The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:06 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Under these concepts, then why are we even bothering those Priests who molested kids so long ago? Why drag that up except for some juvinile dick waving?

Since Hollywood is squarely behind the concept of what Polanski did, then they should all contribuite and give back all the money the Church has paid out to the "survivors" of past incidents, since by their reasoning, it's all in the past.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:55 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
I am personally of the belief that all of those priests should be removed from their position of authority in the church and raped as well.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:57 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Hannibal wrote:
Under these concepts, then why are we even bothering those Priests who molested kids so long ago? Why drag that up except for some juvinile dick waving?

Since Hollywood is squarely behind the concept of what Polanski did, then they should all contribuite and give back all the money the Church has paid out to the "survivors" of past incidents, since by their reasoning, it's all in the past.


Those priests are/were still in positions of authority, the church's practices that hid them were still a danger to society, and their victims were still clamoring for justice. Night and day difference.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:15 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Diamondeye wrote:
DFK! wrote:
Ladas wrote:
Pretty short sighted opinion.


Polanski is evidence that it isn't. He managed 31 years of immensely lucrative freedom.

Not that I support him fleeing, just that Talya's point is logically correct.


I don't think Polanski's experiences are generalizable to most fugitives.


Most likely, considering I'm quite sure that most fugitives don't have the initial monetary capacity and French citizenship necessary to both flee the country and avoid extradition.

Those who can afford to both flee and avoid extradition though...

Elmarnieh wrote:
The purpose is to show that when you infringe on the rights of others you will be punished once convicted. No matter how much time has passed and no matter your attempts to evade.

We do this so people who are tempted to infringe on the rights of others don't think they can find a way to evade the punishment - thus continuing the disincentive to infringe on rights.


You don't possess the victims rights. Pursuing punishment for infringements of those rights should be up to her, barring some reason she cannot express her wishes regarding such pursuit.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:57 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Is he being prosecuted for violating her rights, or for violating the law?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:58 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Rafael wrote:
Is he being prosecuted for violating her rights, or for violating the law?


Laws exist to protect rights, in theory.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:59 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
True, but what is your answer to my question?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:02 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Rafael wrote:
True, but what is your answer to my question?


I don't know, I'm asking Elmo why he is supportive of a prosecution against the wishes of the person whose rights were violated.

I don't know the factuality of the case, but Elmo wants him prosecuted as a deterrent, which runs counter to his previously stated beliefs regarding rights. So I'm trying to learn how the countering viewpoints can coincide for him.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:28 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
I don't necessarily see that action and Elmo's established concept as diametrically opposed.

This isn't a case of two adults consenting to sex and then being charged and prosecuted for it. It's a sitaution where a victim was raped and the rapist committed statuory rape. The victim withdrawing the desire to charge for rape does not also nullify the statutory rape charge.

Mind you, I am not sure what my opinion is on statutory rape, in general, it's a subject I haven't given the proper amount of consideration to really make judgment for myself, but this argument is from within the context of the law as it currently is established.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:29 am 
Offline
Mountain Man
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:15 pm
Posts: 3374
I was kind of ambivalent about this whole thing until I read the Steve Lopez (LA Times columnist) piece in today's paper: Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim. He makes some very good points. "Woody Allen?"

The column has testimony from the girl (as well as pointing out that she'd already had sex with her boyfriend before the Polanski thing). Reading it, I come to think that, yes, he should do some time for this. He wasn't framed, set up, mislead, etc. ... He knew what he was doing.

Also, it turns out that his lawyers, in trying to get the case dismissed, may have goaded the LA DA (I think) into action by claiming that they'd made no serious attempt to arrest him, so why not drop the whole thing. Turns out they had, and then made it a point to try again.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:36 am 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Except that statutory rape, by definition, is not synonymous with rape.

Essentially, it indicates a consensual situation between two individuals. The issue is that minors are not generally considered to be autonomous in the application and control (or ownership) of their rights. Their guardians are.

Statutes exist to create an age of consent for sexual congress (which typically differs from the wider 'age of majority'). It is at this point that autonomy regarding rights is returned to the minor, not given. This is an important distinction to make, because it is the only viewpoint feasible under an inherent-rights belief system.

