The Glade 4.0

DFK - no it does not lead to laws I don't like.

Gun control is the perfect example.

Punishment for its own sake is the very definition of vengeance. And used as such, it's pretty barbaric. The only enlightened use of punishment is as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If such an end exists...whether it be closure for the victims or their family, a deterrent, or rehabilitation...then punishment has a purpose. Otherwise, it's just fancy male posturing and ego-stroking; the need ... the drive to win, to prove your superiority, peacocks spreading your tails so you can attract some nice young girls of your own. It'd be comical, if so many lives weren't ruined by the attitude.

You can stop seeking extradition and cancel any outstanding warrants easily enough.

As for the rest, you guys are enshrining the rule of law and justice system as if it's somehow some sacred, holy, good thing. This is an entirely alien way of thinking that I don't really understand.

...and adolescents are more adult than child. Which is exactly what I just said, because a 13 year old is an adolescent. And like I said, we protect them, for good reason...but that goes against human nature, not with it. We're striving to push back and control natural male behavior. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them, but it's hypocritical to act all shocked and outraged when it happens anyway. Just make with the legalities if appropriate and practical and move on.

In any case, there's nothing unenlightened about punishment for its own sake, sicne punishment is always a deterrent if nothing else.

No, you can't. You can't just arbitrarily decide not to impose a punishment imposed by the courts.

It is a good thing.

We've gone over this already in this post. That is not punishment for its own sake, it's punishment for the sake deterrance. And that's not applying here. The man won. If it weren't for the distastefulness of what he did, he'd be a hero for beating the system for most of his life. (Because the system really, really needs a good beating once in a while.)

Uh, yes, you can. You just do it.

No, it's really not. It is occasionally necessary, but is wholly evil and corrupt and we really have individual responsibilities to buck the system and remind them we're in charge, as individuals, and not them. The individual is God and above all. The system...our "authorities," deserve nothing but contempt and disrespect. As individuals, a good cop (which is probably most of them) or an honest politician (hahahahaha...sorry. *wipes tear*) might merit respect, but their badge or office means less than ****. And the law? Not worth the paper its printed on. The Law is for lesser people who accept the myth that others are their superiors. Live by your own morality, ignore what you don't like, and don't get caught.

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.

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.

No it isn't.

Gun control is a law that infringes on rights. Punishing someone who has already been convicted of infringing on the rights of others is in no way related to gun control save that laws against rape and gun control laws are both laws.

All criminal violations are against the people as a whole. Any violation can technically be prosecuted regardless of victim wishes.

The victim's rights are being infringed? You believe in the right to not be offended? The victim is only upset because
1. It's taken so long and 2. The media bugs her when it is brought up. You're fighting against a conclusion to this and if she wants to she can sue them for harassment if they get pushy.

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.

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.

Birds of a feather . . .

Hehe, Woody Allen is in support of him, big shocker there.

Court reveals Polanski settlement

Roman Polanski agreed to pay his victim of sexual assault $500,000, 15 years after he fled the US, according to court documents released to the media.

The French-Polish director is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his 1977 conviction for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

The confidential deal between Mr Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, was reached in October 1993.

It was disclosed because of a two-year struggle to get the film-maker to pay.

Mr Polanski - who faces extradition to the US - was detained in Switzerland as he travelled from France to collect a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.

The last court filing in August 1996 stated that he owed Ms Geimer $604,416.22, including interest. The documents were made available to the media on Friday.

The court records did not reveal whether the 76-year-old director had ever paid, according to the Associated Press.

The director pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with an under-age girl following a plea bargain - he had originally been charged with six offences including rape and sodomy.

Victim sued

He left the US in 1978 before he could be sentenced and has not returned to the country since.

David Finkle, the film-maker's lawyer, said he was unable to recall details of the case and declined comment. Ms Geimer and her family have also been unavailable for comment.

She sued Mr Polanski in December 1988, alleging sexual assault, infliction of emotional distress and seduction.

But in January this year she asked a US court to drop charges against him, saying the continued publication of details "causes harm to me, my husband and children".

Schwarzenegger speaks out

The arrest of Mr Polanski, who won an Oscar in 2002 for The Pianist, a harrowing story of Nazi-occupied Warsaw, has prompted an outcry among some politicians and 0Hollywood heavyweights.

But on Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said the film-maker should not get special treatment because he is a "big-time movie director".

A petition has been signed by film-makers including Pedro Almodovar and Stephen Frears, and actors including Monica Bellucci and Fanny Ardant, expressing dismay at Mr Polanski's arrest.

Other Hollywood luminaries, including film producer Harvey Weinstein, have called for Mr Polanski's release.

On Tuesday, US prosecutors said the 76-year-old had been on an Interpol "wanted list" for years.

You can go back and forth about the particular value of said laws, or what have you, but there is no doubt that the man has a debt to pay to society for his crime.

I wouldn't have an issue with that, if he were paying a debt to society. As it stands, he'll just be helping society wrack up more debts.

Edit: It's too bad they have nothing in place to incarcerate someone at their own expense (in cases where the convicted can afford it, like this.)