanski has never been tested with burden of proof, technically he remains innocent.
To be technically innocent but also a labelled child rapist under law is a moral aberration. I can see why Swiss and French defence teams were able to repeatedly kick this into touch, and why he remains at liberty in those countries and will remain so.
Frankly the whole principle of plea bargaining is fethed. The Polanski case is just an extreme example.
No argument that the plea bargain renegement was incredibly damaging to the overall system. But in the end while Polanski remains technically innocent we all know he committed statutory rape, he himself never denied having sex. Polanski is far from the only case that we could call a botched trial, I mean just look at what happened after My Lai.
The issue is that when he fled, Polanski actually committed a crime. I don't think France is a good representative of the case, seeing as how the French government openly supported Polanski for decades and France can decide not to extradite its own citizens to the US. He actively avoided countries that had stricter extradition treaties with the US. When Swiss extradition failed due to faults in the US request he 'fled' to Poland, where he also is a citizen, that does not see his actions decades ago as being able to prosecute anymore based on a Polish time limit. Realistically, if he visits a less defensive country he might be extradited, which is exactly why he doesn't.
But considering Polanski's advanced age, all we can do from it is learn how not to do it next time. Hopefully...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: I have zero problems with Cosby's or Nassar's relatives claiming the lions share of the respective estates so they can maintain their way of life. If Cosby is wise he will not oppose this but will cooperate with giving his wife and kids as large a share as possible. He can't divest the lot though, the state argues on the accused's behalf to spare monies for claimants, and technically so the convicted has money to live on post release. Though the latter isnt a plausible consideration is Cosby's and Nassar's cases.
I think his family is going to do just fine, as Cosby assets are estimated to be worth at least around a 100 million dollars. Their continued defensive of him is pretty distasteful, especially the manner they are doing it in,
No argument that the plea bargain renegement was incredibly damaging to the overall system. But in the end while Polanski remains technically innocent we all know he committed statutory rape, he himself never denied having sex. Polanski is far from the only case that we could call a botched trial, I mean just look at what happened after My Lai.
The My Lai massacre was different,it was deliberately mishandled because the US was under repeated criticism for excesses and warcrimes in Vietnam. Something had to be done, so one token hooch burning, out of many villages burned, was brought to public court and the defendants got derisory short sentences.
The trouble here is that you dont understand the plea bargaining system. Let me explain it to you, this way you will not only understand how badly the ball was dropped in Polanski's case, but why plea bargaining is BS litigation anyway.
You are driving a new car in America. somewhere along the way you are pulled over by police, possibly due to your driving or other reasons. The officer being thorough decides to look around your car, unwittingly you give him permission so the search is legal. During the search he finds drugs, well over the volume to be a trafficking felony rather than misdemeanour possession.
we will leave unanswered whether the drugs are yours. Perhaps you are a narcotics trafficker and this is your major new income stream, maybe they were in the car when you bought it at auction. Maybe a faithless passenger left them there so you were an unwitting mule of 'the product' on its journey across America.
Now in most western countries if they cannot prove trafficking they might try and prove possession, but in the USA they have plea bargaining. Prosecutors agree that securing a conviction for trafficking is unsafe so offer a plea bargain of reduction to possession via your defence attorney.
Now of you accept you are legally admitting to possession of a large volume of drugs, but you are only making this admission in relation to your sentencing, you are trading for a sentence, not being justly found guilty. So for example by admitting possession in a plea bargain a prosecutor cannot turn around and say that if you 'admit' the drugs were yours you should be tried on felony trafficking instead due to the volume of drugs found.
This is how plea bargaining works but also why it breaks down. You have zero admission of guilt as a trafficker, despite technical ownership of a large volume of drugs under a possession plea bargain. The admission applies strictly to the bargain made, the trade of legal agreement between the accused and the prosecuting authorities, and nothing else.
Now you see why a wrist-slap plea bargain for child rape makes no sense. Outside of serving the plea bargain, Polanski has made no legal admission of culpability. This explains why reneging of the plea bargain is a miscarriage of justice. It was effectively a bait and switch on Polanski, get him to admit to a serious crime under a wrist-slap plea bargain, so the culpability if linked to the plea bargain alone, then use is as free leverage for a full sentence. That alone would give rise for a compenent defence lawyer to make reasonable claim that Polanski cannot get fair justice in an American court.
The issue is that when he fled, Polanski actually committed a crime. I don't think France is a good representative of the case, seeing as how the French government openly supported Polanski for decades and France can decide not to extradite its own citizens to the US.
the French have more balls when it comes to standing up to its own citizens. the UK signed a one sided extradition treaty with the US under poodle Blair.
As for Polanski's flight, yes that was a crime, but it was a reaction to a breach in a plea bargain arrangement. Plea bargains are bad enough, but when one is subsequently ignored and based on the admission in the plea agreement the whole system falls apart. This is just the same as the hypothetical drug possession vs trafficking scenario.
There is only one reliable conclusion we can rely on from the Polanski case and that is that the legal team he employed in the US case was worth their fees. Excellent defence work that was, everything else went belly up but Polanski's lawyers were on the ball.
I fully understand how plea bargains work, hence why I said the renegement of it is/was incredibly damaging to the overall systems as you're undermining faith and trust in the legal system. I also fully understand that Polanski never made a legal admission. Neither of these two things are the point.
The point is that it is well known that Polanski raped a child, just because he didn't get convicted over it doesn't make it less true, hence me bringing up My Lai as another botched one. Just because those soldiers didn't get convicted doesn't mean they didn't massacre 400 civilians (also there we're no sentences, only a single sentence). Pretending he didn't do it because he didn't get convicted over it is just being obtuse. The main issue that comes up with extradition is how the US botched the plea deal and therefore it calls into question the wider case. Those cases are never about him actually having done it, just about if he should be handed over to the US system.
I think there are two reliable conclusions from this. Being wealthy gets you a long way in the US system and his legal team was worth the money.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I fully understand how plea bargains work, hence why I said the renegement of it is/was incredibly damaging to the overall systems as you're undermining faith and trust in the legal system. I also fully understand that Polanski never made a legal admission. Neither of these two things are the point.
The point is that it is well known that Polanski raped a child, just because he didn't get convicted over it doesn't make it less true, hence me bringing up My Lai as another botched one.
Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'. I shouldn't have to explain why that would be a slippery slope.
We can say that if you made personal claim that Polanski is a child rapist, Polanski might have 'difficulty' launching a libel claim. But he isn't a de facto child rapist until a jury agrees after defence and prosecution have made their statements. Polanski will never return to America and the legal waters are way too muddied for that to happen elsewhere due to the mishandled plea bargain and consequent miscarriage of justice in the run up to his sentencing hearing.
Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'.
We do get to say "innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant writes an autobiography where he argues that the child he had sex with wasn't unresponsive and that she denied not liking what he was doing". He doesn't deny having sex with a 14 year old, he denies drugging a 14 year old to have sex with her while she was unconscious.
I shouldn't have to explain why that would be a slippery slope.
The vast majority of Dakka Dakka OT shouldn't have to explain you can label a man who wrote in his autobiography about how he had sex with a minor as a statutory rapist.
But he isn't a de facto child rapist until a jury agrees after defence and prosecution have made their statements. cing hearing.
He isn't a de jure child rapist until either a jury agrees or the plea agreement is accepted by a judge.
He is a de facto child rapist simply by the fact that he admitted to having sex with the child in his book.
The point is that it is well known that Polanski raped a child, just because he didn't get convicted over it doesn't make it less true, hence me bringing up My Lai as another botched one.
Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'. I shouldn't have to explain why that would be a slippery slope.
We can say that if you made personal claim that Polanski is a child rapist, Polanski might have 'difficulty' launching a libel claim. But he isn't a de facto child rapist until a jury agrees after defence and prosecution have made their statements. Polanski will never return to America and the legal waters are way too muddied for that to happen elsewhere due to the mishandled plea bargain and consequent miscarriage of justice in the run up to his sentencing hearing.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard for punishment, not a societal one. Handling such standards in real life is bonkers because again, in that case a single man murdered 400 civilians in My Lai. Polanski never denied having sex, what he did would be called statutory rape, even though he did not legally admit to it. If you murder someone in broad daylight and they botch the conviction, that doesn't make you any less of a murderer.
He is exactly a de facto child rapist, what he isn't is ade jure child rapist.
Orlanth wrote: You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
This is a really dishonest comparison. Polanski raped her, period. He admitted, outside of court, that he did it. The only question is whether he drugged her and did it by force, or if he "only" abused his position of power to coerce her into saying yes.
Orlanth wrote: You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
This is a really dishonest comparison. Polanski raped her, period. He admitted, outside of court, that he did it. The only question is whether he drugged her and did it by force, or if he "only" abused his position of power to coerce her into saying yes.
Or even if she was super, super into him and pursued him for days, it's still a crime.
How is this still being argued? It doesn't matter if he was convicted or not. He has admitted to sleeping with a 13 year old. Sleeping with a 13 year old is rape. He is a rapist. Full stop. The case doesn't matter. The Judge doesn't matter. The jury doesn't matter. All that matters is the admission of guilt.
Polanski is a rapist, no matter how many times you try to handwave it away.
Orlanth wrote: You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
This is a really dishonest comparison. Polanski raped her, period. He admitted, outside of court, that he did it. The only question is whether he drugged her and did it by force, or if he "only" abused his position of power to coerce her into saying yes.
Peregrine, you should try to make an honest argument for a change.
Do this by leaving the comment you are quoting with its context so you don't have the temptation for a false narrative.
Do this and your hysteric claim of a 'dishonest comparison' melts away.
Tip: The context is about how plea bargain admissions have no value outside the plea bargain and are not common inferences.
Because plea bargains a a legal oddity that has only passing resemblance to the truth in many cases. The very idea of a plea bargain is that neither the prosecution nor the defence gets what their goals are, but meet in a common ground, as their respective goals are guilt or innocence respectively, and the common ground is a lesser partly connected charge the facts of the matter are often compromised.
The case doesn't matter. The Judge doesn't matter. The jury doesn't matter. All that matters is the ad mission of guilt.
First there was no jury, it never went that far AFAIK. The case does matter if civilisation means anything to you. Think of it like a heresy trial, the offence is so taboo that proof of guilt is no longer required. That never ends well.
Polanski is a rapist, no matter how many times you try to handwave it away.
Rape is fairly determined not by accusation but by convicted crime alone, Polanski is unconvicted, you might not like that but it remains the legal truth regardless. Get over it.
Justice, if it is to mean something requires that society protects even the individuals who appear to be abhorent to society. Justice has to favour the defence with burden of proof placed upon the state, if fair and balanced justice cannot be presented, for whatever reason the defendant walks. Justice has to protect everyone, not just people who are liked. The legal system had a fair shot at Polanski and fethed it up, the case against him is now tainted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: You not liking the idea of plea bargains doesn’t invalidate them as real convictionsz
He didn't just admit it in the plea bargain. He openly admitted that he raped a 13 year old, he just whines bout how unfair it is that people want him punished.
d-usa wrote: Although technically he is also a de jure child rapist, since he's been convicted with only the sentencing pending.
When the plea bargain was thrown away the plea linked admission was also discarded.
Get it into your head that plea bargain admissions are judicial compromises not flat statements of fact or judicial findings.
Holy wow. You are not getting this. He admitted to doing it outside of the plea bargain. He admitted to raping a child. You can still be a rapist even if you are not convicted.
Your whole "The law is everything!" argument is absurd and has no place in this world. Look at it this way. If you are found innocent of something, you cannot be tried for the same thing again even if you come out and say "hey I actually did this!" Guess what, admitting you did it still makes you a rapist. The only difference is you are not a convicted rapist, just a regular rapist. If you are going to go around attempting to teach people about law and plea bargains, you should probably understand them first. Polanski is a rapist. He admitted to being a rapist. He is not a convicted rapist. But he is an admitted rapist.
Now please, explain to me again how plea bargains somehow change this fact.
d-usa wrote: Accepting a plea bargain = accepting a conviction.
That’s how they work.
And his is still in effect, pending sentencing.
Putting aside the specific case and people involved - the law isn't everything, except when it is? You can't just say "accepting a plea bargain = accepting a conviction" without acknowledging the often grotesque power imbalance inherent in the "deal" by which plea bargains are made and accepted, nor without acknowledging how frequently they categorically are abused to imprison the innocent for the sake of crime statistics, not to mention the racial and socioeconomic components of their application.
Well, you can, but it's so stupendously intellectually dishonest it pretty much immediately invalidates any other point you attempt to make.