As such, once autonomy for her rights is returned to her, she owns them for the rest of her life, barring some circumstance that removes that autonomy (such as going to prison, becoming mentally incompetent, etc.).

Therefore, since she has autonomy of the application of her rights and chooses to cede her "right to not be raped" (or at least, right to not pursue punishment of the person who committed rape) at this point, that is wholly her decision under an inherent-rights viewpoint.

If we are to say that he must be punished 1) because he was already found guilty or 2) regardless of her wishes, we are usurping her autonomy regarding her rights. Under (1) he was found guilty when she did not have autonomous control of her rights, but when her guardian did, that situation has changed and she now has that control and should be able to decide whether she wishes to pursue punishment.

Regarding (2), I have a hard time understanding how any person (read: Elmo, and hence this whole big post) who believes in inherent-rights could advocate the usurpation of those rights for some nebulous "greater good."


As such, I believe that if she does not wish him to be punished for his crimes against her, he should not be.

On the other hand, he has committed crimes (fleeing) against "the people," or the state of California and the United States as a whole. Those crimes, being collective crimes, do not allow for individuals' discretion regarding the pursuit of punishment; instead, that decision rests upon elected or appointed officials such as the prosecutor and judge. Her wishes therefore don't mean squat in regards to dealing with Polanski on the charges of fleeing (at least not beyond her ability to cast a vote or petition her government).


TL;DR:

The logical conclusion for one who believes in inherent rights is: Bring him back, make him serve on the fleeing sentence, drop the rape issue since the victim wants it to be dropped.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:00 am 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Then what, if any, substantive difference can you demosntrate between this case (outside of the actual rape context) and one where a boyfriend and girlfriend couple in the high school age range manage to violate the statute for consensual intercourse?

Were the case as you are insisting, I think it would be prudent to say that any "victim" of statutory rape in such a scenario would be able to relenquish pursuit of charges against the older partner once becoming "of age" and those rights are "returned". This is not the case. Nor does the prosecution wait for such criterion to be satisified, as that would completely nullify the point of having statutory rape laws.

It seems from your perspective of retroactively applying inherent rights which are "returned" at a certain point in regards to the chronology of prosecution is irreconcilable with statutory rape laws.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:18 am 
Offline
Solo Hero
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:32 pm
Posts: 3874
Location: Clarkston, Mi
In the state of California, what is the statute of limitations for statutory rape?

Would it matter as he was already charged?

What the woman wants now doesn't mean ****. Sorry, she was still a minor and it isn't up to her. I don't care if she stood up in court today and said 'I loved it and would do it again, right now even.' it does not matter. She was a minor at the time and it is the states duty to protect all minors in the state, not just this one girl. If they let her determine if he should be charged with the crime, anyone else who did the same thing in the future would only have to avoid jail until the girl is of age.

The laws in the states are not going to change now. I don't give a flying **** if girls used to get married at 12 or 13. This is the law today. You follow the law or pay the price.

_________________
Raell Kromwell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:53 am 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Statute of Limitations does not apply. He had his day in court, pled guilty, and was in the sentencing phase when he fled.

His 'crime' at this point is that he fled to avoid punishment. No statute of limitations on that one.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:31 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
Micheal wrote:
I'm with the bring him back and put him inside a minimum security clubhouse prison to serve out whatever his term should have been. The judge who originally tried the case was going to give him another two months. Do it, then its over.


Is that right about the additional 2 months? I hadnt read that. I agree with your whole post was just wondering where you saw that.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
DFK! wrote:
TL;DR:

The logical conclusion for one who believes in inherent rights is: Bring him back, make him serve on the fleeing sentence, drop the rape issue since the victim wants it to be dropped.


I would agree with that but I would point out that she initially pressed charges at 13 and wanted him to serve his time up until as recently as 2003. So really he just waited her out. Right now she wants them dropped because she wants this to stop coming up and have her name splashed all over the place and have to re-live it. So really he's still violating her rights, or contributing to it by prolonging this. At least a case can be made for that.

Still I can live with just doing time for fleeing since she does want them dropped now.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:10 am 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Dash wrote:
Micheal wrote:
I'm with the bring him back and put him inside a minimum security clubhouse prison to serve out whatever his term should have been. The judge who originally tried the case was going to give him another two months. Do it, then its over.


