Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a case of a man serving the time he was given for an act he admitted to and the change in vehemence in popular opinion about sexual molesters AFTER THE FACT. 100 years ago these same people would be crying loudly that a WOMAN is wise enough at 13 to make her own decisions. 13 was prime age 100 years ago. Have girls changed or has society become more sexually repressed and more feminist in outlook?
shaking my head
100 years ago the influence of the Victorian Era was in full effect.
It would seem that public opinion would be against this kind of adult behavior. Polanski might never have lived to receive his day in court.
The purpose is to protect "society" from the offender. You can localize it, and give him the option to leave the state or face jail time (this has happened) or you can kick him out of the country entirely.
Then it becomes someone else's problem, not yours.
Congrats...you managed to top your other post.
That's still not justice and you are not protecting "society" you are just endangering another one.
Under your rationale other countries should be able to do the same to us.....oh wait......Mexico already is
You can't prove your innocence, then you can go bye-bye too. I won't mourn for you.
Interesting.....something we both agree on. I also agree with your previous post about offing him. Rapists, child molesters and murderers should all have 30 days after conviction to prove innocence. If not then too bad. Of course the burden of proof should be raised (IMO) to try to avoid the innocent person being convicted but in any case.....get rid of them.
Gee, I wish the females of this country had been as vigilant when the catholic priests were raping young boys, or does the fact that boys were the victims here change the attitude? Frankly it sounds like vengeance rather than justice that is being sought. When I was 13 I HOPED some woman would give me sex, but that's a male attitude based upon a different set of values. Different rules for different genders seems to be the end result of the equal rights amendment movement. Equal till it benefits them not to be equal.
And of course, NOW is nowhere to be heard. If it were about some woman being denied an abortion or her chance to exercise her "equality" by peeing in a urinal standing up, then they would be all over it. But something like this? *Chirp*Chirp*
chielgirl, you are normally the one who goes on man hating rants when it involves rape. Why are you defending this man who seems to be the darling of the Hollywood liberal elite? At a recent awards show, Hollywood celebrities gave him a standing ovation regardless of his admitted guilt in drugging and raping a young teenage girl. Just because he wasn't charged since that time does not mean he didn't continue his criminal behavior. With modern "date rape" drugs he may have continued such actions without the victim's knowledge or enough evidence to show his guilt. Just because he's a talented director does not mean he should get away with this crime.
i guess she feels its been a long time? people can have change of heart and judgemenet, according to circumstances.
i get confused too i think i know a poster and they go 180 degrees.
for example cheering for the felon who killed 4 oakland cops and then later posting a rebuke to a mayor of another town that cuts police services
What I really would like to know is how many of you libs who want to set this pervert free will volunteer the services of YOUR pre-pubescent daughters.
He had sex with a 13-year-old girl. He got her to go to Jack Nicholson's house by promising that she would be in a photo shoot. When she got there, he fed her a Quaalude and alcohol -- champagne for a 13-year-old, how enticing -- and then he raped her.
I've got news for the big shots: International cultural events are not safe havens for criminals, nor is there any reason they should be. A criminal is a criminal, even if he is "one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers." There's nothing "inadmissible" about it, guys.
Some on the Left still retain their morals by speaking out against their brethren who support this monster.
I wonder after reading what he did to this child, if those who were "torn", still feel this way.
Don't you ever get tired of spinning what I wrote so it fits your agenda? I'm not going to reiterate what I first posted, if you want to read what I actually said it's sill there. But, that won't fit yout agenda of putting everyone into a left or right cubicle, so I know you won't.
Carry on in that narrow tunnel from which you so happily twist truths and nourish hate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