Polanski admitted to statutory rape publicly and without duress, and so regardless of his legal situation he is a statutory rapist and certainly shouldn't be excused that because he suffered a trauma himself, but using his admitted guilt to try and argue that plea bargaining as a practice is sound and they must be given equal weight to an actual trial conviction where evidence is heard and considered in a court of law is ridiculous.
d-usa wrote: Which is a different argument than what I am making.
Legally there is no different between pleading guilty or being found guilty. Both result in a conviction.
This is true, but not as you understand it. Pleading guilty is the same as being found guilty, but Polanski did not plead guilty, he plea bargained.
Pled guilty = accepted the base premise of the prosecution's case as correct.
Plea bargain = made a deal outside the courtroom to accept certain charges in return for certain concessions.
d-usa wrote: Although technically he is also a de jure child rapist, since he's been convicted with only the sentencing pending.
When the plea bargain was thrown away the plea linked admission was also discarded.
Get it into your head that plea bargain admissions are judicial compromises not flat statements of fact or judicial findings.
Holy wow. You are not getting this. He admitted to doing it outside of the plea bargain. He admitted to raping a child. You can still be a rapist even if you are not convicted.
Your whole "The law is everything!" argument is absurd and has no place in this world. Look at it this way. If you are found innocent of something, you cannot be tried for the same thing again even if you come out and say "hey I actually did this!" Guess what, admitting you did it still makes you a rapist. The only difference is you are not a convicted rapist, just a regular rapist. If you are going to go around attempting to teach people about law and plea bargains, you should probably understand them first. Polanski is a rapist. He admitted to being a rapist. He is not a convicted rapist. But he is an admitted rapist.
Now please, explain to me again how plea bargains somehow change this fact.
Because the label of rapist requires a criminal conviction. There is no way around that under law, the whole purpose of the law is that a conviction is required to punish, this protection is not earned by merit but is an inherent right and should remain such for the betterment of all. The best you can say is that you have reasonable cause to discriminate, in certain circumstances. You can fail Polanski on vetting and refuse him a position to work with children, but you can't force him to wear a tag or register as a sex offender.
Orlanth wrote: Because the label of rapist requires a criminal conviction.
No it doesn't. His public, willing, admission to committing an act of rape is sufficient to label him a rapist beyond any dispute. Polanski is a rapist, period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Peregrine, you should try to make an honest argument for a change.
Do this by leaving the comment you are quoting with its context so you don't have the temptation for a false narrative.
Do this and your hysteric claim of a 'dishonest comparison' melts away.
Tip: The context is about how plea bargain admissions have no value outside the plea bargain and are not common inferences.
The context doesn't save your case at all. You presented a hypothetical scenario where one would take a plea bargain, with a defendant who is innocent of the crime. It is dishonest to bring such an argument into this discussion, where the defendant is known beyond any possible dispute to be guilty of the crime. Put into the context of your other apologetics for a known child rapist it is hard to avoid getting the impression that you are presenting the idea that Polanski is innocent and only took the plea bargain out of fear of a much harsher sentence.
Plea: the pleading guilty part.
Bargain: the part where you bargain about what you will be pleading guilty to.
Don’t let your sustain for the process of plea bargaining distract you that it’s still a guilty plea.
You are entirely incorrect, it is two words but one meaning, the plea and the bargain are two indivisible halves, you don't have one without the other. Often in fact in most cases the plea is a halfway between guilt of the crime the prosecutors are charging the accused with and innocence. So trafficking becomes possession, murder become manslaughter. In each of these case the plea is actually factually incorrect, you are pleading a lie and the prosecution is accepting that lie to speed up the judicial system. That is how the plea bargain system works. A hypothetical example was given earlier as to why it is unfair and dangerous to take a half a plea bargain and use that as leverage to assume guilt.
If you plea bargain and get the bargain you have under law accepted guilt on the lesser charge or agreed circumstances. If the bargain is rejected the plea goes with it, as the plea is often a mutually convenient lie in actuality it is unfair to assume it has any relevance outside of the plea arrangement.
d-usa wrote: He has been criminally convicted. That’s what accepting a plea bargain does.
The only thing that hasn’t happened yet is sentencing, but the conviction stands.
You can continue to spout that, but you will continue to be legally entirely wrong.
Criminal legal references and terminology is exacting, they have to be, they are what they are, they are not what you dream them to be.
Polanskli has never been criminally convicted of the child sex allegations.
Just because you don't like that, doest mean it is not true. Legal truth doesn't have to mold itself to conform to your personal opinions.
Polanski has been convicted because he accepted he plea bargain, that phase is over and he is pending sentencing.
Just because you don’t like that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Legal truth doesn’t have to mold itself to conform to your personal opinions.
You don’t like plea bargains? That’s fine.
You think they are used to strong arm guilty pleas by initially overcharging people? I don’t disagree that this often happens.
Do valid complaints about how plea bargains are used change the legal facts of what happens when you plead guilty to a crime? No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again here is from way back in the day:
Roman Polanski, the film director, pleaded guilty today in Superior Court here to one felony count of "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13-year old girl.
...
"I had sexual intercourse with a person not my wife, under the age of 18." He said he knew the girl was 13 at the time.
Orlanth wrote: Because the label of rapist requires a criminal conviction.
No it doesn't. His public, willing, admission to committing an act of rape is sufficient to label him a rapist beyond any dispute. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The law disagrees with you. You don't get to house rule this, it's in the RAW.
The context doesn't save your case at all. You presented a hypothetical scenario where one would take a plea bargain, with a defendant who is innocent of the crime.
Perhaps you should actually take the tip and include the context then, so you will know how wrong you are. the hypothetical scenario was explained in detail to make guilt or innocence ambiguous to show how the plea bargaining system fails and why taking a plea admission out of its context leads to miscarriage of justice.
.....It is dishonest to bring such an argument into this discussion,......
Here is the relevant section of the hypothetical scenario:
During the search he finds drugs, well over the volume to be a trafficking felony rather than misdemeanour possession. We will leave unanswered whether the drugs are yours. Perhaps you are a narcotics trafficker and this is your major new income stream, maybe they were in the car when you bought it at auction. Maybe a faithless passenger left them there so you were an unwitting mule of 'the product' on its journey across America.
You see, the scenario covers both angles and the dangers of mishandling plea bargains were understndable both ways.
where the defendant is known beyond any possible dispute to be guilty of the crime.
Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.
Guilty until proven guilty is not justice, even alleged child molesters get that level of protection.
Where do you think you are, the Soviet Union?
What you are saying is literal prejudice. Polanski is never prior to a conviction in a position where it is legally acceptable to claim he is guilty beyond dispute. That is what trials are for, the prosecution and judge bungled this in pre-trial, and that plus other factors makes extradition near impossible.
Put into the context of your other apologetics for a known child rapist it is hard to avoid getting the impression that you are presenting the idea that Polanski is innocent and only took the plea bargain out of fear of a much harsher sentence.
My apologetics to a defendant who suffered a miscarriage of justice do not require any investigation into the offence with which he was charged. Legal rights are not earned on merit, they are inalienable and inherent. Some people tend to forget that when they get salty over the allegations with which an accused are charged. Sounder minds do not.
Polanski has jumped bail and lost that money, that is an international criminal record right, but that is all there is legally on him unless he returns to America.
I have one portion of inherent sympathy for Polanski over the Sharon Tate murder, this may or may not be directly relevant, deep traumas like this have been mitigating circumstances in sentencing if not actual guilt.
Short wrong answers are still wrong. If you dislike 'walls of text', i.e a paragraph or two, heaven help you when you discover books!!
Also the paragraphs were right and were not too long to get across a legal point. They were clearly written so I am not responsible for your inability to grasp the contents
SANTA MONICA, Calif., Aug. 8—Roman Polanski, the film director, pleaded guilty today in Superior Court here to one felony count of “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 13‐year‐old girl.
The plea, entered as a result of plea bargaining, could result in Mr. Polanski's being deported or sentenced to a jail term......
Yep still plea bargaining, not an unconditional guilty plea. Newspaper headlines not being factually accurate. Who would have thought it eh.
Later after this article was written the plea agreement was reneged upon, so the plea dissolves without issue.
Orlanth wrote: The law disagrees with you. You don't get to house rule this, it's in the RAW.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
Perhaps you should actually take the tip and include the context then, so you will know how wrong you are. the hypothetical scenario was explained in detail to make guilt or innocence ambiguous to show how the plea bargaining system fails and why taking a plea admission out of its context leads to miscarriage of justice.
Now you're adding more dishonestly. Your exact words:
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
You explicitly state that the defendant is innocent in this scenario. Nothing is at all ambiguous.
Here is the relevant section of the hypothetical scenario:
Nope. That was the scenario in your other post, entirely separate from the one I quoted.
Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.
Polanski admitted in his autobiography that he raped her. There is no dispute at all over his guilt.
My apologetics to a defendant who suffered a miscarriage of justice do not require any investigation into the offence with which he was charged. Legal rights are not earned on merit, they are inalienable and inherent. Some people tend to forget that when they get salty over the allegations with which an accused are charged. Sounder minds do not.
Oh really? If it's purely about the judicial system following the rules, rather than apologetics for a confessed child rapist, then why did you attempt to bring in sympathy for Polanski regarding his murdered wife? That has nothing to do with whether or not the judicial system operated according to its proper rules.
I have one portion of inherent sympathy for Polanski over the Sharon Tate murder, this may or may not be directly relevant, deep traumas like this have been mitigating circumstances in sentencing if not actual guilt.
JFC you have got to be kidding. Losing a spouse, no matter how bad the circumstances are, does not in any way mitigate guilt over raping a child completely unrelated to the murder. Polanski should not be given one bit of sympathy in sentencing.
The law does not require that a prosecutor charge anyone with any crime at any point in time.
If you commit a murder, the prosecutor can charge you for murder. He can also look at the evidence and situation he has and charge you for manslaughter instead. He can also look at everything and decide to charge you for assault. He can also look at everything and decide that no jury will ever convict you of anything and not charge you at all. That is part of the discretion we have always given to prosecutors. They can charge you for the maximum or minimum crime that could cover what you did.
That same basic idea extends to the court room. A defendant can plead guilty to every crime, a defendant can plead not-guilty to every crime, or a defendant can plead guilty to some crimes with the prosecutor agreeing not to prosecute the remaining crimes. That is all a plea bargain is: "I agree to a conviction for these things, if you don't put these other things to a trial".
Your failure to understand what a plea bargain actually is doesn't change the legal basis of what a guilty plea means.
But hey, maybe you can write to California, the US justice system, France, Switzerland, Poland, and Interpol and let them know Polanski was never actually convicted of anything and it's just a big misunderstanding. That all the people filing for sentencing in absentia are simply mistaken because how could they sentence without him ever being convicted.
You either managed to crack a decade old widely publicized international legal case wide open, or you are simply wrong.
Continue making arguments about the ethical implications of plea bargains and how people often fall victims to a power imbalance and lack of resources on their side. That's where your strength is in this argument, and that's where many people will agree with you. Hell, I will agree with you. There is a ton of people sitting in jail who agreed to a lower plea because they didn't want to risk a trial in a system that is often biased against them even though they may not have committed the crime they were charged with. I don't have a problem with the concept of plea bargaining, it's a useful tool for prosecutors and defendants alike. But it's also a tool that is often used inappropriately. I, and probably most, will agree with you there. Good job pointing out a frequent system of injustice.
But none of that changes the legal basis that a guilty plea in court is a guilty plea in court is a guilty plea in court. There is no legal difference between a guilty plea before or after bargaining.
Later after this article was written the plea agreement was reneged upon, so the plea dissolves without issue.
The plea agreement was completed and finalized the moment he said "guilty" and the prosecutor drops the remaining charges. The prosecution never reneged upon the plea agreement and it remains in full force, or else they would have refiled all the original charges long ago. But they haven't, because he has already been convicted of one crime in exchange for dropping the others, and double jeopardy is a thing.
The only thing pending is sentencing by a judge, and the judge almost always has discretion about what sentence (s)he would like to impose. It doesn't matter if you go through a trial, plead guilty up front, or plead guilty during the plea bargaining process. The legislature usually writes a range of sentences they want imposed for a crime, the prosecutor makes a recommendation for what sentence they would like to see handed down, the defense makes a case for why a lesser sentence should be imposed, and then the judge decides on the actual sentence. That's always been the case, and our justice system has never been setup for a prosecutor to decide on the actual sentence.
Polanski, the prosecution, and/or both of them were stupid for assuming they knew what sentence the judge would impose, but that doesn't mean the plea bargain is invalid. The judge was never a party to the plea agreement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For what it’s worth:
A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense.