Is that right about the additional 2 months? I hadnt read that. I agree with your whole post was just wondering where you saw that.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

Filmmakers demand Polanski's release

ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) -- Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have "demanded the immediate release" of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.

They were among 138 people in the film industry who signed a petition against the arrest.

Polanski was on the way to the Zurich Film Festival when Swiss police detained him in response to the American warrant.

The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

The filmmakers objected to his being arrested en route to the film festival, which held a tribute to him this year.

"It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him," said the petition, backed by France's Societe des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers).

"The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects," said the signatories, who also included actresses Monica Bellucci and Tilda Swinton and directors David Lynch, Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Wim Wenders.

In the United States, powerhouse movie producer Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanksi.

"We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation," his company told CNN in a statement.

Polanski has filed an appeal against his extradition to the United States, Swiss authorities said. They added that they would act on the case within weeks.

Polanski won an Academy Award for Best Director in 2003 for "The Pianist." He was nominated for a Best Director Oscar for "Tess" and "Chinatown," and Best Writing for "Rosemary's Baby," which he also directed. See examples of Polanski's work »

On Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he hoped authorities would respect Polanski's rights "and that the affair [will] come to a favorable resolution," the ministry said in a statement.

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest and expressed solidarity with Polanski's family.

Polanski, 76, was arrested Saturday on his arrival at Zurich's airport.

A provisional arrest warrant had been issued last week out of Los Angeles, California, after authorities learned that he was going to be in Switzerland, Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, said Sunday.

In a written statement, Polanski's California counsel said Monday that "an issue related to the Swiss extradition matter is presently being litigated before the California Court of Appeal. We had hoped that this would be determinative of this case."

"We were unaware of any extradition being sought, and separate counsel will be retained for those proceedings."

The lawyers -- Douglas Dalton, Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton -- said prior deputy district attorneys had told them that no efforts were being made to extradite Polanski, who "owned a home in Switzerland for many years and worked throughout Europe during that time."

There have been repeated attempts to settle the case over the years, but the sticking point has always been Polanski's refusal to return to the United States to attend hearings. Prosecutors have consistently argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old child" to go free.

The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was "in provisional detention." But whether he can be extradited to the United States "can be established only after the extradition process judicially has been finalized," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer said in an e-mail.

"It is possible to appeal at the federal penal court of justice against an arrest warrant in view to extradition as well as against an extradition decision," Balmer wrote. "Their decisions can be taken further to the federal court of justice."

Gibbons said the extradition process will be determined in Switzerland but said authorities are ready to move forward with Polanski's sentencing, depending on what happens in Zurich.

Polanski was accused of plying the teenage girl with champagne and a sliver of a Quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse, with her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house.

Nicholson was not at home.

Polanski's lawyers tried this year to have the charges thrown out, but a judge in Los Angeles rejected the request. However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza left the door open to reconsider his ruling if Polanski shows up in court.

Espinoza also appeared to acknowledge problems with the way the director's case was originally handled.

According to court documents, Polanski, his lawyer and the prosecutor thought they'd worked out a deal that would spare Polanski from prison and let the young victim avoid a public trial.

But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.

Polanski fled the United States for France, where he was born.

In the February hearing, Espinoza mentioned a documentary film, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," that depicts backroom deals between prosecutors and a media-obsessed judge who was worried his image would suffer if he didn't send Polanski to prison. The documentary was first broadcast in June 2008.

"It's hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct," Espinoza said. But he declined to dismiss the case.

Polanski's victim long ago came forward and made her identity public, mainly saying she was disturbed by how the criminal case had been handled.

Samantha Geimer, now 45 and a married mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.
advertisement

In court papers filed in January, she said, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:28 pm
Posts: 476
Location: The 10th circle
Well I will say this...Chinatown and The Pianist were two damn fine films!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Talya wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
Under these concepts, then why are we even bothering those Priests who molested kids so long ago? Why drag that up except for some juvinile dick waving?

Since Hollywood is squarely behind the concept of what Polanski did, then they should all contribuite and give back all the money the Church has paid out to the "survivors" of past incidents, since by their reasoning, it's all in the past.


Those priests are/were still in positions of authority, the church's practices that hid them were still a danger to society, and their victims were still clamoring for justice. Night and day difference.


