Roman Polanski

[lungs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's amazing how we have national outrage over this and not over the fact that a) Texas just put a clearly innocent man to death and b) the governor of Texas just did his best to stop an investigation that would once and for all confirm the innocence of the deceased.

Texas Governor Defends Shakeup of Commission - NYTimes.com

Maybe we should execute prosecutors that are found to have sent innocent people to death. I say that tongue in cheek but half serious. Different thread I guess.

[molson]

On the victim thing, there's definitely a balance between the desires of the victim, and the need for prosecution.

In cases of child abuse, and domestic battery, an unwilling victim/family is the norm. And it's incredibly damaging for any victim to re-live the situation to any degree. Abusers/Batterers know this. They know the odds are stacked against prosecution. But that's changing. Decades ago, if a battered spouse or child abuse victim/family didn't want to "press charges", prosecution would end. The abuse/battery could continue, with the same victims, or different victims.

Victims I've worked with have often expressed a sense of relief when I tell them, which I might on a case by case basis, that they have zero say in the prosecution. That takes that burden from them. That takes that fear of their abuser/attacker from them. I always pointed out - "it's us v. him, not you v. him". Many take comfort in that. They're not being asked to fight their accuser in court.

Of course in this case, this victim doesn't even have to go anywhere near a court if she don't want too. Polanski just needs to be sentenced to the generous plea deal he get (Though I believe the prosecution would also have the option to throw that deal out and charge Polanski with the original rape charges he faced - since Polanski didn't live up to his end of the plea agreement.)

[DaddyTorgo]

the problem is the media, and the problem is us, making this all a story again. that's what is dragging shit up for this poor women. it should be a non-story

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

Maybe we should execute prosecutors that are found to have sent innocent people to death. I say that tongue in cheek but half serious. Different thread I guess.

I think it should definitely be a crime if a prosecutor willfully withholds obviously exculpatory evidence, (as in, evidence that actually shows innocence).

That's insanely rare though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Axxon

That is what I just said numbnuts. The victim doesn't fucking matter. She's disposable garbage. She should have already been given a mercy killing because we damned sure can't deny some good old voyeuristic recreational outrage. Thank you for reinforcing my point. No go pat yourself on the back for being a heartless, soulless knob because if assisting victims is meaninless then it makes no fucking sense to worry about victims that don't exist when you're just going to make THEIR lives worse while you keep chasing shit that hasn't happened yet.

Fucker.

I can understand your compassion for the victim. But as a society our goal should be protect all citizens, and not just the victim of a crime. It is truly horrible to be a victim and I feel for her. But I'd also feel for the next 13- year old he'd choose to rape.

I don't think our system of justice should be based strictly on the victim's choice. It should be decided by society as a whole. We have decided that those who rape children serve X amount of time in jail. A victim's judgement will never be as clear as societys.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it should definitely be a crime if a prosecutor willfully withholds obviously exculpatory evidence, (as in, evidence that actually shows innocence).

That's insanely rare though.

It happens a lot more than we'd like to admit. A local case here got a lot of media attention over the decades. A girl was killed in a nice community and there was a lot of pressure to solve the case. The DA who had political aspirations (which he followed through on) put two innocent men in jail for it. Lot of evidence tampering and bogus testimony.

I believe it is a crime but really tough to prove. I'm also a believer that judges should be held accountable for their decisions.

Jeanine Nicarico murder case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Fuck Polanski.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, it's an idiot college QB parody.

Ohhhh, that's right. I knew it was familiar from somewhere.

[albionmoonlight]

Axxon--

Should we as a society stop making this front page news and just let the judicial process play out? I think so. I wish that Polanski would get brought to justice and no one would even hear about it. In part because I find Hollywood annoying and in part b/c the victim would prefer us not to talk about it.

But I cannot agree that victims should be allowed to drive prosecutions. It almost never works when that happens. The system isn't perfect, but a victim driven system would be much worse.

That isn't to say that the victim should be treated like garbage. Courts should do what they can (and they are getting better about this) to protect the privacy of victims and to keep things out of the media when possible.

However, court proceedings are public proceedings (it would be a much much much worse world if they weren't), and when Access Hollywood wants to report about anal sex with 13 year old girls in order to boost ratings through titilation in the guise of "journalism," there is only so much we can do to stop them.

Your anger should not, IMHO, be directed at the judicial system, which is doing what it can to sentence a man for a crime that he admitted commiting. It should be directed (as it seems, in large part, to be) at the media and the Hollywood stars who can't shut up about this, and at those of us who can't stop eating it up.

The result of this, in the end, cannot be to drop the prosecution based on the need to put it all to bed. That lets the media and the hecklers win. We cannot give them a veto over the process.

On a related note, if Mr. P has legal objections to raise about his plea based on judicial and/or prosecutorial misconduct, then he is free to raise them. There are mechanisms through which pleas can be dissolved. But he needs to come here and attempt that. Standing in Europe and crying foul while preventing the process from adjudicating that foul is simply a mockery of the system.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Courts should do what they can (and they are getting better about this) to protect the privacy of victims and to keep things out of the media when possible.

Wow. Don't trials need to be public for us to have any sense of freedom?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Wow. Don't trials need to be public for us to have any sense of freedom?

Oh, for sure. It is a real balancing act. The process is evolving, certainly. But lets say that an individual needs to submit a financial report to prove that he does not have the money to come in and testify and he needs the court to pay for it. In that case, that information should be kept private. Things like that are what I am talking about.

You also see the problem with the whole "don't snitch" thing. The government has an interest in people testifying against other people. But people have gotten better about figuring out who has given testimony against other people and then marking them as a snitch. So courts are experimenting with ways to limit the access to information about cooperation while also preserving the integrity of the open judicial process.

It really isn't easy, and sometimes I think that, in that instance, the courts have gone too far in keeping information sealed that should be made public. But I say that knowing that the courts really are trying to balance several very important goals and it won't always be perfect.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Oh, for sure. It is a real balancing act. The process is evolving, certainly. But lets say that an individual needs to submit a financial report to prove that he does not have the money to come in and testify and he needs the court to pay for it. In that case, that information should be kept private. Things like that are what I am talking about.

You also see the problem with the whole "don't snitch" thing. The government has an interest in people testifying against other people. But people have gotten better about figuring out who has given testimony against other people and then marking them as a snitch. So courts are experimenting with ways to limit the access to information about cooperation while also preserving the integrity of the open judicial process.

It really isn't easy, and sometimes I think that, in that instance, the courts have gone too far in keeping information sealed that should be made public. But I say that knowing that the courts really are trying to balance several very important goals and it won't always be perfect.

Sorry, guess I read a little too much into your one statement.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Sorry, guess I read a little too much into your one statement.

Don't apologize. More Americans need your instincts.

[SportsDino]

I think letting him get away with it just encourages similar behavior from other villains. I agree the media needs to be junkpunched for their purely rude and insipid behavior (I think you should be able to bring charges against media harassment), but you can't let villains do terrible things and laugh them off.

[molson]

Lock up your kids Europe, he's out!

At least he did some time. And he'll never be a danger to children in the U.S. again.

[MikeVic]

Selena Gomez has to watch out though.