Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

hito wrote:
If she has truly forgiven him then perhaps we should too.



if Polanski paid everyone $500,000 as he obviously has to Samantha Geimer, perhaps there would be more general forgiveness for him. Human life is cheap it seems, but in Hollywood it is perhaps slightly more expensive than elsewhere.

Jul 15, 2010, 08:03


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

hito wrote:


Reform - DevastatorJr. made a good case that he may not be reformed. Life is littered with tales of Hollywood excess and there is no reason to assume that privately he would not do it again. On the other hand, people may know he is reformed and penitent about his crimes. In the end, I don't know.




There is incontrovertible evidence that he is indeed a serial child sex offender. He was in a sexual relationship with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski when he raped Samantha Geimer - the case was widely thought to be the reason his relationship with Kinski ended. The legal age of consent was then and still is 16 in the UK as I believe it is in USA.

On account of his notoriety, he was banned by the UK government from entry into the country to film the final scene of 'Tess' at Stonehenge, which resulted in him having to build a replica of the monument in France. It is amazing what lengths people will go to to avoid justice.

The man certainly was and almost certainly sill is a menace to society, at least in the message he sends out to like minded exploiters of young people.

Jul 15, 2010, 08:30


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Dara wrote:
hito wrote:
If she has truly forgiven him then perhaps we should too.



if Polanski paid everyone $500,000 as he obviously has to Samantha Geimer, perhaps there would be more general forgiveness for him. Human life is cheap it seems, but in Hollywood it is perhaps slightly more expensive than elsewhere.



I don't think being paid compensation could make you truly forgive someone. In fact, I wonder whether the actions of your attacker are relevant at all. You could forgive someone who is unrepentant or you may not forgive someone who is repentant. I think forgiveness comes from within.

Jul 15, 2010, 08:38


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

hito wrote:


I don't think being paid compensation could make you truly forgive someone. In fact, I wonder whether the actions of your attacker are relevant at all. You could forgive someone who is unrepentant or you may not forgive someone who is repentant. I think forgiveness comes from within.




A laudable and high-minded opinion Hito, and I really wish it was generally true. But I feel there is a difference between 'hush money' and 'forgiveness' and there are many perspectives this case can be seen from. In terms of high-minded christian style forgiveness, I am reminded of something a friend of mine who was a university chaplain said in response to a request for guidance just after the 9/11 attacks. When asked 'how do we as christians respond to the horrific attacks which left so many innocent people dead?'.

He replied:

'we kiss the hand of those who killed our children'

Nice idea in promoting world peace and brotherly love and all that - but sorry, it's bollocks.

Jul 15, 2010, 08:55


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Dara wrote:
hito wrote:


Reform - DevastatorJr. made a good case that he may not be reformed. Life is littered with tales of Hollywood excess and there is no reason to assume that privately he would not do it again. On the other hand, people may know he is reformed and penitent about his crimes. In the end, I don't know.




Dara wrote:

There is incontrovertible evidence that he is indeed a serial child sex offender. He was in a sexual relationship with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski when he raped Samantha Geimer - the case was widely thought to be the reason his relationship with Kinski ended. The legal age of consent was then and still is 16 in the UK as I believe it is in USA.


There is incontrovertible evidence that he was indeed a serial child sex offender.

Dara wrote:
It is amazing what lengths people will go to to avoid justice.


I agree. He is rich and spoilt and selfish and heavily supported by people who know better.

[quote="Dara"]The man certainly was and almost certainly still is a menace to society, at least in the message he sends out to like minded exploiters of young people.

You are mixing two of the principles of justice in sentencing that I discussed.
The first half is relevant and as I said, I don't know if he is reformed. He appears not to have reoffended over the last 30 years but I could be wrong. So he definitely was a menace, whether he still is needs further investigation.
The second part deals with deterrant which is a very different principle. I think I presented a pretty strong argument that he should be jailed as a deterrant to other would be Hollywood rapists, which I assume was the judge's reason for expecting he get more than 90 days probation (thanks, Labhead) for having sex with a 13 year old.
So to get it clear; he was a menace, may still be one and jailing him - even after 30 years - would be a deterrent to "like minded exploiters of young people."

