F%*# Roman Polanski | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden)
not really (none / 0)
I am completely of the mindset of innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time, if you are innocent, you don't need to run.  

Now, take your example in addition to Occam's Razor.  Now if most evidence points to him molesting the girl, even if it's not 100%, if there is above %50 chance that he did it, it's more likely that he did it than not, and you can't take those kinds of chances with pederasses.  All offenses are not equal under the law and should not be treated equally.  i share your outrage at the parents, as they are more to blame here than polanski, but at the same time, Polanski should stand trial to be found guilty or not in a court.  Whether the girl wants to drop the charges or not, that doesn't mean she didn't get molested, and her guilt for causing a scene may be what's causing her to want to retract the case.  If she refuses to testify, then going to court will only serve to clear polanski's name.  I think he's dirty for trying to get his charges dropped from overseas.  As an avid weed-smoker, of course I stand for due process, but at the same time, I am not down with people skipping out on sexual assault charges.  This is one area where I don't agree with the statute of limitations.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 12/03/2008 05:42:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sometimes the innocent do need to run (none / 0)

I don't know if Polanski is innocent or not.  We'll never know.  But while I would want young girls to be chaparroned around him, I'm also not going to condemn him.  I just haven't seen enough corroboration for the accusation, and I would expect there to be more because of what I know about the child molesters I've known.  But I just can't consider the fact that he ran to be evidence of guilt.

The people who were tried in the McMartin case are still suffering the financial consequences of being accused, and everyone knows now that they were innocent.  They might have been better off if they had run, too but they weren't given that chance.

by EveningStarNM on 12/03/2008 05:53:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
financial consequences are not equal (none / 0)
to criminal consequences.  I understand facing a tough trial, but at the same time, I've broken the law and been caught, and DIDN'T run, and I got let go because I was deemed not to be a threat to myself or anyone else(just had some weed).  Now, if there is enough evidence against someone to make them run, either they are guilty, or just have extremely bad luck, and if such cases are dealing with violent crimes, it's less risky to the public to put these people on trial until they are proven innocent.  The dude won't even fucking stand trial!  If there's a case of a prosecutor with a motive to illegally put polanski behind bars, get a new prosecutor, but for the love of buddha, don't let the man go because he escaped trial for 30 years and everyone gave up...that's weak sauce if you ask me.  If there's no evidence, he'll be fine, and the accusations have already been made so it will only CLEAR his name if he goes to trial.  Like I said, if all the evidence points to guilty, you have to call the man guilty.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 12/03/2008 06:06:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The fatal flaw: (none / 0)

"...until they are proven innocent..."

We've already learned through centuries of experience that if people must prove their innocence that many innocent people will be imprisoned or executed.  That's why we've abandoned that practice and now require governments to prove that someone is actually guilty of a crime.  Even so, with politicians appealing to peoples' baser, paranoid, and often most vile fears in order to get re-elected, we see how even our current system can be corrupted.

In addition, there is the problem of the utter impracticality of trying someone after 30 years.  Evidence disappears or gets corrupted with age.  Witnesses -- if they're still alive -- become completely unreliable.  Memories about events and people do become unreliable after such a period of time.  We have statutes of limitation for a reason.

The principle used to be that it was better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one.  The damage caused by an unfair judicial system far outweigh any damage cause by letting a few guilty people go free.  History proves that any other system leads to the worst kinds of authoritarianism.

Let it go.  We as a society suffer brutalizing consequences when we worry too much about individual cases like Polanski or any other person who cannot be tried.  While we might look for ways to assure fairness and impartiality while also assuring that accuse people will be tried, we don't have to make a big deal out of the relatively small issues presented in this specific instance.  The right-wing is unjustifiably paranoid already; we shouldn't be feeding their sickness.

Besides, Polanski isn't responsible for anyone's unhappiness today.

by EveningStarNM on 12/03/2008 08:36:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
maybe not yours or mine (none / 0)
but surely that girl still suffers the consequences of this...although her parents are stupid fucks too, polanski should not just get a pass because time has passed, ESPECIALLY if there were photos involved.  If he goes to trial and there's no admissable evidence, i would be much more satisfied with the justice system than if they just let him be a fugitve forever.  That's why that fucking rapist Andrew Luster went to mexico, because he wanted to end up like polanski.  Guess what, he didn't make it for 30 years so he got prosecuted.  I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty, but if accused you must stand trial to prove you're innocent.  There is a due process, and sometimes it stops at the officer, and sometimes it stops with a grand jury.  When the guilty people are violent/sex offenders, I have to disagree that it's worth letting a few guilty ones go.  This is why non-violent crimes that aren't larceny shouldn't carry similar sentences to rape/murder/child molestation.  I'm not losing sleep over this, I just think Polanski should go fuck himself.  I refuse to ever consider possible child molestation a "relatively small issue".  Every murder that adds up in a genocide is an individual, it doesn't make an individual's death any less important because thousands died around him/her. I agree 100% that testimony is unreliable after a long time, but there may be dna evidence, or photographs, in which case would you say let him go anyway?  I think the right is extremely paranoid, but how is wanting to prosecute a pederass paranoid?

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 12/03/2008 10:36:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
he plead guilty (none / 0)
before he ran, and then his story changed later...

don't keep defending this guy for your own sake

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 12/03/2008 11:16:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I missed that (none / 0)

He pleaded guilty?  I'm surprised that the judge let him out of the courtroom.  It's strange that his bail would be continued after he pleaded guilty.

As far as the girl is concerned, like all of us, sometimes people choose to give others control over their mental states.  Sure, it might take time to recover from shock, but recovery is possible, and we are all responsible for our own recoveries.  No one else is responsible for how I feel but me.  I will not give that power to others.

Sorry, but I have little respect for the culture of victimhood promoted by so many Americans.

by EveningStarNM on 12/04/2008 03:10:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
definitely should not have run (none / 0)
if the mcmartins had run, they would've been fugitives until they were caught and had their names cleared on the molestation charges, but they STILL would be charged with felony evasion.  Running itself IS a crime, even if you're innocent.  That's why it's not worth risking running if you're innocent.  It's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, so polanski IS guilty either way.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 12/03/2008 06:10:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

F%*# Roman Polanski | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden)