Quote:
Originally Posted by Dottore
Thanks again for focusing on the issue.
He spent 90 days in jail, as agreed with the DA in his lesser plea for "sex with a minor". That was the deal. That was what he pleaded guilty to.
What I disagree with is your point that fleeing when he saw he was going to be railroaded by a corrupt court was somehow wrong. Surely morality does not come into this decision. What is "rational, legal and moral" about subjecting yourself to an obvious travesty of justice?
The only real question here is whether his decision to flee was rational under the circumstances. With everything we now know about the judge and his intentions, I'm of the view that Polanski's choice was entirely rational.
Imagine if you were thrown into jail in Turkey, knew you were facing a corrupt court and possibly a long and entirely disproportionate sentence? Would you not flee the jurisdiction if you had the opportunity? I know I damn well would.
|
First, I'm sorry for the all the vitriol and insults that have been thrown at you. Those are the people who make justice difficult to achieve.
But back to the subject, what I see as corrupt is the fact that you can drug a 13 year old and bone her/him up the ass and "bargain" a 90 day sentence out of it, not the fact that somebody saw the light and said the bargain itself was a travesty of justice. I think several years in prison would be proportionate to the crime he committed.
This brings to light a bigger issue. People often avoid serious punishment for having sex with a child because it requires that the child testify, which can be as traumatic as the original attack. We need a system that does not even bring up the question of consent of the child. To protect children the only thing a judge needs to know is "did he/she do it." If the answer is yes - 25 years. No further questions or harassment of the child. It may be that a particular 13 year old is mature enough to give consent, but our biggest concern should be protecting the one's who aren't.