And now that another woman — a 61-year-old woman, who, when she was 21 (not as young as 13), murdered his long-ago wife and his never-born child — has died, that other world seems impossibly distant and deceased. His victimizer Susan Atkins is dead, and the woman he victimized, Samantha Geimer, has settled with him. It might be part of the secret settlement, but Geimer does not want the old criminal charges pursued.
Nonetheless, the Swiss police arrested Roman Polanski when he touched down in Zurich to pick up another prize. Why did that happen?
"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. "That's why he was taken into custody."Oh! There is memory, and there is law, and you cannot rise above it, not by extreme suffering or extreme old age, not by great fame or great accomplishment, and not by profuse reconciliation with the victim.
Roman Polanski has been called to account at long last.
Posts
236 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236Since you like to reason backwards, Homunculus, let me address your insults thinly veiled in the form of arguments one-by-one, from last to first:
As I said, you don't know what you are talking about.
Well if by not knowing what I'm talking about, you mean not believing that one's background in legal theory makes someone the only acceptable commentator on politics, punishment and society, then you're right. I'd have to defer the distinction for such qualifications to someone as pompous as yourself.
If "ideally", as you claim, the only legitimate component is restitution, civil courts would provide an adequate forum.
I'm sure there are theorists who would hold to as much. But if you knew the definition of the term "ideally", you might understand how it differs from what is acceptable "realistically".
Do let me know if you need a dictionary. There are several available to you online. And much easier to navigate than the abstruse legal texts that you believe give you license to an opinion while revoking that right to the lowly masses of non-lawyers with whom you must begrudgingly share the opportunity to consider such things.
I'm not addressing your first full paragraph, as the only purpose it serves is to reiterate your definition of "legitimate" as it applies to community concerns as opposed to the concerns of individual rights which I am apparently capable of considering in a much more abstract fashion than your mind is capable of. I mean, you may not be ignorant (of whatever you feel qualified to conveniently opine upon). But you are an idiot when it comes to considering the conclusions that your knowledge might lead to. So forgive me for not realizing that.
And finally,
That you do not know the difference between a response and an ad hominem argument is apparent from your reply to me.
Well, I know what an ad hominem is. But if you want my replies to you to consist of something more responsive, then you will have to come up with more intelligent thoughts, and make them free of the ad hominems that comprise the bulk of your own responses to what I post.
Of course, I think all these proposals would be too fair for someone as brutish as yourself to consider. But I welcome the opportunity to be proved wrong on that score.
Beth said, far upthread: "His case is a good argument for the legal system."
I couldn't disagree more. Justice delayed is justice denied.
@Pompous Montanus: Oh, I see while I was offline Buster managed to direct you toward some of the obvious goals of sentencing besides restitution.
Unfortunately, you spoiled your near enlightenment with this gem: "Well," you might say, "Vengeance isn't a part of punishment." To which I would respond that any effort to decouple rehabilitation from vengeance is purely academic.
The first sentence is a straw man. Neither buster, nor any thinking person, would offer such a ridiculous generalization. Vengeance is frequently part of punishment, and legitimately so.
In addition to being a non sequitur, your second sentence is incorrect. Rehabilitation need not have anything to do with vengeance or punishment. For example, if, over the objection of the prosecutor and the victim, a burglar is sent to vocational school as part of probation, this is rehabilitative. Regardless of the intrusion on the defendant, it is not vengeance or punishment within any common usage of either word.
I trust this is all specific enough for you.
Pompous wrote: ..if you knew the definition of the term "ideally", you might understand how it differs from what is acceptable "realistically".
Funny, I've always thought "ideally" means "in an ideal way or manner," or "in accordance with an ideal." Perhaps you will explain, given the other legitimate and desireable goals of sentencing, what "ideal" is served by confining sentencing to restitution. Alternatively, please provide your definition of "ideally." I know it is common among the minions of the left to invent definitions, but fairplay demands that you share your delusions during debate.
Oh, and would it be unfair of me to suggest that you are responsible for the deleted comments immediately before 200? I assume that you intended to push our debate onto the back page where it is less likely to be noticed. A concession that you are in over your head perhaps? Well, who can blame you?
You're a student, aren't you?
I am reminded of another case of delayed justice, that of Kathleen Ann Soliah.
Alex --
"This is actually a perfect thread by Althouse, we can find out who among us are the truly decent and the dastardly ones."
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: I do not think it condemns those who you think it does.
MUL said: …”the most (and ideally, the only) legitimate component of sentencing is restitution.”
