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.
Beth,
Tell that to 40% of the pioneer women. They were between 13 and 18. They had and raised families in the wilderness. Could YOU do that now, at your present maturity level? How many modern females could churn butter, raise kids well, milk cows, plow the fields if the man is off hunting or gather the crops?
Have you ever seen a 13 year old wearing a thong? I have, on a public beach. If you are attracting men with your dress then don't blame him for looking, wanting and trying.
I disagree from a legal perspective (not a moral or ethical one) The judge doesn't have to accept a plea agreement. He can verbally accede to it and change his or her mind. It's not final until the judge puts it in writing. Polanski doesn't have the right to take the law into his own hands and flee the country because he didn't like the judge's opinion. And this type of thing happens all the time. Judges may initially agree to a plea agreement and after some time, change their mind based on the facts. It was never finalized and a judgement wasn't given. It's Polanski's obligation to obey the law and await the final judgement. I think this case sets a precedent. It states to the country that no one is above the law. Just because this case occurred 30 years ago has no bearing on whether it is unlawful. So that means if someone commits a crime and fleas the country and comes back 30 years later, we should excuse it because 30 years have passed? Just because you don't like a particular legal decision or judgement, doesn't mean you break the law.
Polanski pleaded guilty to rape so this isn't a case of he is innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty and fled the country to escape potential imprisonment. Sorry but that's an additional crime. To me, it's a no brainer, he has to be prosecuted and serve his time. If the courts decide that his previous 42 day incarceration meets that punishment, I will respect the courts decision from a legal perspective.
From a moral and ethical perspective, I think he should absolutely be sentenced to prison. He raped a 13 year old girl. He sodomized her. He used drugs to aid him. She protested and told him "no" so it was not concensual sex. If this was not a Hollywood director, he would potentially be serving 10+ years in prison. We shouldn't apply a double standard because it happened in the past, and because he is famous.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 10-01-2009 at 05:11 PM..
Have you ever seen a 13 year old wearing a thong? I have, on a public beach. If you are attracting men with your dress then don't blame him for looking, wanting and trying.
Then I guess your thinking would be along the lines of Roman Polanski's. There are no boundaries. Some children grow up too fast. Perhaps parental guidance has been lacking. They make stupid decisions like wearing something more suggestive than they probably should, and some man thinks that gives him the right to eff her. Disgusting.
AZ,
So there should be no statue of limitations for anything? Jaywalking? Driving drunk? There was a statute of limitations of murder at one time, then it was just capital crimes, now it seems that ANY crime against a female is reason to forget that 30 years has past. Please let me be on ANY jury deciding this case. It isn't about justice anymore. It's about punishing some man who mistreated some female. Kill him for that. Castrate him. Any punishment is justified if the crime is against a female. Is that a country YOU want to live in. Not me.
Then I guess your thinking would be along the lines of Roman Polanski's. There are no boundaries. Some children grow up too fast. Perhaps parental guidance has been lacking. They make stupid decisions like wearing something more suggestive than they probably should, and some man thinks that gives him the right to eff her. Disgusting.
I agree with you. I fail to understand their type of thinking. If a minor wears a bikini or a revealing clothing then we are to interpret them to be an adult and thus justify being raped?
AZ,
So there should be no statue of limitations for anything? Jaywalking? Driving drunk? There was a statute of limitations of murder at one time, then it was just capital crimes, now it seems that ANY crime against a female is reason to forget that 30 years has past. Please let me be on ANY jury deciding this case. It isn't about justice anymore. It's about punishing some man who mistreated some female. Kill him for that. Castrate him. Any punishment is justified if the crime is against a female. Is that a country YOU want to live in. Not me.
Statute of limitations doesn't apply to rape. And you are equating rape with jaywalking? It has nothing to do with the fact that she was a female. This person raped a minor, drugged and sodomized this individual and then fled the authorities (another crime). Yes, I'm happy to live in a country that recognizes this is wrong
Beth,
If the families would stop trying to live beyond their means and spend the effort being full time parents the kids wouldn't have a chance to get with some older man or younger man. But man can't tell his wife to stay home, tend the kids and do the house chores because she needs fulfillment. Well, your kids are getting filled full all right. And what is really disgusting is the feminists attempt to make the whole country child safe. That's because the parents aren't parenting any more. I caught my then 16 year old daughter trying to go out with a 24 year old man and I didn't allow it to happen. Was she mad? Yes. Did she call me names? Yes. How else am I to know that I am doing a good job of parenting? Parenting is NOT a part time job. You accept that when you have sex. If females are not aware of the possibility of pregnancy who's fault is that? Some outside man's? I don't see it. Hold the parents to blame for not parenting. The history of this girl is hardly unblemished. The history of parenting since the birth of feminism is far from the ideal they propagandized it to be.
I disagree from a legal perspective (not a moral or ethical one) The judge doesn't have to accept a plea agreement. He can verbally accede to it and change his or her mind. It's not final until the judge puts it in writing. Polanski doesn't have the right to take the law into his own hands and flee the country because he didn't like the judge's opinion. And this type of thing happens all the time. Judges may initially agree to a plea agreement and after some time, change their mind based on the facts. It was never finalized and a judgement wasn't given. It's Polanski's obligation to obey the law and await the final judgement. I think this case sets a precedent. It states to the country that no one is above the law. Just because this case occurred 30 years ago has no bearing on whether it is unlawful. So that means if someone commits a crime and fleas the country and comes back 30 years later, we should excuse it because 30 years have passed? Just because you don't like a particular legal decision or judgement, doesn't mean you break the law.
Polanski pleaded guilty to rape so this isn't a case of he is innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty and fled the country to escape potential imprisonment. Sorry but that's an additional crime. To me, it's a no brainer, he has to be prosecuted and serve his time. If the courts decide that his previous 42 day incarceration meets that punishment, I will respect the courts decision from a legal perspective.
From a moral and ethical perspective, I think he should absolutely be sentenced to prison. He raped a 13 year old girl. He sodomized her. He used drugs to aid him. She protested and told him "no" so it was not concensual sex. If this was not a Hollywood director, he would potentially be serving 10+ years in prison. We shouldn't apply a double standard because it happened in the past, and because he is famous.
Polanski did not plead guilty to rape. He pled guilty to the lesser charge of sex wiith a minor. He was not proven guilty as there was no trial, there was a preliminary hearing scheduled for which he submitted a guilty plea to the lesser charge after a plea deal had been brokered between both attorney's and the judge. The night before the hearing the judge renigged on the plea agreement citing pressure from the media.
I love how females refuse to show self control or allow others to control them but demand that men show more self control than is demanded of females and demand that society control men from the outside. Female children can have children themselves and they get paid just the same. This society is giving men impossibly mixed signals. It seems like females are out to tease men until men commit some infraction so she can have him slammed in jail for the rest of his life. I find that more disgusting than having sex ever will be except to some sad repressed individuals. Frankly I think females think too highly of themselves and their sex organ. That's why I now choose to live alone.
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.