A guilty or no contest plea entered as a judge-approved plea bargain results in a criminal conviction; the defendant’s guilt is established just as it would be after a trial. The conviction will show up on the defendant’s criminal record (rap sheet). And, the defendant loses any rights or privileges, such as the right to vote, that the defendant would lose if convicted after trial.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.
Now you're adding more dishonestly. Your exact words:
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
I see where the confusion comes from. You needed to add more context
You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.
Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
What do you do?
The full comment is relevant as it shows a scenario how a plea bargain can be taken from a point of view of innocence, and consequently we cannot assume that in every case a plea bargain is taken from a point of view of guilt. As people are innocent until proven guilty (outside of Peregrineland) this is a valid context for any case.
The full hypothetical scenario as on a different post, and had a different purpose, to establish in cases of both likely guilt and likely innocence that the mishandling of a plea bargain results in a a miscarriage of justice.
Please keep the context in to avoid misunderstanding, both ways.
Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.
Polanski admitted in his autobiography that he raped her. There is no dispute at all over his guilt.
Thought you would make a comment like this.
How does that effect a case in 1977. Does justice in Peregrineland require time travel?
Oh really? If it's purely about the judicial system following the rules, rather than apologetics for a confessed child rapist, then why did you attempt to bring in sympathy for Polanski regarding his murdered wife? That has nothing to do with whether or not the judicial system operated according to its proper rules.
Actually these are referred to a mitigating circumstances. They do not always influence guilt or innocence but they do influence culpability.
Here is an unrelated example of consideration of circumstances during sentencing.
Consideration of circumstances can also be permitted by a jury in conviction, though this is rarer.
I have one portion of inherent sympathy for Polanski over the Sharon Tate murder, this may or may not be directly relevant, deep traumas like this have been mitigating circumstances in sentencing if not actual guilt.
JFC you have got to be kidding. Losing a spouse, no matter how bad the circumstances are, does not in any way mitigate guilt over raping a child completely unrelated to the murder. Polanski should not be given one bit of sympathy in sentencing.
I am not kidding or blaspheming. I just understand that deep trauma of this kind can feth people up. An example being some trajick cases of Kosovo veterans who witnesses Serbian child rape camps and were corrupted by the memories over time. Some later developed a taste for child porn.....
And yes circumstances like this can effect trial. They have before. Best clearest example being the Ludi Magni of course, the corruption was well documented by contemporary Roman journalists
Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.
An unpopular example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch " target="_new" rel="nofollow">affluenza teen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch While not a good example it shows the power of mitigating circumstances when sargued by a good lawyer. There are far more deserving cases but they don't stick out in the mind like the bad ones do..
It is very likely that mitigating circumstances related to Sharon Tate's murder resulted in the initial plea bargain Polanski received, we simply do not know because plea bargains are confidential. It is not an unreasonable inference regarding the extraordinary plea bargain deal.
Later after this article was written the plea agreement was reneged upon, so the plea dissolves without issue.
The plea agreement was completed and finalized the moment he said "guilty" and the prosecutor drops the remaining charges.
Nope it is still conditional, and the defendant can drop it if they like. We see this is true because even a guilty plea it can be withdrawn during trial. Though withdrawal of a guilty plea is more difficult as it is unconditional.
The plea agreement was completed and finalized the moment he said "guilty" and the prosecutor drops the remaining charges. The prosecution never reneged upon the plea agreement and it remains in full force, or else they would have refiled all the original charges long ago. But they haven't, because he has already been convicted of one crime in exchange for dropping the others, and double jeopardy is a thing.
It was the judge two reneged on the plea bargain. Also you missed out how a plea agreement can include a sentencing limit (which is what the judge reneged upon, also it is still NOT a conviction, its is a conditional plea. Even a regular guilty plea is not a conviction until after conviction by the jury or referal to a sentencing hearing by mutual agreement. The Polanski case never got that far.
The only thing pending is sentencing by a judge, and the judge almost always has discretion about what sentence (s)he would like to impose. It doesn't matter if you go through a trial, plead guilty up front, or plead guilty during the plea bargaining process. The legislature usually writes a range of sentences they want imposed for a crime, the prosecutor makes a recommendation for what sentence they would like to see handed down, the defense makes a case for why a lesser sentence should be imposed, and then the judge decides on the actual sentence. That's always been the case, and our justice system has never been setup for a prosecutor to decide on the actual sentence.
However a plea agreement can also tie the hands of the judge to a limit on sentencing.
Polanski, the prosecution, and/or both of them were stupid for assuming they knew what sentence the judge would impose, but that doesn't mean the plea bargain is invalid. The judge was never a party to the plea agreement.
Polanski's legal team arranged generous terms including limits on sentencing. If the prosecutors agree the judges hands are tied. The judge can attempt to overrule but this violates the plea agreement and leaves its validity in question. At that point Polanski fled and due to he miscarriage of justice, plus other factors he is effectively unextraditable. plea bargaining is considered a breach of justice in most western countries, and their legal systems will have an easy time blocking extraditions of this kind as they violate rights in third party countries, where Polanski is now living.
AFAIK the Polanski case resulted in a review on handling of plea agreements, it did lasting damage to the US judicial system.
Plea bargaining is still a thing, but the excesses usually go the other way
A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense.
A guilty or no contest plea entered as a judge-approved plea bargain results in a criminal conviction; the defendant’s guilt is established just as it would be after a trial. The conviction will show up on the defendant’s criminal record (rap sheet). And, the defendant loses any rights or privileges, such as the right to vote, that the defendant would lose if convicted after trial.
Simplified practical common definitions, there is more going on under the hood. Notice the judge approved-plea bargain, that is to say the conviction occurs as a consequence of the sentencing hearing post plea bargain, as that is when the judge has direct input, it is NOT inherent to the plea itself but the conclusion of the process.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.
This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?
Really? How would you say this. There was no confession of any kind, no memoires, Polanski contested the allegations and it could well have been just a he-said she-said and a bungled prosecution.
Polanski admitted in his autobiography that he raped her. There is no dispute at all over his guilt.
Thought you would make a comment like this.
How does that effect a case in 1977. Does justice in Peregrineland require time travel?
How does justice affect Polanski calling himself a rapist in his memoires, he fully admits to having sex with a 13 year old.
I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. So I'm just gonna go ahead and skip the next few pages of back and forth before the lock.
Make a point or stop trolling.
What you explained, and I do understand it is that you are riled because your preconceptions and preferred outlook on life is not matched by the legal system.
Here is some helpful advice: Get over it. Human justice is procedural and has its rigid rules, this is necessary for the best protection the law can give to society. But this also means you cant guarantee you will get what you think is right. Humans in the system can feth up a prosecution and a guilty man can walk, and innocents can end up on death row.
Your problem, and its one you haven't really grasped is that the facts of legal procedure, the facts of what you can do to someone legally and when and when they can be labelled as a criminal are tied up with the mechanics of law. And the worst thing we can do is to remove the wheels because of public anger at individual results one doesn't like and in doing so potentially break the system or leave the protections malleable to later corruption.
Now most legal systems do allow a figurehead to reach in and suspend the system, but in nearly all cases the intervention is to apply clemency, the opposite is the hallmark of a dictatorship. So an innocent on death row can receive a pardon, though that is sadly unlikely in practice, but the opposite is not true.
Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.
This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?
Yes. This has long been refered to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.
Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.
This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?
Yes. This has long been refered to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.
So taking that logic to its extreme we're wrong to label people like Stalin and Hitler mass murderers?
Let us start with an extreme case, a cabal of about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who were set free after they were caught trying to poison the water supply of four German cities. The plot if successful would have killed vast numbers of Germans unrelated to Holocaust crimes, but the 'mitigating circumstances' gave them a free pass for attempted mass murder.
Thanks, so looking into the case it wasn't mitigating circumstances, it was primarily the statute of limitations and the fact that a proper investigation could not be mounted. We're talking about a case they we're trying to look into 55 years later. They weren't given a free pass, there was an preliminary investigation to see if a case had merit. The important figures were all dead by 2000.
And nobody was set free at the time either, they weren't caught, the ringleader got arrested on travelling with forged documents in an entirely different country, the authorities never found the poison.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.
This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?
Yes. This has long been referred to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.
So taking that logic to its extreme we're wrong to label people like Stalin and Hitler mass murderers?
Apples and oranges.
No, that was political, not legal.
The difference was explained in the Skripal thread. One can accuse Russia of poisoning without proof in a court of law because it was a political accusation. An individual is at the mercy of the state, a foreign power is not, so the same protections do not apply.
So burden of proof is required to convict a serial killer in your native country by its law enforcement, but not to condemn Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Assad.
Still trials are recommended, and not all those sent to Nuremberg were convicted, some were aquitted. However again there is a distinction, in 1946 the Nazis were under domestic justice of the occupying powers, so trials were held. But the same powers were killing Nazis without trial a year earlier.
Thanks, so looking into the case it wasn't mitigating circumstances, it was primarily the statute of limitations and the fact that a proper investigation could not be mounted. We're talking about a case they we're trying to look into 55 years later. They weren't given a free pass, there was an preliminary investigation to see if a case had merit. The important figures were all dead by 2000.
Some were arrested at the time, and the plot was uncovered. There was a lot of looking the other way
Also there is no statute of limitations for attempted mass murder, its an excuse. This is why they are still hunting Nazis.
A rapist is a person who has committed a rape. Conviction in court is not necessary for this status. Polanski is a rapist, period.
The purpose of a trial is to determine the applicability of labels of this nature as well as to determine restitution or punishment as required under law. Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Rape is a crime, no conviction, no crime.
It is that simple, its the basic inalienable difference between a civilised society and a rogue state.
This makes absolutely zero sense. What if the guy who did it dies before a trial? So he can't be a rapist or murderer because he never went to trial even though we all know he did it?
Yes. This has long been referred to as cheating justice. Sorry, it happens.
So taking that logic to its extreme we're wrong to label people like Stalin and Hitler mass murderers?
Apples and oranges.
No, that was political, not legal.
The difference was explained in the Skripal thread. One can accuse Russia of poisoning without proof in a court of law because it was a political accusation. An individual is at the mercy of the state, a foreign power is not, so the same protections do not apply.
So burden of proof is required to convict a serial killer in your native country by its law enforcement, but not to condemn Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, or Assad.
Still trials are recommended, and not all those sent to Nuremberg were convicted, some were aquitted. However again there is a distinction, in 1946 the Nazis were under domestic justice of the occupying powers, so trials were held. But the same powers were killing Nazis without trial a year earlier.
Ok, I'm accusing Polanski of being a rapist, but don't worry, its political as he isn't from my native country. You make a distinction between condemn and convict, so you can condemn Polanski for being a rapist but not convict him, so at the end of the day he would still be labelled a rapist.
Hitler and Stalin were still individuals, power could have been taken away from them. Its moving goalposts to say that they are foreign powers, because they aren't foreign in their own countries. You can put Assad on trial at the ICC. What about all those mass murdering Soviets or Nazis that were never convicted after the fact or died during the wars, are they also mislabelled?
Its a cute to say trials were held, but the vast majority escaped justice as evidenced by the fact that we have resorted to rounding up 90 year old men for crimes they should have been put on trial for 70 years ago. The whole logic of "you can only label people who were convicted" just falls apart at the first bit of critique.
Thanks, so looking into the case it wasn't mitigating circumstances, it was primarily the statute of limitations and the fact that a proper investigation could not be mounted. We're talking about a case they we're trying to look into 55 years later. They weren't given a free pass, there was an preliminary investigation to see if a case had merit. The important figures were all dead by 2000.
Some were arrested at the time, and the plot was uncovered. There was a lot of looking the other way
Also there is no statute of limitations for attempted mass murder, its an excuse. This is why they are still hunting Nazis.
No they weren't. They fled to Israel after a botched attempt. Nobody was arrested at the time over it. Actually they are hunting Nazis for actual involvement in mass murder. Do you have any proof that the two individuals investigated in 2000 were actually involved in the plot, because as I said, the main people involved were already dead . For someone so stringent on the law and "labelling", you sure throw the label of mass murder around easily in this context...
Nope it is still conditional, and the defendant can drop it if they like.
Wrong. Once it's entered and accepted, it's done and done. You can appeal and whatnot, but the conviction stands.
It was the judge two reneged on the plea bargain.
Wrong. A judge cannot renege on a plea bargain, because a judge is not a party to a plea bargain.