OK; so I guess if I leave my victim and his family dead, then I won’t have anyone to pay for my crime, so I should get off scot-free. Interesting theory of justice; given your usual tendency to favor society over individual freedom (environmental regulation, for example), I would have guessed that you’d place more credence in the notion of deterrence.
This is a singularly fascinating thread: I've read every one of the 200+ comments. Some are openly misogynistic. Some seem to not only defend the rapist, but to attack the idea of prosecuting statutory rape.
Had this girl been one of my daughters, I would have been glad that Mr. Polaski had fled; because I would have flown to France and fed him his own testicles.
And me, a big fan of The Pianist. One of my favorite movies.
MUL, please show me where my subtle and complex moral calculus, that has led me to this result (feeding Roman Polanski his own gonads), has gone off the rails.
@ montana urban legend:
The only libertarian writing about criminal law that I've read concerns substantive law (i.e., conduct should be criminalized). I don't know anything about libertarian theories about criminal responsibility, assuming there are any. But I think the "feel" of libertarianism suggests it emphasizes personal autonomy, and tends to hold people rather strictly accountable for what they do, and has a narrow range of excuses.
There are four generally recognized justifications for criminal punishment: deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation (i.e., keeping criminals in jail so they won't commit more crimes), and retribution. The first three justifications are instrumental in the sense that they are directed at the consequences for the community of punishing criminals. So I think that libertarians (I am not one, I hasten to add) would tend to downplay them. Retribution, on the other hand, is directed at the wrongdoer himself, and punishes him just and only because he is responsible for his actions. So I think a libertarian theory of responsibility would be retributibe at core.
It's important to see that retribution is not the same as vengeance. Retribution is based on two propositions: a man deserves to be punished just because he committed a wrong, and he ought to be punished just because he deserves it. The effects on society or on the victim's friends and relations are irrelevant.
As to my "complex" views on punishment, it turns out that I spent several years in academia thinking mostly about the rectification of wrongs. Sadly, my ideas are more complex than they should be, so I won't bore you with them. But I do think that an important virtue of retributive punishment is that it enhances human freedom, including the freedom of the person being punished.
I know this is conclusory, opaque, and a little pompous. But some things don't lend themselves to blog comments.
buster said: "...he ought to be punished just because he deserves it."
That's what I'd be thinking, as I'm stuffing his own manly bits into his mouth. And I didn't even have to study this for several years in academia. Damn, I'm smart; I should change my avatar to Woodsy Owl.
TradionalGuy.
Thirteen year old girls may or may not have minds of their own. But one thing they are not is "women." By definition, a 13 year old girl is a girl.
Well, this has been an enlightening thread. I wasn't at all surprised to see a certain someone describe the rape as a tryst. There are a few regulars who haven't yet shown up. I wonder which side of the fence they will choose.
My initial reaction to the heading was that Althouse was taking liberties with the facts of the case in order to create a line that would attract attention and generate buzz. Seems to have worked.
I did not take the heading to mean that Althouse thinks that the case should be tossed out. Beth's 12:09 commentary should be read by anyone who thinks that Althouse is being ambiguous.
Read Patterico for more details on the case of California v. Polanski.
Then get back to me on how we can let this go, because after all Polanski is an artist and famous and has rich, famous friends who are shilling for him.
Well, heck. I come back from watching football and it looks like this thread erupted in the meantime. I look forward to catching up on it.
Saints are 3-0, and the last I checked, and my university's new club football team lead at halftime. - Geaux Saints! Geaux UNEAUX (UNO)!
"But I do think that an important virtue of retributive punishment is that it enhances human freedom, including the freedom of the person being punished."
I meant to say "moral freedom" not "human freedom."
Anyway, the main point is that a libertarian would emphasize retribution as the justification of punishment.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
But it's right for the system to continue to pursue him. That's what I meant.
Those on this thread who are claiming the girl asked for it and are blaming her mother are promoting "facts" that are contrary to Samantha Geimer's on the record statements.
1. She wasn't "dropped off" by her mom, Polanski picked her up in his car. And she was bringing a friend along but Polanski told the other girl to scram. Her mother was unaware she went alone.
2. Geimer admits to having sex "one time" with a 17-year old boyfriend some months prior to the rape. Hardly the "slut" she's being made out to be some cretins here.
3. She never intended to tell her mother what happened, but she told the boyfriend and her sister overheard the conversation. The mother called the police. She wasn't the "stage mom" she's been depicted as here.
Here's a transcript for the curious.
Cumsluts?
Srsly?
a hot 13 year old model
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of a "hot 13 year old."
