It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by orderedchaos
Firstly, you are mistaking some of the people in the thread as "Polanski Defenders", when some of us are not defending Polanski as much as ridiculing society's take on certain things tangentially related to the Polanski situation.
That is very black and white. Age and maturity are too different things. Experience, physiology, and even mental capacity all affect the type of maturity (mental over physical) that allows wise decision-making, hence why there are laws.
There seem to be two groups of people, the people who think a thirteen year old is a child and the people who don't.
Equal application of justice. Not all crimes are equal. He should have the same application as a poor man or a minority, or conversely, they have the same application given to him: rehab. *eyeroll*
From a rationalist standpoint, ignoring what culture and society thinks is black and white, every human being deserved equal treatment from the justice system.
This doesn't necessarily happen, but it is something that should happen. The problem is that large sections of the populace do not want equal justice for certain types of crime, such as anything to do with harming a child.
Not true, speculative.
It is worse to have consensual sex with an underage girl than it is to murder an underage girl to most in society.
Not true, child rape receives 100 days in rehab. Ask Polanski. You are creating an argument and then refuting it. Try killing a child in a "red" state. You will get the death penalty. You can't get much harsher than that.
Murder carries a lighter sentence.
We live in a Democratic Republic. Those laws are made by elected state representatives, ergo the will of the people has spoken. They were made to protect young people who are easily influenced by older people from being put in a position where they would have difficulty saying "no". For the sake of argument, those few girls mature enough to make the same decisions about their body as an eighteen year old would also be mature enough to understand "law" and not be irresponsible with the freedom of the older person. If not, they were probably not mature enough to have sex in the first place, eg not mature enough to understand what "yes" meant.
Even more disturbing, Rape means basically anything nowadays... rather than forceful, coercive sex against an unwilling partipicant and generally with violence involved, it can be any consenting individual who is of an age disparity with the accused or whom is below the states legal age of consent.
Who is stopping them from forgiving the criminal? Forgiveness is emotional. They are punished by society to prevent similar crimes from others or continue on with the same behavior.
Are you saying that people are not allowed to forgive criminals unless the law and society has already had their shot at punishing the individual?
Society has decided that it values and protects children, those who do not are regarded as "trash" by that society. It is how it has always been. He could have moved to another society, Tanzania, perhaps where this is a non-issue. But he wanted the "everything else" that came with living in Hollywood. Eventus stultorum magister!
It is alright to forsake the foundations of thought and reason for the desire to punish and perpetuate a deep seated societal hatred for individuals that have been branded as human trash?
It is called the court of public opinion. You won't be thrown in jail for your words on these threads, but you will receive the barbs and stings that come with it. That is how humans have worked since tribal societies. I've been called worse than a rapist. I could allow it to sway me, but I don't because I keep my own counsel. In fact, I now wear it as a badge of honor. WORSE THAN A RAPIST ought to be my signature! What do you care what I, or anyone else, thinks about you? I, for one, do not.
And not only that, you feel it is fine to ridicule and associate people who defend individuals with an aberrant sexual proclivity with whom they defend, demonstrating a lack of dissemination between the defender and the item they are defending?
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Mr Matrix,
First, you assume I am without sympathy for Mr Polanski. I am a spiritual person and believe in ultimate redemption for everyone and I believe in forgiveness. I may forgive someone, but I still expect when people break the laws in a country whose very foundations are bedded upon equal justice under the law the justice is equally applied.
Wait, where is this mythical land of wonderment and magic where equal justice is applied under a just system of jurisprudence?
Aside from that comment (Because we have no such system), I think the equivalent of what you are saying is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
A pragmatic way of looking at it, certainly.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Well, if Whoopi says it, then it must be true
2nd Line
Mod Edit: Adding "2nd line" to a post doesn't make it any less of a 1-liner.
[edit on 1-10-2009 by Gemwolf]
Originally posted by John Matrix
Apparently, the sex was consensual.
Originally posted by John Matrix
There is more to this case than has been discussed here.
I'm watching CNN right now:
Here is a link to a video on CNN:
polanski.cnn
Sorry, scroll down when the page open's and click on the video: "Polanski's Plea Deal"
Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by crimvelvet
Actually, this is the suggested punishment locale for unlawful sex with a minor
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8f7ae532cdf.jpg[/atsimg]
Paris Hilton spent 22 days in County for drunk driving, Michael Vick spent 14 months in a federal penitentiary for animal cruelty, and Roman Polanski gets to scrump teens the world over while sipping champagne and when apprehended offers us this suggestion of how to serve his time--getting to twirl on mountain tops like Maria in Sound of Music.
Yes, how unfair and cruel we are to demand he finish his 45 day stint in jail (whereupon he will probably be let out within 48 hours for overcrowding).
Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by dizzie56
I think we can agree it was non consensual. And legally speaking, even if it -was- consensual, it would still be statutory rape. The fact that it wasn't does indeed legally make it rape by 2 definitions of the term. However, rape, in my view, is a term that is over-used. Not all rapes are the same, and this one clearly seems to have been on the lighter side. The victim herself found that the media circus was more traumatic than the event.
[edit on 6-10-2009 by scott3x]