Also you missed out how a plea agreement can include a sentencing limit
Depends. A plea agreement can include a recommendation for sentencing to the judge or it can tie the hands of the judge. To the best of my knowledge, Polanski's deal had the former.
which is what the judge reneged upon,
Wrong. The judge did not renege on the plea agreement, because the judge had nothing to do with the plea agreement and has no requirement to follow the sentencing recommendation of the prosecution in this case.
also it is still NOT a conviction, its is a conditional plea.
Wrong. It's a conviction once it's entered by both parties and accepted by a judge.
Even a regular guilty plea is not a conviction until after conviction by the jury
'
Wrong. If you plead guilty, there won't be a jury trial and you are convicted by your own admission of guilt.
or referal to a sentencing hearing by mutual agreement.
Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two separate phases of the process.
The Polanski case never got that far.
Wrong. He got through the conviction process. He is still pending the sentencing process.
However a plea agreement can also tie the hands of the judge to a limit on sentencing.
Wrong in this case. Sentencing is always up to the judge who can follow the law as written in any way he wants.
Polanski's legal team arranged generous terms including limits on sentencing. If the prosecutors agree the judges hands are tied.
Wrong in this case. See above.
The judge can attempt to overrule but this violates the plea agreement and leaves its validity in question.
Wrong. The judge is free to follow the recommendation by the prosecutor, and he is also free to completely ignore it. Which is probably the reason why nobody actually involved in the legal case is actually arguing that the plea agreement is null and void.
Notice the judge approved-plea bargain, that is to say the conviction occurs as a consequence of the sentencing hearing post plea bargain, as that is when the judge has direct input, it is NOT inherent to the plea itself but the conclusion of the process.
Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two distinct and separate parts of the process. Which is why nobody involved in the case is arguing that he was never convicted and that the plea agreement should be thrown out. Heck, if you spend 5 seconds thinking about the case, why are people still arguing that the original sentencing suggestion should still be followed if the agreement is void? Why are people filing motions about sentencing if he was never convicted to begin with?
Or the tl;dr version:
So enjoy being wrong for a couple more pages. But I'm out.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.
What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages with someone desperately trying to legitimize rape.
It's a fething weird world.
I think that's a bridge too far. We've seen 3 pages of frankly ludicrous levels of pedantry, based on a misunderstanding of how law courts work, but we haven't seen anyone actually try to legitimize rape, I don't think.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.
What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.
I can't believe we've gone 3 pages with someone desperately trying to legitimize rape.
It's a fething weird world.
I think that's a bridge too far. We've seen 3 pages of frankly ludicrous levels of pedantry, based on a misunderstanding of how law courts work, but we haven't seen anyone actually try to legitimize rape, I don't think.
The argument is "it's not rape even if you're caught, charged, plea and admit it publicly because the judge didn't double pinky swear"
Given all the systemic barriers to getting rapists to trial (the backlog of untested rape kits, social stigma, dudebros who'll not just claim every allegation is made up but actively stalk the victims) the argument that it absolutely must be a flawless conviction with no plea bargaining is pretty legitimizing. It's basically saying not only can people get away with it but they should "becuz justice"
I think that's a bridge too far. We've seen 3 pages of frankly ludicrous levels of pedantry, based on a misunderstanding of how law courts work, but we haven't seen anyone actually try to legitimize rape, I don't think.
The argument is "it's not rape even if you're caught, charged, plea and admit it publicly because the judge didn't double pinky swear"
Given all the systemic barriers to getting rapists to trial (the backlog of untested rape kits, social stigma, dudebros who'll not just claim every allegation is made up but actively stalk the victims) the argument that it absolutely must be a flawless conviction with no plea bargaining is pretty legitimizing. It's basically saying not only can people get away with it but they should "becuz justice"
I don't think that is the position. "Events don't happen unless a jury finds they did in a court of law" is a pretty strange way to live your life.
I think we are hung up on a very, very, almost impossibly pedantic definition of "what 'is' is". 'Is' Polanski a rapist? Well yes, in the sense that he actually committed the act of rape, but also no, in the sense that he wasn't found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers.
Except that second part isn't true, because part of accepting a plea deal is accepting guilt, with all the same ramifications that a jury trial guilty verdict renders.
You can lead a horse to facts, but you can't make him drink.
Hold on, we have lawyers here on DakkaDakka, we can solve this whole thing right now. Just let me find my summoning candles, a fresh $100 Bill, some Texmex, and the collar of a weiner dog.
Oh great and powerful litigator, we call upon you for your assistance in squashing this beef! I call upon you now, in our time of need! The power of Christ compels you!
This is about guilty pleas, not plea bargaining which has additional safeguards on top of those here. But even an unconditional guilty plea can be withdrawn in some circumstances, though they are limited.
A plea is NOT a conviction of itself, though it normally expedites the process towards one..
Wrong. A judge cannot renege on a plea bargain, because a judge is not a party to a plea bargain.
The judge in the Polanski case did. That is a matter of public record.
You are confused because you mistake the fact that a plea bargain is made without the judge that it is not binding on the case. Remember that judges do not choose cases, decisions to charge are not made by a judge, the judges preside over cases brought to them.
Also you missed out how a plea agreement can include a sentencing limit
Depends. A plea agreement can include a recommendation for sentencing to the judge or it can tie the hands of the judge. To the best of my knowledge, Polanski's deal had the former.
Polanski's deal had the former, but the deal being offered was agreed by the judge but the judge changed his mind. This was consequent to a meeting with prosecution attorneys to which defence attorneys were excluded, a breach in judicial ethics, and the plans for sentencing were not just at variance with the plea agreement they were effectively opposite.
Even in cases where the judge retains levity there are guidelines to follow and those are modifiable by the plea agreement. The prosecution for reasons best known to themselves agreed to a wrist slap. the judge was after a full sentence, there was no comparison, this meant that the plea bargain was violated, and Polanski who initially pled not guilty was in effect cheated into giving a guilty plea by underhand means.
It was a fethed up case.
Wrong. The judge did not renege on the plea agreement, because the judge had nothing to do with the plea agreement and has no requirement to follow the sentencing recommendation of the prosecution in this case
also it is still NOT a conviction, its is a conditional plea.
Wrong. It's a conviction once it's entered by both parties and accepted by a judge.
You are disagreeing with legal reality.
It is a conviction at the conclusion of the trial, or sentencing hearing if there is no trial and no sooner.
Here is an example.
14:25
You can voluntarily withdraw a plea, you cant voluntarily withdraw a conviction. Plea is not equal to conviction.
I love seeing Judge Aquilina's demolition of Nassar at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing. But the relevant part here is that she did offer for Nassar to withdraw his plea, after a sentencing hearing was nearly concluded. Yes it was mind games, Nassar had never a cat in hells chance of aquittal and was already serving 60 years for child porn, so he wanted the whole process over. However if Nassar had said yes the next stage would be a trial.
Technically it was a risky play because Nassar was pled and pending conviction by agreement at the sentencing hearing's conclusion. At any time up until the conclusion if Nassar withdrew his plea there would have had to have been a trial, and this offer for a plea withdrawal occurred right at the end of an especially long sentencing hearing process.
Even a regular guilty plea is not a conviction until after conviction by the jury
'
Wrong. If you plead guilty, there won't be a jury trial and you are convicted by your own admission of guilt.
You presume too much, first you are mistaking a guilty plea for a no contest plea. With a guilty plea there is still normally a trial. People have even been aquitted after a guilty plea, but that is exceptionally rare and involves confusion of the defendant, or diminished responsibility, or ignorance of the case law. People have also pled guilty due to poor advice and fought a case later. A trial is often necessary to determine the level of guilt and also to air a case for the benefit of victims. A formal no contest plea results in no trial.
In all these cases there is a significant delay between a guilty plea and a conviction.
Wrong. He got through the conviction process. He is still pending the sentencing process.
Polanski was forced to undergo psychiatric testing as part of the plea agreement. He completed this but the conviction process was still ongoing. When it became clear that the plea bargain was being reneged upon he fled the US.
he was formally charged, he did plea under a plea bargain and he was arrainged and placed on probation. That is as far as it went.
The judge can attempt to overrule but this violates the plea agreement and leaves its validity in question.
Wrong. The judge is free to follow the recommendation by the prosecutor, and he is also free to completely ignore it. Which is probably the reason why nobody actually involved in the legal case is actually arguing that the plea agreement is null and void.
Nobody? How about Lawrence Rittenbrand the actual judge involved. He was doing his best to backpeddle after this blew up in his face.
Notice the judge approved-plea bargain, that is to say the conviction occurs as a consequence of the sentencing hearing post plea bargain, as that is when the judge has direct input, it is NOT inherent to the plea itself but the conclusion of the process.
Wrong. Conviction and sentencing are two distinct and separate parts of the process.
This is true only if there has already been a trial in which a conviction is achieved at the conclusion . If there isn't a trial the case moves to sentencing hearing bypassing conviction which is assumed but not extant.. It is quite possible for a plea bargained sentencing hearing to fall apart due to a change in plea resulting in a trial.
Which is why nobody involved in the case is arguing that he was never convicted and that the plea agreement should be thrown out. Heck, if you spend 5 seconds thinking about the case, why are people still arguing that the original sentencing suggestion should still be followed if the agreement is void? Why are people filing motions about sentencing if he was never convicted to begin with?
That is easy to explain if you think about it. What is broken can be fixed. By restoring the plea agreement (which was ridiculously lenient) Polanski might be persuaded to voluntarily return to the US to get the process over and done with.
It would be a valid solution but has secondary unrelated problems, notably that Polanski fled the country and is subject to several potential felony charges resultant from that.
More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
Prestor Jon wrote: More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
To be fair, Michael Bay still gets to direct movies, compared to his movies almost anyone is a genius
Prestor Jon wrote: More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
The Pianist got in my head and messed it up for a good while after I watched it.
Prestor Jon wrote: More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
I thought the Pianist was great, but I cant really say ive seen his other stuff however.
Prestor Jon wrote: More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
I tried to order Roman Polanski's Pirates a while back, but somehow got the Jesse Jane Pirates instead... my wife swears that was an improvement.
The Auld Grump - and, to be fair, as porn movies go... it was one of the better ones.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.
What a weirdly incorrect hill to die on.
It is very important for some people not to be correct, but to be clever. They want to make a big show of having a very insightful understanding of an issue, and weirdly enough it doesn't matter if they've gotten the most basic facts wrong, what matters is they get to dismiss a simple, obvious idea and instead prove to themselves how clever they are by arguing for something much more complex and counter-intuitive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
Chinatown is genius, but I got to admit finding Rosemary's Baby pretty underwhelming. Might have been one of those movies that hasn't aged well, I guess. I understand his most important stuff was the trendy european stuff from the '60s, which was influential and blah de blah. Most of his later stuff has varied between mediocre (The Ninth Gate) and middling (Ghost Writer), but that's pretty standard, most directors drop off later in their careers.
There's also a thing where we seem to overstate someone's strengths the more we learn about their awful failings. The more Polanksi's crime* has become clearly abhorrent, the more people have been tempted to declare his genius.
*Actually crimes because seriously you guys more than one girl has come forward.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.
It is, if the consequent process is completed.
But it isn't, if the bargain is not completed.
This is what you are not getting. Pleas are not a timeless absolute, they are out of courtroom deals then legitimised by the in-court processes.
We can see this is true because pleas can be withdrawn, you cant voluntarily withdraw a conviction, that requires a pardon.
Now if you are some Joe who has a public defender and you take a plea bargain and get fethed over, sure that's life. You pled, it's done, you are going down. It is one of the reasons why plea bargaining is not used much outside the US, we see myriads of people at the bottom get short justice.
There is a lot in legislation though, it has inherent safeguards against abuse argued in in legislature based on 'what if's' argued in legislative assemblies, one example of why there are necessary safeguards was given.
The trouble is most briefs can't be bothered or just plain can't argue the law, those who can cost real money.
It is very important for some people not to be correct, but to be clever. They want to make a big show of having a very insightful understanding of an issue, and weirdly enough it doesn't matter if they've gotten the most basic facts wrong, what matters is they get to dismiss a simple, obvious idea and instead prove to themselves how clever they are by arguing for something much more complex and counter-intuitive.
That actually sums up the legal profession.
You have to play by the rules.
However those rules are society's only valid means to determine right and wrong.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe we've gone 3 pages of arguing with someone who is saying a plea bargain isn't a conviction.
It is, if the consequent process is completed.
But it isn't, if the bargain is not completed.
This is what you are not getting. Pleas are not a timeless absolute, they are out of courtroom deals then legitimised by the in-court processes.
We can see this is true because pleas can be withdrawn, you cant voluntarily withdraw a conviction, that requires a pardon.