Can't do it.
I must be a frigid man-hating feminist. Thank God for that!
Yeah, Liz. You're getting the full Cfud experience.
kentuckyliz wrote: Cumsluts? Srsly?
I don't necessarily think it ought to be me to you, but somebody ought to apologize to somebody for that kind of rubbish. So, I apologize.
Beth wrote: I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of a "hot 13 year old." Can't do it.
It's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Cedarford is probably not a pervert, but his "relaxed" moral standard re 13 year-old girls is why we need child molestation laws.
Duscany...You are correct. A 13 year old female is a child, and there is no defense to a child having consensual sex with a person over 17. That's what "jail bait" means.My point is that the over the top anger in the commenters at Polanski after 32 years and attempts to amend for his actions shows a level of our society having been hurt by sexual misconduct. That anger suggests to me that great psycho-sexual harm has been done to many growing up after our wiser than God Courts in the 1970s repealed the laws enforcing sexual morality in the name of privacy rights. But if you are desperate to help girls under 18, then start with the sex slave and drug rings run for profit in nearly every city. Set some slaves free like Lincoln did, and clean up the corruption of the paid off city police departments where you live. Or just hate Polanski to show your concern at no cost to youeself. That is what is called scapegoating a person for our own guilt about a subject.
elHombre - It's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Cedarford is probably not a pervert, but his "relaxed" moral standard re 13 year-old girls is why we need child molestation laws.
No, I'm being a realist. 60% of the black females in just one Florida city aged 12-15 have slept with a man, typically one 16-30.
No one calls it child molestation when the 'hos show up at hospitals pregnant, in schools, or at abortion clinics...because to go after this as a "major crime" would gut other spending and completely overwhelm the nations legal resources.
So much for all the vengence fantasies.
But a prepubescent who has intercourse or is manipulated into sodomy? Real child molestation? Every jurisdiction in the country will go after the guy.
Or pursue a case of any young female claiming forceful rape.
The idea of various frothing at the mouth females here and shocked! outraged! sensitive males - that you throw anyone having sex with an underage female for many years, even decades?? You don't have the prison space. You could build 10X more jails and you wouldn't have the prison space, and we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Get real.
You know, C4, your comments about blacks and Jews are simply odious.
It *doesn't matter* what the girl was like: a 40 year old man who drugs a 13 year old and then rapes here *has committed a crime*
Wrap your head around that one, and pay attention to the fact that this was a crime committed against a girl in the 6th or 7th grade, whose mother was not informed of what was going on, who no matter what she had done before was *13 years old*.
But I'm done with your sickening continual slams against Jews and blacks and whoever doesn't meet your standards for a white and delightsome people.
@Cedarford: Your comments are frequently interesting. On this topic they are just sick and stupid.
Let's come back another day, shall we?
Polanski gets no sympathy from me. He broke the law and ran away like a coward. I won't lose any sleep worrying about his future. He didn't give a damn about the kid's future when he raped her.
Let me check my pulse... Nah, I don't think I've come unhinged. I'm not even outraged. And I couldn't give a shit enough about Polanski to bother hating him. I just don't feel sorry for the sleazeball.
I'm reminded of the theme song from that 70s cop show,"Baretta". Polanski should've listened to Sammy; "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
RE: sex with young girls. Some girls can reach puberty as young as 9 or 10. It's based on body weight and size. There are laws to protest these kids because unfortunately they are needed. Some people out there got some strange ideas about morality.
Miller, you are not only self-righteous, you are stupid.
So how about quitting your posturing about a 32-year old cold case and come to the present.
What exactly have you done demanding your taxes be raised enormously to hire scads more lawyers and build plenty more prisons to go after all the gang bangers, older guys banging the current crop of 12-15 year olds?
What, you've done nothing??
Why not Miller? Why aren't you demanding each pregnant girl age 12-15 be investigated, forced to cough up a list of her sexual contacts for "child molestation"?
You haven't....you likely could care less..
And, that simply makes you a posturing, morally smug jerk.
You don't need to have some negative feelings about jews or blacks or chick flicks to be a posturing jerk, Miller. You were likely born that way - though you're being stupid undoubtedly facilitates it.
I at least have written and demanded of my elected officials that pregnant underaged girls give up "biodaddy's" name in return for social benefits...And that instead of taxpayers...biodaddy...in lieu of prosecution, agrees to support his brand new "family" with wage garnishment for the next 18 years.
