Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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We can see this is true because pleas can be withdrawn, you cant voluntarily withdraw a conviction, that requires a pardon.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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

And this is exactly the problem! Polanski is absolutely, indisputably guilty. He has freely admitted that he raped the child in question.

Except that wasn't what he was charged with. you have to go with the LAW not wishful thinking.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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

I have seen the error of my ways. From now on I will always refer to Assad as an alleged mass murderer and monster untill the ICC convicts him.

 Orlanth wrote:
Alleged child rapist.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Alleged child rapist.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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)

 Peregrine wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have seen the error of my ways.

Good

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:
SNIP

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This is completely arbitrary.

Welcome to political reality.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

Correct.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 feeder wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
SNIP

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.

 feeder wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
SNIP

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?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This is completely arbitrary.

Welcome to political reality.

No, welcome to your reality.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

Correct.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

No, reality does. I just live here.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.