Now if you are some Joe who has a public defender and you take a plea bargain and get fethed over, sure that's life. You pled, it's done, you are going down. It is one of the reasons why plea bargaining is not used much outside the US, we see myriads of people at the bottom get short justice.
There is a lot in legislation though, it has inherent safeguards against abuse argued in in legislature based on 'what if's' argued in legislative assemblies, one example of why there are necessary safeguards was given.
The trouble is most briefs can't be bothered or just plain can't argue the law, those who can cost real money.
It is very important for some people not to be correct, but to be clever. They want to make a big show of having a very insightful understanding of an issue, and weirdly enough it doesn't matter if they've gotten the most basic facts wrong, what matters is they get to dismiss a simple, obvious idea and instead prove to themselves how clever they are by arguing for something much more complex and counter-intuitive.
That actually sums up the legal profession.
You have to play by the rules.
However those rules are society's only valid means to determine right and wrong.
A plea bargain is yes it is admitting guilt but until a judge apecpts it, and the scentence is passed. Well there's room and scope for it to be refused or harsher penalty applied.
Its a agreement but one a judge would need to ratify first.
Orlanth wrote: Basic legal rights assume that without a formal just conviction there is no valid label.
Nope. Not at all. Conviction in court is merely one way of getting a credible enough belief that a person is a rapist that it is justified to label one. Willing and explicit confession to committing an act of rape is another thing that justifies the label, and Polanski has freely admitted that he raped a child. Polanski is a rapist, period, no matter how many times you try to nitpick the details of his legal case.
I see where the confusion comes from. You needed to add more context
I need to do no such thing. I am not responsible for your inability to keep track of which of your posts a direct quote came from, especially when the forum conveniently provides a link to the post I quoted in case you need to go back and read it.
The full comment is relevant as it shows a scenario how a plea bargain can be taken from a point of view of innocence, and consequently we cannot assume that in every case a plea bargain is taken from a point of view of guilt.
And this is exactly the problem! Polanski is absolutely, indisputably guilty. He has freely admitted that he raped the child in question. The fact that you are bringing in this hypothetical example of an innocent victim being abused by the plea bargain system is why I am horrified at your apologetics on behalf of a confessed child rapist. It is very difficult to imagine a motivation for you implicitly suggesting that Polanski is innocent, other than some that would reflect very poorly on your moral character.
How does that effect a case in 1977. Does justice in Peregrineland require time travel?
I don't care about the case in 1977. I care that Polanski is a confessed child rapist who should be spending the rest of his life in prison, and I care that people keep defending him over it. I would be 100% ok with giving him a new trial for the case, citing his confession to committing the crime as clear evidence of his guilt, and throwing him in prison for the maximum possible sentence.
They do not always influence guilt or innocence but they do influence culpability.
Nothing in this situation has any possible effect on his culpability, and I am appalled that you are willing to excuse raping an innocent child who had nothing to do with the murder.
It is very likely that mitigating circumstances related to Sharon Tate's murder resulted in the initial plea bargain Polanski received, we simply do not know because plea bargains are confidential.
Or, Polanski got the benefit of a combination of rape apologetics ("she looked 18"/"she was totally asking for it wearing that short a skirt"/etc) and the lighter sentences given to celebrities in general.
Nope. Not at all. Conviction in court is merely one way of getting a credible enough belief that a person is a rapist that it is justified to label one. Willing and explicit confession to committing an act of rape is another thing that justifies the label, and Polanski has freely admitted that he raped a child. Polanski is a rapist, period, no matter how many times you try to nitpick the details of his legal case.
So you don't think a conviction from a fair court of law is necessary. North Korea or ISIS sound like your sort of people.
The fact that you are bringing in this hypothetical example of an innocent victim being abused by the plea bargain system is why I am horrified at your apologetics on behalf of a confessed child rapist
Alleged child rapist. I am defending legal principle, fair trails, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
For legal principles to matter they must apply to everyone, not just people you like.
Whether or not you are triggered by the accusation in a case doesn't mean you get to shortcut away statutory rights, you don't get to shave off due process. This is what happened in 1977, backroom deals between judge and prosecution with defence counsel excluded, as a result Polanski became un-extraditable after he fled.
I don't care about the case in 1977. I care that Polanski is a confessed child rapist who should be spending the rest of his life in prison, and I care that people keep defending him over it. I would be 100% ok with giving him a new trial for the case, citing his confession to committing the crime as clear evidence of his guilt, and throwing him in prison for the maximum possible sentence.
I am defending the legal principle of fair justice, not the accusations. If Polanski was a bank robber the same would apply, but probably you would be throwing less rattle out of pram and it would be easier. My outlook would not have changed.
They do not always influence guilt or innocence but they do influence culpability.
Nothing in this situation has any possible effect on his culpability, and I am appalled that you are willing to excuse raping an innocent child who had nothing to do with the murder.
You are appalled as a result of your own ignorance. First because you mistake me (and others) as 'rape apologists' which is untrue and insulting, Second, because I gave examples of mitigation and how deep trauma can be used as a limiter in a court, with examples from real legal cases. Whether a judge would accept Polanski's mental health is up to the judge, but a defence lawyer would certainly raise that point. It is also very very likely that the plea bargain Polanski's lawyers arranged included said mitigation, I cannot be 100% certain that it was so because plea bargain agreements are part confidential. However do do know for a flat fact that much of Polanski's plea bargain deal was regarding mandatory attendance at a psychiatric ward for 90 days. Polanski attended this from 19th December 1977. So his mental state was considered relevant to the authorities at the time.
Sorry, but the facts don't agree with you. So yes the Sharon Tate murder very likely had effects on his culpability evidenced by the facts of the case. That is by no means unusual and such mitigation is common principle.
Alleged and self admitted. Why are we even still talking about this? Best case scenario is he's a disgusting creep who as a 44 yo had sex with a consenting 13yo which is well below the age of consent, that's the absolute best case scenario.
Just because someone hasn't gone through the full legal process of something doesn't mean the label doesn't apply. Due process in the legal system is important and should be upheld, but let's call a spade a spade, just because you didn't go to jail for something doesn't mean the label doesn't apply.
Don't compare it to North Korea or ISIS when we're talking about a case where the person admitted to it.
Orlanth wrote: That actually sums up the legal profession.
You have to play by the rules.
However those rules are society's only valid means to determine right and wrong.
You're a little bit right, because it's an attitude that appeals to the same people who are drawn to the law. But now go back and read what I wrote again, especially this bit; "They want to make a big show of having a very insightful understanding of an issue, and weirdly enough it doesn't matter if they've gotten the most basic facts wrong". Once you get that, you realise this is an attitude that law schools and then firms will beat out of graduates, because it is going to go very badly when a clever pants young lawyer walks in to a court room with an attitude that he can look so clever by referencing arcane, obtusely connected case law, instead of just making sure he is fully across the most applicable case law and the facts of the case.
But of course, this isn't a courtroom, we aren't presenting before an adjudicator of facts & law. So that kind of nonsense is allowed to carry on without penalty.
Prestor Jon wrote: More importantly aside from Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby his movies weren’t even that good or memorable. Directing a movie staring Jack Nicholson doesn’t make Polanski a genius.
To be fair, Michael Bay still gets to direct movies, compared to his movies almost anyone is a genius
he gave me transformer toys for years to come, forgiven in my mind.
Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'.
We do get to say "innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant writes an autobiography where he argues that the child he had sex with wasn't unresponsive and that she denied not liking what he was doing". He doesn't deny having sex with a 14 year old, he denies drugging a 14 year old to have sex with her while she was unconscious.
I dont understand how we got farther than him admitting it in his autobiography tbh
This is the problem we keep coming back to: your disturbing insistence on acting as if there is any doubt about Polanski's guilt, that he might be innocent and we should give him the benefit of the doubt. That is . Polanski has willingly and publicly admitted to raping a child. Whether or not the court mishandled his case he is still a child rapist. The only question is if he is a child rapist who goes to prison, or a child rapist who flees the country and avoids extradition on a technicality rather than any genuine possibility that he might be innocent. There is exactly zero possibility that he is innocent, and zero reason to refrain from labeling him a child rapist. And it says rather awful things about your moral character that you keep insisting otherwise.
Whether or not you are triggered by the accusation in a case doesn't mean you get to shortcut away statutory rights, you don't get to shave off due process.
You're right. I don't get to ignore due process. I don't get to declare that Polanski gets the death sentence and personally execute him for his crimes, as would be appropriate for a child rapist who smugly insists that "everyone wants to do it". However, the fact that he is a child rapist does not depend on due process, it depends on the factual question of whether or not he raped a child. And there is zero doubt that he did. He has willingly and publicly admitted that he did. From that point forward due process only determines whether or not he pays the price for his crime.
Second, because I gave examples of mitigation and how deep trauma can be used as a limiter in a court, with examples from real legal cases. Whether a judge would accept Polanski's mental health is up to the judge, but a defence lawyer would certainly raise that point. It is also very very likely that the plea bargain Polanski's lawyers arranged included said mitigation, I cannot be 100% certain that it was so because plea bargain agreements are part confidential. However do do know for a flat fact that much of Polanski's plea bargain deal was regarding mandatory attendance at a psychiatric ward for 90 days. Polanski attended this from 19th December 1977. So his mental state was considered relevant to the authorities at the time.
Sorry, but the facts don't agree with you. So yes the Sharon Tate murder very likely had effects on his culpability evidenced by the facts of the case. That is by no means unusual and such mitigation is common principle.
This theory of yours does not seem very credible when Polanski himself has not used it as a defense. In his public confessions to raping a child he tried to excuse his actions with "she totally wanted it" and "everyone else wants to rape children too", trying to present himself as being persecuted unjustly for something that isn't a big deal. He did not use the defense that, following the murder of his wife, he was not in a mental state where he should be considered responsible for his actions. And he made this choice despite the fact that "I was temporarily insane with trauma" is a much more socially acceptable defense than "that slut wanted my " when talking about raping a child.
This is the problem we keep coming back to: your disturbing insistence on acting as if there is any doubt about Polanski's guilt, that he might be innocent and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am saying the due process has to be followed properly.
What we are coming back to is due process. It doesn't matter what you beleive to be true or with how much sureity, due process was fethed up.
There is exactly zero possibility that he is innocent, and zero reason to refrain from labeling him a child rapist.
Well he wasn't charged with child rape. I cannot tell at the top of my head when the US made legislation to make sex with a minor statutory rape. It may well be that like in the UK such legislation was passed in the 90's. Polanski committed his alleged offences in the 70's. You cannot backdate a law.
Times have changed and sex with a minor now is statutory rape pretty much everywhere, but society has evolved since the 70's. Hence Polanski's open comments about how 'everyone want to **** young girls'.
Also on research 'child rape' specifically refers to paedophilia, which is restricted to sex with a pre-pubsecent minor. Polanski was charged with unlawful sex with a minor in 1977 which is not actual child rape, and is specific to post pubescent cases.
So in legal actuallity your claim that Polanski is a definite child rapist is in fact legally wrong, slanderous even, unless you can point out additional victims who were pre-pubescent.
Again facts are not in your favour. You placed your chance of being wrong repeatedly at zero over multiple posts, yet you were in actuality wrong even with regards to your ex-judicial evidence. Funny that.
It's a good case in point as to why you need to let due process not mob rule make these determinations. I myself was also ignorant of the distinction or would have mentioned it earlier, but the distinction is very clear in US law.
And it says rather awful things about your moral character that you keep insisting otherwise.
Again you personalise this unfairly. I am standing up for due process regardless of the quality of the individual being charged as an inalienable right. I can hold my head high on that, it would instead by my shame if I considered that some individuals were beneath the protection of the law.
Whether or not you are triggered by the accusation in a case doesn't mean you get to shortcut away statutory rights, you don't get to shave off due process.
You're right. I don't get to ignore due process. I don't get to declare that Polanski gets the death sentence and personally execute him for his crimes, as would be appropriate for a child rapist who smugly insists that "everyone wants to do it". However, the fact that he is a child rapist does not depend on due process, it depends on the factual question of whether or not he raped a child. And there is zero doubt that he did. He has willingly and publicly admitted that he did. From that point forward due process only determines whether or not he pays the price for his crime.
Actually due process covers it all. The law also protects the individual against the label itself. Because it is the label that mandated the punishment.
And now we know that under the law Polanski in all likelihood never was a 'child rapist', unlike Nassar. It is just as well you are not judge jury and executioner.
This theory of yours does not seem very credible when Polanski himself has not used it as a defense. In his public confessions to raping a child he tried to excuse his actions with "she totally wanted it" and "everyone else wants to rape children too", trying to present himself as being persecuted unjustly for something that isn't a big deal.