Jul 15, 2010, 09:02


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

I stuffed up the quotes there

hito wrote:


Reform - DevastatorJr. made a good case that he may not be reformed. Life is littered with tales of Hollywood excess and there is no reason to assume that privately he would not do it again. On the other hand, people may know he is reformed and penitent about his crimes. In the end, I don't know.

[/quote]


Dara wrote:

There is incontrovertible evidence that he is indeed a serial child sex offender. He was in a sexual relationship with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski when he raped Samantha Geimer - the case was widely thought to be the reason his relationship with Kinski ended. The legal age of consent was then and still is 16 in the UK as I believe it is in USA.
[/quote]

There is incontrovertible evidence that he was indeed a serial child sex offender.

[quote="Dara"]It is amazing what lengths people will go to to
ustice.[/quote]

I agree. He is rich and spoilt and selfish and heavily supported by people who know better.

[quote="Dara"]The man certainly was and almost certainly still is a menace to society, at least in the message he sends out to like mi
loiters of young people.[/quote]

You are mixing two of the principles of justice in sentencing that I discussed.
The first half is relevant and as I said, I don't know if he is reformed. He appears not to have reoffended over the last 30 years but I could be wrong. So he definitely was a menace, whether he still is needs further investigation.
The second part deals with deterrant which is a very different principle. I think I presented a pretty strong argument that he should be jailed as a deterrant to other would be Hollywood rapists, which I assume was the judge's reason for expecting he get more than 90 days probation (thanks, Labhead) for having sex with a 13 year old.
So to get it clear; he was a menace, may still be one and jailing him - even after 30 years - would be a deterrent to "like minded exploiters of young people."

Jul 15, 2010, 09:04


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

I give up. I wish there was an edit function.

Jul 15, 2010, 09:05


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Sorry, but I agree with Cheeso (et al) on this one. He has committed a despicable crime and gone 'on the run' - he must face the full penalty of the law for his crime. Reform and deterrence are other issues and only applicable to assessment by for example, a parole review board after serving a minimum sentence.

Jul 15, 2010, 09:13


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Dara wrote:
hito wrote:


I don't think being paid compensation could make you truly forgive someone. In fact, I wonder whether the actions of your attacker are relevant at all. You could forgive someone who is unrepentant or you may not forgive someone who is repentant. I think forgiveness comes from within.




A laudable and high-minded opinion Hito, and I really wish it was generally true. But I feel there is a difference between 'hush money' and 'forgiveness' and there are many perspectives this case can be seen from. In terms of high-minded christian style forgiveness, I am reminded of something a friend of mine who was a university chaplain said in response to a request for guidance just after the 9/11 attacks. When asked 'how do we as christians respond to the horrific attacks which left so many innocent people dead?'.

He replied:

'we kiss the hand of those who killed our children'

Nice idea in promoting world peace and brotherly love and all that - but sorry, it's bollocks.



I don't disagree that it may not be true forgiveness. I already said that if she is just forgiving to be left alone then that would not be an acceptable situation. So we are agreed on the hush money and potentially expedient expression of forgiveness.


If your "Christian" friend (Christian being followers of Jesus Christ) thinks that forgiving the September 11 bombers is bollocks then I don't know why they are a Christian.

If you don't believe in forgiveness in yourself, for you it is not possible.

But don't let your cynicism tell me or anyone else that they cannot forgive. I can and do every day and I am not a Christian.

Jul 15, 2010, 09:16


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Dara wrote:
Reform and deterrence are other issues and only applicable to assessment by for example, a parole review board after serving a minimum sentence.


No, they are relevant to sentencing too, and prosecuting for that matter.

I don't disagree with you or Cheeso overall. I see reasons for and against.

Jul 15, 2010, 09:19

Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index