=====================
Of course, the EuroLeft and the Human Rights jewish lawyers that have been gunning for Rumsfeld, Kissinger, CHeney, Feith, General Sanchez, General Petraeus, and numerous CIA agents ID'd by the the media as being involved with enemy interrogations - for "war crimes" - will be tremendously heartened that the US has decided to pressure nations to be 3rd Party "snatchers". Of people we are unable to get agreement of the nation they are citizens of to extradite...we can lay "traps" in other nations they can travel through. Now so can the people gunning for US "war criminals"
So if Spain puts out warrants on Petraeus of Bill Clinton (for "war crimes" against the Sudan or Serbia's bombing or his rendition program) and we refuse to extradite to Spain...all the SPanish lawyers need to do is set up a trap in Zurich for US war criminals...any time their plane passes through.
Unanticipated consequences!(Kissinger, Doug Feith, Cheney, etc.) could face similar fates for the war crimes they're currently being tried for in a few EU nations. Once convicted, like Kissinger (and make no mistake - these men are guilty of war crimes, by their own admissions), if they ever set foot in a European nation that respects the "rule of law!" - it'll be Polanski, but with broader consequences.
elHombre - I've agreed with much you have written in the past, you have agreed with some of my stuff.
On this matter we should agree to disagree and look forward to when no doubt we will be of the same opinion on future topics.
Just Lurking: Did you really mean to use the theme song of a Robert Blake show to demonstrate the inevitability of criminal punishment....The woman involved in this crime seems to have gone on to lead a normal life. But, of course, that's due to her and not to Polanski. Probably lots of people survive abuse and go on to prosper. Probably lots of people drive home drunk without incident. Some don't.... In the Larry King interview, she claims that the criminal proceedings were more traumatic than the rape. All her classmates knew that she was the kid involved in the scandal. It's a wonder she has her head on straight....Roman Polanski seems to live in some dimension where the ordinary rules of morality don't make sense. He was hunted by the Nazis. His wife was murdered by Manson followers. And this rape was just as absurd and pointless as the crimes that were committed against him. If he wanted to have sex with a teenager, he could have had some actress like Ellen Page wear pigtails. As it was, he later went on to have an affair with the underaged Natasha Kinski who was the hottest woman on earth. This crime was wanton not in its lust but in its stupidity and arrogance. I suppose you cannot have absorbed that much evil without becoming super saturated by it......People are trying to make a morality play out of this. But the only moral I can see is that things happen mostly by chance and that justice is a pretty little fiction that we try to impose on these random happenings.
I've been saying all along that C-fudd has the NAMBLA mentality for blaming Poland for WWII like his idol Buchanan. I guess once again he is determined to prove me right.
"If Daffy can blame the Kennedy assassination on the Jews, surely Cedarford can find Zionist undertones in this case."
Don't worry, he still managed to get in his compulsive Jooo-baiting. C-fudd has less self-control than a junkie crawling through the gutter for a fix of bad heroin. He makes Pavlov's dog look like a free thinker.
I'm glad he has finally been caught, however belatedly.
Kudos to the Swiss for doing the right thing.
Interesting conversation you guys had yesterday. I'm late to the party, but I just had to throw in at Alex:
But it's moral blindness to say that a 13year old lolita-type walking into Polanksi's room is the same as if he abducted and raped her.
I believe that abduction/kidnapping + rape is a higher sentence then just rape. But even so, this whole thing is skirting into the "it's not rape if you know the person" territory. Is that what Alex really believes?
I am one of those who doesn't love statutory rape laws when applied between high school/college boyfriend/girlfriends and other such relationships, but 44/13 is pretty much what that was invented for because a girl (or boy) so young is still young enough that they are able to be pushed into things by an adult in some position of authority over them. She said no, he went ahead anyway. This is rape under both definitions.
60% of the black females in just one Florida city aged 12-15 have slept with a man, typically one 16-30.
I need to point out that there are WORLDS of difference between 13 and 15. Worlds. I suspect most of those females who had sex were closer to 15 than 12.
This thread is pretty disturbing considering I spent a couple weekends ago with my almost 13 cousin, who had to spell out r-a-p-e-d to me (we walked past a magazine about that girl who was abducted at 13 and kept in that guys backyard and she asked me what it was about and I guess I was being pretty cagey, which is when she asked me if she had been r-a-p-e-d).
I've been saying all along that C-fudd has the NAMBLA mentality for blaming Poland for WWII like his idol Buchanan.
I wonder if Gary has been around here long enough to realize just how funny a remark he's made here?
Gary, for perhaps a year or more, no post on anything related to homosexuality escaped a diatribe from C-fud on NAMBLA.
Post a Comment