Perhaps he didnt feel any need to, it might not be relevant to his narrative. Also if he is mentally ill as a result of trauma he might not be entirely savvy about it. He might consider he is 'over' his trauma but a trained psychiatrist considers otherwise. Most forms of deep mental illness are masked from the sufferer's ability for self assessment.
In fact not mentioning his trauma was helpful, if he did the opposite and mentioned it as an excuse it is more likely a sign that he is using as an excuse to avoid culpability rather than genuinely mentally ill. That happens a lot and psychiatric assessors are wary of it.
It was very likely relevant to the defence counsels narrative during plea bargaining and during sentencing hearings. It can in some cases, mitigate even the concept of guilt though diminished responsibility.
Though the latter isn't the case here as if the defence counsel had tried that ploy Polanski would have had the charges commuted entirely, but would have indefinite restriction to a mental hospital (though once deemed cured enough to not be a danger a court mandated patient is free to leave and is considered innocent)
when He did not use the defense that, following the murder of his wife, he was not in a mental state where he should be considered responsible for his actions.
You dont know that, and as he was to attend mandatory psychiatric assessment this was seen as a possibility by the legal authorities at the time. I take their expertise over yours.
From now on I will always refer to Assad as an alleged mass murderer and monster untill the ICC convicts him.
I see a new error. That latter is political. I covered this earlier in the thread.
Here is a summary
Due process is needed because the individual is at the mercy of the state.
International politics is different. Assad is not a crook from the 'burbs that the local police can haul down to the pen and potentially deny the rights of.
Should he no longer be in power then this status is reversed.
This is why it was fine to accuse Serbian leaders of mass murder while they were in power as political commentary, or even for government action.
But when they were deposed the accusations needed to be proven in an international court of law. Some of those cases are still ongoing some twenty years after the Balkan wars.
From now on I will always refer to Assad as an alleged mass murderer and monster untill the ICC convicts him.
I see a new error. That latter is political. I covered this earlier in the thread.
Here is a summary
Due process is needed because the individual is at the mercy of the state.
International politics is different. Assad is not a crook from the 'burbs that the local police can haul down to the pen and potentially deny the rights of.
Should he no longer be in power then this status is reversed.
This is why it was fine to accuse Serbian leaders of mass murder while they were in power as political commentary, or even for government action.
But when they were deposed the accusations needed to be proven in an international court of law. Some of those cases are still ongoing some twenty years after the Balkan wars.
This is completely arbitrary. Once Assad is in front of the ICC, he is an individual at the mercy of the ICC. The ICC has due process and an innocent until guilty approach as well. So labelling him now is just as wrong in your innocent until guilty approach. You just made an arbitrary distinction between political and legal, while not accepting the label for Polanski because it can only be legal in your mind.
You can't label someone politically to be a mass murderer like Assad and then immediately switch to him not being a mass murderer when he goes on trial. Obvious bias has already been inserted, it is no longer due process. For your version of the legal process to have any shred of impartiality and logic, you can't label anyone before they have been convicted.
You quite fastidiously dance around the fact that Polanski himself has admitted to the act. You have wasted pages and pages defending a man from a crime that HE HIMSELF has copped to.
So labelling him now is just as wrong in your innocent until guilty approach. You just made an arbitrary distinction between political and legal, while not accepting the label for Polanski because it can only be legal in your mind.
Polanski is leader of which army, which terror network, which nation?
You can't label someone politically to be a mass murderer like Assad and then immediately switch to him not being a mass murderer when he goes on trial. Obvious bias has already been inserted, it is no longer due process. For your version of the legal process to have any shred of impartiality and logic, you can't label anyone before they have been convicted.
Welcome to reality. Political cases are different, due process is modified to fit the larger narrative. At Nuremberg the offences the Nazis were tried under were not listed offences at the time of the crimes.
However most of due process remained, Nazis got lawyers, Nazis got trials, those Nazis for home guilt could not be proven were aquitted. A small number of people walked away from the Nuremberg dock.
You quite fastidiously dance around the fact that Polanski himself has admitted to the act. You have wasted pages and pages defending a man from a crime that HE HIMSELF has copped to.
In Orlanth mind, child rapist (or any other designation linked to crime like murderer or thief), is some sort of "official legal title" that can only be given to individual convicted after a fair trial of hte crime it relates to. He protest the usage of the term to describes an individual who recognised his guilt, but hasn't been condamned yet. He also refuses the usage of that title by an individual who simply believes a person to be guilty of such a crime even if that person has no power (or intention) to imprisonned or otherwise threaten the person accused of being a rapist. I personnaly think that Polansky is a child rapist and I believed so largely thanks to the fact he admitted to have sex with a barely pubescent girl who reported it as such. Then again, I aslo believed that Cosby was a rapist before the conviction. I believed so due to the enormous number of women who reported to have been raped by him in very similar circomstances. I sometime call people thugs even if they haven't been found guilty of a violent crime before a court or bully even if they never have been convicted by a court of using violence or threat of violence to coerce people. How a qualify people is a reflection of my opinion of themselves and I will treat them accordingly, but will respect the verdict of the courts (though Im ight protest them in a legal fashion) and certainly never attempt to carry "justice" by myself.
You quite fastidiously dance around the fact that Polanski himself has admitted to the act. You have wasted pages and pages defending a man from a crime that HE HIMSELF has copped to.
Just as well that I did. As some have mislabelled the alleged offences into a separate more serious category than the actually listed alleged offences. Lucky I only said alleged out of adherence to legal principle and found the legal principle valid in practice as well as theory.
Go by the ethos of the law and you can't go wrong.
I did right here.
The judge did not in 1977. He held private judicial meetings with prosecution counsel, creating a miscarriage of justice. Polanski fled and is not extraditable in practicality.
Others here did not when they mislabelled Polanski's offences, are you amongst them?
So labelling him now is just as wrong in your innocent until guilty approach. You just made an arbitrary distinction between political and legal, while not accepting the label for Polanski because it can only be legal in your mind.
Polanski is leader of which army, which terror network, which nation?
I'm sorry, Assad is leader of which army, nation or terror network once he is at the mercy of the ICC? I'm fairly sure you said I was correct when he would be an individual then. Do try to keep up with your own logic.
You can't label someone politically to be a mass murderer like Assad and then immediately switch to him not being a mass murderer when he goes on trial. Obvious bias has already been inserted, it is no longer due process. For your version of the legal process to have any shred of impartiality and logic, you can't label anyone before they have been convicted.
Welcome to reality. Political cases are different, due process is modified to fit the larger narrative. At Nuremberg the offences the Nazis were tried under were not listed offences at the time of the crimes.
However most of due process remained, Nazis got lawyers, Nazis got trials, those Nazis for home guilt could not be proven were aquitted. A small number of people walked away from the Nuremberg dock.
Again, welcome to your reality. You have basically created two arbitrary label standards in your head. The second political figures lose power it would be wrong by your logic to label them as anything they haven't been convicted of. Even if they potentially could never be put on trial in the first place. Josef Mengele, completely innocent, man did nothing wrong and its wrong to label him a butcher by your standards, as he never had a trial.
So labelling him now is just as wrong in your innocent until guilty approach. You just made an arbitrary distinction between political and legal, while not accepting the label for Polanski because it can only be legal in your mind.
Polanski is leader of which army, which terror network, which nation?
I'm sorry, Assad is leader of which army, nation or terror network once he is at the mercy of the ICC? I'm fairly sure you said I was correct when he would be an individual then. Do try to keep up with your own logic.
Reread carefully then you will hopefully understand.
You can't label someone politically to be a mass murderer like Assad and then immediately switch to him not being a mass murderer when he goes on trial. Obvious bias has already been inserted, it is no longer due process. For your version of the legal process to have any shred of impartiality and logic, you can't label anyone before they have been convicted.
Welcome to reality. Political cases are different, due process is modified to fit the larger narrative. At Nuremberg the offences the Nazis were tried under were not listed offences at the time of the crimes.
However most of due process remained, Nazis got lawyers, Nazis got trials, those Nazis for home guilt could not be proven were aquitted. A small number of people walked away from the Nuremberg dock.
Again, welcome to your reality. You have basically created two arbitrary label standards in your head. The second political figures lose power it would be wrong by your logic to label them as anything they haven't been convicted of. Even if they potentially could never be put on trial in the first place. Josef Mengele, completely innocent, man did nothing wrong and its wrong to label him a butcher by your standards, as he never had a trial.
Yes they are arbitrary but they are global political arbitrary. Hence: welcome to reality.
First I must assume you have heard of innocent until proven guilty, and due process and have a vague idea how they work.
Now second add that to accusations against War criminals sans due process, that works too, because we see evidence of it happening.
Add the two together, its not hard, and you will see there is a distinction between the judicial process and the political process.
However once stripped of power errant leader are dealt with according to the standards of the judicial process. As evidenced by the Hague courts.
As for Mengele, there are political records of him, so he was sought. He evaded justice for the rest of his life.
When Eichmann was kidnapped by Mossad he was interrogated. He wasn't initially just shipped off to Israel, prior to this the interrogation was set to determine if they had got the wrong guy or not. The interviewer was at the point of determining that it was an error and releasing him when he made a slip.
However you cut it, it shows the wide girth in real world handling between a political case such as Assad or Gaddafi, and a criminal case such as Polanksi or Cosby.
So labelling him now is just as wrong in your innocent until guilty approach. You just made an arbitrary distinction between political and legal, while not accepting the label for Polanski because it can only be legal in your mind.
Polanski is leader of which army, which terror network, which nation?
I'm sorry, Assad is leader of which army, nation or terror network once he is at the mercy of the ICC? I'm fairly sure you said I was correct when he would be an individual then. Do try to keep up with your own logic.
Reread carefully then you will hopefully understand.
You can't label someone politically to be a mass murderer like Assad and then immediately switch to him not being a mass murderer when he goes on trial. Obvious bias has already been inserted, it is no longer due process. For your version of the legal process to have any shred of impartiality and logic, you can't label anyone before they have been convicted.
Welcome to reality. Political cases are different, due process is modified to fit the larger narrative. At Nuremberg the offences the Nazis were tried under were not listed offences at the time of the crimes.
However most of due process remained, Nazis got lawyers, Nazis got trials, those Nazis for home guilt could not be proven were aquitted. A small number of people walked away from the Nuremberg dock.
Again, welcome to your reality. You have basically created two arbitrary label standards in your head. The second political figures lose power it would be wrong by your logic to label them as anything they haven't been convicted of. Even if they potentially could never be put on trial in the first place. Josef Mengele, completely innocent, man did nothing wrong and its wrong to label him a butcher by your standards, as he never had a trial.
Yes they are arbitrary but they are global political arbitrary. Hence: welcome to reality.
First I must assume you have heard of innocent until proven guilty, and due process and have a vague idea how they work.
Now second add that to accusations against War criminals sans due process, that works too, because we see evidence of it happening.
Add the two together, its not hard, and you will see there is a distinction between the judicial process and the political process.
However once stripped of power errant leader are dealt with according to the standards of the judicial process. As evidenced by the Hague courts.
As for Mengele, there are political records of him, so he was sought. He evaded justice for the rest of his life.
When Eichmann was kidnapped by Mossad he was interrogated. He wasn't initially just shipped off to Israel, prior to this the interrogation was set to determine if they had got the wrong guy or not. The interviewer was at the point of determining that it was an error and releasing him when he made a slip.
However you cut it, it shows the wide girth in real world handling between a political case such as Assad or Gaddafi, and a criminal case such as Polanksi or Cosby.
They aren't arbitrary though. Historically we can apply the label of rapist or murderer regardless of trial. Society wise we can though. You're the only one trying to argue that there is only a legal standard to applying labels, hence arbitrary.
Political records of Mengele? What would you even call political records. Again another arbitrary definition so you can keep to your arbitrary boxes. Mengele never went on trial and held no political power, hence by your standards we can't label him even if we fled. Which technically Polanski did too, he fled before actual sentencing. So why is it ok to label one person on the run and not the other. I assume it is how you view each person placed in history more than your reverence for the law. Or what of a regular soldier who held no political power, is that criminal or political?
As for Eichman, that wasn't the only reason they interrogated him beforehand. Sure they wanted to have the right guy, but more importantly Eichman might give up others, such as Mengele, which was the primary reason they stayed in Argentina for am extended period.
Again, you make an arbitrary distinction between political and criminal when they can easily overlap. Insisting without merit that you can label the one but not the other.
So labelling him now is just as wrong in your innocent until guilty approach. You just made an arbitrary distinction between political and legal, while not accepting the label for Polanski because it can only be legal in your mind.