All adults are in a position of authority to a 13 year old girl. Not to mention that she's in a photoshoot, trying to make it in modeling, at a famous actor's house.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
That makes this even more absurd. Plaxico Burress is doing 2 years for accidentally shooting himself in the leg and Polanski skips town for a month and half added sentence for raping a kid.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:28 pm
Posts: 476
Location: The 10th circle
Dash wrote:
That makes this even more absurd. Plaxico Burress is doing 2 years for accidentally shooting himself in the leg and Polanski skips town for a month and half added sentence for raping a kid.


And Donte Stallworth only got 30 days in jail for killing someone while driving drunk.

I guess the lesson here is, rape and murder are okay, but don't you dare violate New York's gun laws!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:12 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
DFK! wrote:
Rafael wrote:
True, but what is your answer to my question?


I don't know, I'm asking Elmo why he is supportive of a prosecution against the wishes of the person whose rights were violated.

I don't know the factuality of the case, but Elmo wants him prosecuted as a deterrent, which runs counter to his previously stated beliefs regarding rights. So I'm trying to learn how the countering viewpoints can coincide for him.



It wasn't against her wishes when he was prosecuted and convicted DFK. And the punishment is not there to save or relieve those whose rights have been infringed (as it is impossible to do so at this point) - as I've said the punishment exists to create disincentive in the individual and others to repeat the same kind of infringement.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:56 am 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Rafael wrote:
Then what, if any, substantive difference can you demosntrate between this case (outside of the actual rape context) and one where a boyfriend and girlfriend couple in the high school age range manage to violate the statute for consensual intercourse?


None.

Rafael wrote:
Were the case as you are insisting, I think it would be prudent to say that any "victim" of statutory rape in such a scenario would be able to relenquish pursuit of charges against the older partner once becoming "of age" and those rights are "returned".


They should be able to under a model of inherent rights, yes.

Rafael wrote:
This is not the case. Nor does the prosecution wait for such criterion to be satisified, as that would completely nullify the point of having statutory rape laws.


Naturally they wouldn't wait. It does not, however, nullify the point of having statutory rape laws, unless you feel that the offender going to prison for a couple years while they wait (and hope) that the person the offender had sex with relinquishes their claim.

Rafael wrote:
It seems from your perspective of retroactively applying inherent rights which are "returned" at a certain point in regards to the chronology of prosecution is irreconcilable with statutory rape laws.


Incorrect, as many statutory rape situations do not involve consensuality, as I understand it. Nor would every under-age person choose to drop charges even if things were "consensual." Nor is being punished for X years (where X is the length of time until the victim has their rights returned) for having violated the law moot. Any prison time is deterrent.

No, we can debate whether it is enough of a deterrent, and I'd probably agree that it isn't. That does not affect whether it is a deterrent though.


Elmarnieh wrote:
DFK! wrote:
Rafael wrote:
True, but what is your answer to my question?


I don't know, I'm asking Elmo why he is supportive of a prosecution against the wishes of the person whose rights were violated.

I don't know the factuality of the case, but Elmo wants him prosecuted as a deterrent, which runs counter to his previously stated beliefs regarding rights. So I'm trying to learn how the countering viewpoints can coincide for him.



It wasn't against her wishes when he was prosecuted and convicted DFK. And the punishment is not there to save or relieve those whose rights have been infringed (as it is impossible to do so at this point) - as I've said the punishment exists to create disincentive in the individual and others to repeat the same kind of infringement.


And yet you've stated a belief in the past that law exists to protect rights.

Here you're saying not only is it not to protect her rights (or to make her whole) but to enforce morality upon others by disincentivizing them to commit the same act. Such proactivity leads directly to laws you dislike.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:41 pm
Posts: 1012
Put his *** in jail. He was convicted, let him serve his time. (And then whatever else they tack on for skipping town.)

I can't believe celebrities are rallying around him like they are.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
Slythe wrote:
Dash wrote:
That makes this even more absurd. Plaxico Burress is doing 2 years for accidentally shooting himself in the leg and Polanski skips town for a month and half added sentence for raping a kid.


And Donte Stallworth only got 30 days in jail for killing someone while driving drunk.

I guess the lesson here is, rape and murder are okay, but don't you dare violate New York's gun laws!


Ooh that's right forgot about him. Hey OJ didnt even get convicted.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 225 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group