Polanski is leader of which army, which terror network, which nation?
I'm sorry, Assad is leader of which army, nation or terror network once he is at the mercy of the ICC? I'm fairly sure you said I was correct when he would be an individual then. Do try to keep up with your own logic.
Reread carefully then you will hopefully understand.
Don't worry, I have.
Evidently not or you would have seen how your comment was redundant. I dont have to 'keep up with my own logic' the point that a former dictator or equivalent changes status when they are out of power was a core part of distinction, it isn't a loophole, its a process. Examples were given also, such as how action was taken against Serb leaders while there were in office, post office they were treated like regular criminals and due process was applied.
They aren't arbitrary though. Historically we can apply the label of rapist or murderer regardless of trial. Society wise we can though. You're the only one trying to argue that there is only a legal standard to applying labels, hence arbitrary.
Actually no you cant, you can only allege. This is true enough that even the media obey it.
just as well as you might make the mistake Peregrine made. Being 100% sure of someones guilt of a specific crime, then find out he is in fact wrong.
Society alleges and alleges only prior to a lawful trial.
Political records of Mengele? What would you even call political records. Again another arbitrary definition so you can keep to your arbitrary boxes.
I want to welcome you to reality, but you seem averse.
These are not my arbitrary boxes, they are political reality, with historic examples given. Get a grip on reality.
Mengele was a political case, his extradition was a political, but he and Eichmann were protected by Brazil and Argentina respectively. Eichmann had to be extracted via covert action, a political not judicial process, though in fairness to Mossad they went to some lengths to make sure they got the right guy. They knew they had caught a Nazi but they needed the right Nazi.
it is fairly clear that is Mossad could extract Mengele they would have done so.
Mengele never went on trial and held no political power, hence by your standards we can't label him even if we fled.
Holocaust survivor evidence is seen a a different category than common crime. You should know this. Even so due process was utilised to a) get the right guy and b) to give an open and transparent trial.
Mengele never got that far, but Eichman did.
Had Mengele been caught he would have certainly faced open trial, not expudicious justice. The if was the lack of a defendant.
Which technically Polanski did too, he fled before actual sentencing. So why is it ok to label one person on the run and not the other. I assume it is how you view each person placed in history more than your reverence for the law. Or what of a regular soldier who held no political power, is that criminal or political?
That depends, if it is Holocaust related most certainly political. It might be political with regards to excesses in war. Different nations show different values. New Labour sent British soldiers into impossible situations then hang them out to dry if errors were made. The US didnt make that mistake.
As for Eichman, that wasn't the only reason they interrogated him beforehand. Sure they wanted to have the right guy, but more importantly Eichman might give up others, such as Mengele, which was the primary reason they stayed in Argentina for am extended period.
While it would be nice to ask, Eichmann likely wouldn't know. Ranking Nazis separated themselves for their own protection.
Again, you make an arbitrary distinction between political and criminal when they can easily overlap. Insisting without merit that you can label the one but not the other.
When you start dodging the most basic questions on your definition of political power or the interconnection of the political and criminal to avoid beeing seen as wrong I think were done here.
Also yes we can as historians. I mean Mengele never went on trial and for all your "the Holocaust is political" we only look at the evidence and sources. Hence Mengele being a monster and Polanski admitting to raping a child in all but name. And Eichman got by your definition an unfair trial because the law wasn't followed, which is all we have when considering ethics by your argument. What happened to Eichman is immoral by your own previous arguments, yet here you are arguing he got an open and transperent trial while how he ended up there was illegal by legal standards.. The law has very little grip on history as the law as it currently stands has not existed for the majority of human history. Yet we use labels such as rape or murder without puting allegedly in front of it.
I know you will deny and twist words about the difference between politics and criminal like they are somehow neatly seperated. But I think I'm done arguing with rethorical tricks in the face of common sense and practice when you're the one arguing to live in a reality where Polanski is somehow not a rapist.
Orlanth wrote: just as well as you might make the mistake Peregrine made. Being 100% sure of someones guilt of a specific crime, then find out he is in fact wrong.
There you go again with the apologism for a confessed child rapist. I am not wrong about his guilt, because he has admitted to raping a child. I have no idea why you keep suggesting that he might be innocent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: I am saying the due process has to be followed properly.
Only for a criminal conviction. No such due process is required to label him a child rapist, not when he has willingly confessed to raping a child.
I cannot tell at the top of my head when the US made legislation to make sex with a minor statutory rape. It may well be that like in the UK such legislation was passed in the 90's. Polanski committed his alleged offences in the 70's. You cannot backdate a law.
One would think that, before engaging in apologism for a confessed child rapist, you would look up important facts like this. California's statutory rape law was passed in 1970. Polanski is, by his own confession, guilty of the crime.
Times have changed and sex with a minor now is statutory rape pretty much everywhere, but society has evolved since the 70's. Hence Polanski's open comments about how 'everyone want to **** young girls'.
Ah yes, more apologism for a confessed child rapist. Now it's "times have changed", what's next? "Look how short her skirt was"? Raping a 13 year old was wrong when Polanski did it, and it's still wrong. Polanski's comments about "everyone wants to do it" just demonstrate that he has no remorse for his actions and should never have been given a plea bargain.
Also on research 'child rape' specifically refers to paedophilia, which is restricted to sex with a pre-pubsecent minor. Polanski was charged with unlawful sex with a minor in 1977 which is not actual child rape, and is specific to post pubescent cases.
So in legal actuallity your claim that Polanski is a definite child rapist is in fact legally wrong, slanderous even, unless you can point out additional victims who were pre-pubescent.
Yep, more apologism for a confessed child rapist. Regardless of your attempts to nitpick the definition of "child" and deny that the victim counts as a "child" a 13 year old is a child. Raping a 13 year old is raping a child. Polanksi, by his own confession, did exactly that. Therefore, no matter how much you want to deny it, Polanski is a child rapist. It is not slander to point out the facts that Polanski has willingly admitted to be true.
I think some of the "the me too movement is going too far and could trivialise actual reports of rape" crowd of hand wringers are going "wow" at how this thread turned out. The dude raped someone and now we can't call him a rapist… why exactly? That's just completely absurd.
Disciple of Fate wrote: When you start dodging the most basic questions on your definition of political power or the interconnection of the political and criminal to avoid beeing seen as wrong I think were done here.
I dodged nothing. Everything was explained in a logical sequence.
You are trying to get away with a deductio ad absurdem fallacy. You think that the legal rights surrounding a case like Polanski somehow fall apart because labels without trial were used in the cases of Hitler, Stalin or Assad.
This is for a start fairly offensive to some to compare a dictator's crimes to individual crimes, but we will let that slide because I wasn't triggered by it. Instead I gave examples from reality of how it works.
Yes when dictators do bad things labels are added without due process, wheras for a common criminal due process is required to lawfully apply the label, and until that time the crimes an only be alleged. This isnt my loophole, arguably it isn't even a loophole at all because realpolitik and law are two distinctive things.
Still you try and wriggles as if to catch me out, in 'my' standards when I am actually only reflecting those of lawful society on one hand and international politics on the other.
IOW, "it works differently because I don't want to admit the problems with my position" handwaving. If due process must be followed before labeling someone a murderer/rapist/etc, no matter how clear the evidence against them is or how many times they confess to committing the crime, then you don't get to ignore due process just because it's someone that you want to assign a label to.
Orlanth wrote: just as well as you might make the mistake Peregrine made. Being 100% sure of someones guilt of a specific crime, then find out he is in fact wrong.
There you go again with the apologism for a confessed child rapist. I am not wrong about his guilt, because he has admitted to raping a child. I have no idea why you keep suggesting that he might be innocent.
So you are doubling down on your error again Peregrine. A 'child rapist' refers in law and in actuality to pre-pubescent cases. This should in retrospect be a fairly obvious distinction as cultural age of consent factors vary in different societies.
It is a crime to have sex with someone below the age of consent, but that isn't 'child rape'. It isn't child rape under law, or in reality. It is still wrong mind you but not quite as serious form of wrong.
Having sex with a fourteen year old is bad enough, but it isn't like a ten year old of a six year old, which is where the 'child rape' label belongs.
in your mind perhaps there is no distinction between murder and manslaughter, or grand larceny and petty theft. You do not determine societies rules, the law does. Age of consent is tiered in US law and Polanski was charged with a tier that is not categorised as child rape due to the age of the victim.
One would think that, before engaging in apologism for a confessed child rapist, you would look up important facts like this. California's statutory rape law was passed in 1970. Polanski is, by his own confession, guilty of the crime.
I don't know everything, I know enough to follow the law: to allege rather than be sure and to keep due process firmly in mind regardless of the nature of the defendant. get that bit right and you dont need to know the full details, as I am leaving judicial labels to the appropriate professionals and setting.
Anyway he was charged with unlawful sex with a minor, which covers puberty to the age of 18, this is covered under 'statutory rape' law. One can be charged with rape alongside unlawful sex with a minor if the court determines the case to also be an actual rape as well as a statutory rape (which specifically means the person is under the age to give consent legally). The victim themselves did not want charges pressed as rape and asked for clemency. This is a different category to child rape, which covers acts prior to puberty and for which no mitigation is possible with regards to he outlook of the victim.
It is still pretty unpleasant stuff, but it isn't what you label it as, no matter how much you are triggered. The law formally determined this matter, and could have tried Polanski with a count of rape alongside a count of unlawful sex with a minor, but decided not to. Therefore you should consider the same face up recorded facts when mouthing off.
Ah yes, more apologism for a confessed child rapist. Now it's "times have changed", what's next? "Look how short her skirt was"? Raping a 13 year old was wrong when Polanski did it, and it's still wrong. Polanski's comments about "everyone wants to do it" just demonstrate that he has no remorse for his actions and should never have been given a plea bargain.
Julius Caesar married a 12 year old. Times do change.
Times change recently too. 'No means no' being a good example, if someone consented and later withdrew consent and the partner was 'too carried away' that was mitigation, now it is not. That change occurred only recently and requires a societal change.
Polanski's comments about "everyone wants to do it" just demonstrate that he was in all likelihood genuinely mentally ill at the time. That is very reasonable cause for a plea bargain and judicial mitigation. Mental illness usually is, and again that is determined by legal professionals during the legal process, not by an ignorant internet hate mob.
Polanski was treated very leniently, but as psychiatric assessment was at the core of the plea bargain agreement it is highly likely that he was mentally ill at the time of the offences to some degree or other. His later comments only cement that. A cold remorseless offender would have tried to hide behind denials instead.
Yep, more apologism for a confessed child rapist. Regardless of your attempts to nitpick the definition of "child" and deny that the victim counts as a "child" a 13 year old is a child. Raping a 13 year old is raping a child. Polanksi, by his own confession, did exactly that. Therefore, no matter how much you want to deny it, Polanski is a child rapist. It is not slander to point out the facts that Polanski has willingly admitted to be true.
Following the law is not nit picking, it is following the law. Not following the law, well it's just plain wrong. I don't make the rules they just are. This is why we rely on due process to determine legal reality, not internet hate mobs.
Under law Polanski is not a 'child rapist', he is alleged to have committed unlawful sex with a minor, and he later accepted that under plea bargain. Which can be as different from child rape as murder is from manslaughter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: IOW, "it works differently because I don't want to admit the problems with my position" handwaving. If due process must be followed before labeling someone a murderer/rapist/etc, no matter how clear the evidence against them is or how many times they confess to committing the crime, then you don't get to ignore due process just because it's someone that you want to assign a label to.
If you cant tell the difference between a dictator like Adolf Hitler and Roman Polanski then there is no reasoning with you. Disciple of Fate is trying to link an excuse to abandon due process with Polanski because it was not applied to labelling Hitler, Stalin or Assad. That is a reductio ad absurdem fallacy argument. Do not add to it.
Orlanth wrote: So you are doubling down on your error again Peregrine. A 'child rapist' refers in law and in actuality to pre-pubescent cases. This should in retrospect be a fairly obvious distinction as cultural age of consent factors vary in different societies.
It is a crime to have sex with someone below the age of consent, but that isn't 'child rape'. It isn't child rape under law, or in reality. It is still wrong mind you but not quite as serious form of wrong.
Having sex with a fourteen year old is bad enough, but it isn't like a ten year old of a six year old, which is where the 'child rape' label belongs.
There you go again with the apologism for a confessed child rapist. Why are you so stubbornly determined to argue that it isn't really that bad, based on nitpicking the exact legal definition? Polanski raped a child, period. There is no dispute over the facts of the case. That makes him a child rapist.
Age of consent is tiered in US law and Polanski was charged with a tier that is not categorised as child rape due to the age of the victim.
Only because he got an incredibly generous plea bargain. There is no dispute that he is guilty of raping a child, and that he could have been charged with (and, by his own confession, convicted of) that crime. It's like looking at Al Capone's conviction for tax evasion and concluding that this must be the only crime he was guilty of, because otherwise he would have been charged with something more serious.
Polanski's comments about "everyone wants to do it" just demonstrate that he was in all likelihood genuinely mentally ill at the time.
Wait, I thought times change and that was just the common attitude of the time? Now it's a sign of mental illness? Can't you even keep a straight story in your apologism for a confessed child rapist?
A cold remorseless offender would have tried to hide behind denials instead.
What makes you think that he isn't hiding behind denials? He may admit to the crime, but he denies that it's a big deal and that he should have been punished for it. "I did it, but she was totally asking for it" is no less of a denial than "I didn't do it". In fact, it shows even less remorse. A person claiming complete innocence may actually believe, rightly or wrongly, that they didn't do anything and therefore have nothing to feel remorse about. Polanski, on the other hand, admits that he raped a child but doesn't think that raping a child is something that anyone, himself included, should care about.
Following the law is not nit picking, it is following the law. Not following the law, well it's just plain wrong. I don't make the rules they just are. This is why we rely on due process to determine legal reality, not internet hate mobs.
Under law Polanski is not a 'child rapist', he is alleged to have committed unlawful sex with a minor. Which can be as different from child rape as murder is from manslaughter.
And, again, dakka is not a court. No law obligates me to wait for a criminal conviction in court before labeling Polanski a child rapist. His freely given confession to raping a child is sufficient grounds for that label. The fact that he escaped conviction on a technicality and generous extradition policy does not eliminate his guilt. He is a confessed child rapist who escaped punishment for the crime he is indisputably guilty of.
If you cant tell the difference between a dictator like Adolf Hitler and Roman Polanski then there is no reasoning with you. Disciple of Fate is trying to link an excuse to abandon due process with Polanski because it was not applied to labelling Hitler, Stalin or Assad. That is a reductio ad absurdem fallacy argument. Do not add to it.
Of course there is a difference in their crimes. But you can not say "due process must always apply" and then immediately declare that due process doesn't apply as soon as you want to give a proper label to Hitler. If due process is not required before labeling someone a murderer/rapist/etc, as one might want to do with Hitler, then you can't claim due process as an absolute.
Orlanth wrote: So you are doubling down on your error again Peregrine. A 'child rapist' refers in law and in actuality to pre-pubescent cases. This should in retrospect be a fairly obvious distinction as cultural age of consent factors vary in different societies.
It is a crime to have sex with someone below the age of consent, but that isn't 'child rape'. It isn't child rape under law, or in reality. It is still wrong mind you but not quite as serious form of wrong.
Having sex with a fourteen year old is bad enough, but it isn't like a ten year old of a six year old, which is where the 'child rape' label belongs.
There you go again with the apologism for a confessed child rapist. Why are you so stubbornly determined to argue that it isn't really that bad, based on nitpicking the exact legal definition? Polanski raped a child, period. There is no dispute over the facts of the case. That makes him a child rapist.
Following the standards of law and due process isn't nit picking, its is being legally right, rather than legally wrong. QED.
Orlanth wrote: Following the standards of law and due process isn't nit picking, its is being legally right, rather than legally wrong. QED.
The standards of law and due process apply to the State of California imprisoning Polanski for an appropriate length of time after he is convicted of child rape. They do not apply to me, a private citizen, stating the indisputable fact that Polanski is a child rapist. He has confessed to raping a child, that is the end of it. The label fits even if the State of California botched the handling of his case and allowed him to escape punishment.
Orlanth wrote: Go by the ethos of the law and you can't go wrong.
I'd say a child rapist successfully avoiding going to jail is pretty much against the ethos of the law.
Going by the ethos of the law is always going to be legal, but that doesn't mean it's going to be just, fair or even the ellusive concept that is "good". The worst form of opression is that which comes from the law. The law is like any other system. It deserves some criticism and, under no circomstances, blind obediance. Blind obediance to the principle of the law will inevitably result in injustice.
Orlanth wrote: Following the standards of law and due process isn't nit picking, its is being legally right, rather than legally wrong. QED.
The standards of law and due process apply to the State of California imprisoning Polanski for an appropriate length of time after he is convicted of child rape. They do not apply to me, a private citizen, stating the indisputable fact that Polanski is a child rapist. He has confessed to raping a child, that is the end of it. The label fits even if the State of California botched the handling of his case and allowed him to escape punishment.
However your 'indisputable fact' is entirely wrong. You do not gave carte blanche to upgrade a legal case to a chatge of your choosing because you are triggered. That is not how it works.
You certainly don't use the type of case to attack someone who advocates for the due process to be applied impartially.
This is important. Underage sex causes societal triggers and these lead to all manner of miscarriage of justice. This case is a good example because of the potentially well meaning but legally unethical decision to hold sentencing decision making sessions between the trial judge and prosecutor without access to defence counsel. Triggered people helped Polanski walk away by making him un-extraditable through a recorded miscarriage of justice.
However i could go beyond that. have kept my argument to Polanski's case and general legal ethics alone, however there is good cause to defend cases like this simply because society does not. It is all too easy to defend cases on prior merit, veteran with PTSD gets short justice, raise a popular petition to show them mercy etc. However people are naturally understandably averse to cases of underage sex, and while I can understand that, I can understand why one ought not to pre-judge or to extend a case to bounds it does not lawfully belong because the actual legal case doesn't have a ring to it like the upgraded label does.
You may not know of cases in the UK recently where labels of underage sex have damaged people immorally and unfairly. The case of Sir Cliff Richard springs to mind. Sir Cliff is an easy example because it was a matter of press intrusion and prejudice of what came out to be an innocent man. However there is a link between an accusation of an innocent man and an upgraded accusation against a man who was charged with a lesser crime.
In the latter there is a far better and scarier example.
Have you heard of Operation Ore known in the US as Operation Avalanche? This involved a sting operation involving child porn. It had international ramifications and the consequences below occured in the US Uk and elsewhere. The FBI set up a trap website with regular porn which also included some images of child porn. Because the US government is reluctant to handle child porn itself the number of images shown was limited, were vague and occupied a tiny subsection of the website. The sting operation then went on to track those who used the site especially though who subscribed.
There were a number of victims targeted, and I use the word victim because of the nature of the operation. There was so little child porn on the site and it was so ambiguous that most users claimed they didn't see it. Others downloaded it in error as part of a batch download of regular porn. Now these users were labelled as paedophiles even though the majority never saw any child porn and were not looking for it. They were caught on a technicality by the vaguaries of the website. It took a long time to clear their names, some committed suicide from the public shaming. I do not know where you would stand on this. Technically anyone who downloaded the one or two child porn images was guilty of downloading child porn, this meant they were paedophiles, had to sign the sex offenders register etc, culpability ballooned beyond what it actually was, and the public didn't care.
Worse yet were those whose credit card details had been stolen to use to pay for access to the site. Many were unable to clear their names even after they were able to prove identity theft, and again this led to a number of suicides. A police chief in the UK was quoted as saying 'the ends justified the means' when looking at the recorded suicides, of both guilty and innocent downloaders and those who were victims of identity theft because some genuine paedophiles were identified during the process.
This highlights why one should not extra-legally upgrade an accusation beyond what the law does, one should not discount the possibility of mitigating circumstances, and one should also not label those who advocate for legal ethics for defendants of taboo crime cases. The latter is just a witch hunt. Witch hunts occur not so much from the accusation itself but because the taboo surrounding the accusation makes those who advocate for ethical and fair treatment secondary targets. i.e if you raise and defence against mistreatment or mislabelling of a witch/communist/heretic you must also be guilty. This is alarming, but it wont stop me.
I am NOT an apologist for child rape, I am an apologist for fair treatment under the law without requirement of merit.
Orlanth wrote: However your 'indisputable fact' is entirely wrong.
Nope. Polanski willingly and openly confessed to raping a child. Or are you going to nitpick the term "indisputable" by posting some tinfoil hat theory about how he didn't really confess to it? Must have been the mind control in the chemtrails making him put it in his autobiography.
You may not know of cases in the UK recently where labels of underage sex have damaged people immorally and unfairly.
Polanski is not innocent, period. He confessed to the crime. Comparing him to someone who was actually innocent, as if Polanski might be in a similar situation, is blatant apologism for a confessed child rapist.
Have you heard of Operation Ore known in the US as Operation Avalanche. This involved a sting operation involving child porn. The FBI set up a trap website with regular porn which also included some images of child porn. Because the Us government is reluctant to handle child porn itself the number of images shown was limited and a tiny subsection of the site. The sting operation then went on to track those who used the site especially though who subscribed.
There were a number of victims targeted, and I use the word victim because of the nature of the operation. There was so little child porn on the site and it was so ambiguous that most users claimed they didn't see it. Others downloaded it in error as part of a batch download of regular porn. Now these users were labelled as paedophiles even though the majority never saw any child porn and were not looking for it. They were caught on a technicality by the vaguaries of the website. It took a long time to clear their names, some committed suicide from the public shaming. I do not know where you would stand on this. Technically anyone who downloaded the one or two child porn images was guilty of downloading child porn, this by popular definition meant they were paedophiles, culpability ballooned beyond what it was, and the public didn't care.
JFC your apologism and attempts to distort the situation are getting ridiculous. This example is entrapment and morally objectionable because it was an attempt to trick people into viewing/downloading illegal content by hiding it in with legal material. There is legitimate doubt about their guilt because it is plausible that they came to view legal pornography and didn't realize that there was something illegal hidden in the background. This is not in any way true of Polanski's case. Nobody tricked him into doing something illegal. He wasn't having sex with a 30 year old when a 13 year old took her place for a few seconds without his consent. He made the deliberate decision to rape a 13 year old, and freely confessed to doing so.
This highlights why one should not extra-legally upgrade an accusation beyond what the law does
Polanski is not merely the subject of an accusation. He has freely and openly confessed to raping a child. There is no obligation to pretend that the facts of the case are not true just because one particular court botched their handling of it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: When you start dodging the most basic questions on your definition of political power or the interconnection of the political and criminal to avoid beeing seen as wrong I think were done here.
I dodged nothing. Everything was explained in a logical sequence.
You are trying to get away with a deductio ad absurdem fallacy. You think that the legal rights surrounding a case like Polanski somehow fall apart because labels without trial were used in the cases of Hitler, Stalin or Assad.
This is for a start fairly offensive to some to compare a dictator's crimes to individual crimes, but we will let that slide because I wasn't triggered by it. Instead I gave examples from reality of how it works.
Yes when dictators do bad things labels are added without due process, wheras for a common criminal due process is required to lawfully apply the label, and until that time the crimes an only be alleged. This isnt my loophole, arguably it isn't even a loophole at all because realpolitik and law are two distinctive things.
Still you try and wriggles as if to catch me out, in 'my' standards when I am actually only reflecting those of lawful society on one hand and international politics on the other.
You explained nothing. Not what political records are, not what happens when the political and criminal overlap. Instead of accusing me of the absurd argument you should ask yourself why you keep returning to the example of Hitler or Assad. Because they are a lot easier to handwave away then say a regular soldier or Mengele. You handwave responsibility away by saying political once it goes across borders, while ignoring criminal cases can cross borders too. The fact that you adress nothing instead of continuing to handwave lawful society and international politics as neatly seperated says more than enough. Hence you handwaving away the Holocaust as political when it has plenty of criminal elements to it.
If you cant tell the difference between a dictator like Adolf Hitler and Roman Polanski then there is no reasoning with you. Disciple of Fate is trying to link an excuse to abandon due process with Polanski because it was not applied to labelling Hitler, Stalin or Assad. That is a reductio ad absurdem fallacy argument. Do not add to it.
Instead of misrepresenting me not knowing the difference maybe adress the fact that you should find the Eichman trial immoral pr that you can't call Mengele a monster by your standards? I know, handwave to political again.
History is filled with labels without due process. If every history book written included the 'alledgedly' word you couldn't read two pages before getting annoyed. Trials are not the only way to determine right or wrong when we have evidence or personal admittance.
. Polanski has willingly and publicly admitted to raping a child. Whether or not the court mishandled his case he is still a child rapist. The only question is if he is a child rapist who goes to prison, or a child rapist who flees the country and avoids extradition on a technicality rather than any genuine possibility that he might be innocent. There is exactly zero possibility that he is innocent, and zero reason to refrain from labeling him a child rapist. And it says rather awful things about your moral character that you keep insisting otherwise.