For anyone who believes in the rights of young females the discussion ends at Polanski's conviction. He anally raped a 13 year old child after drugging her.
On 5 Oct 2009 at 16:32, S. Artesian wrote: > We were supposed to bring this issue to a close, remember? But we can't. > This is like a Bunuel movie. Don't like the food, the guests scare me, > there are sharp objects all around and still I can't get up from the tabele. > OK, we want go through more of this? I've got one more go-round in me: > > 1. This is "no perfect" example, no example at all. Polanski has not been > kidnapped. The Sheikh, to my knowlege did not agree to plead guilty to > lesser charges then flee the country. > > 2. This is not a "new policy" of the US govt. Requests for extradition by > one country to another have a long tradition. Agreeing to them and > rejecting have an equally long history. > > 3. This is a request for extradition, not an extraordinary rendition. I > know the two words share a lot of the same letters, but the acts are quite > different > > 4. Regarding civil suits-- it's unclear if Polanski ever paid any of the > $500,000 he agreed to pay to his victim back in 1993 [stand up guy, that > Polanski, only takes the victim what 16 years to get a settlement- that's > due process for you]. As of 1996, he had paid squat, and the amount with > interest was around $605,000. > > 5. As for due process-- Polanski was afforded "due process," certainly as > much as any rich white connected male can expect to be afforded in the US. > He was indicted on charges of rape and sodomy based on the grand jury > testimony of the victim. Possible defendants are allowed to testify to > grand juries, but are generally not required to so testify. I don't know if > Polanski did, and as with everything else, I really don't care. Polanski > then was afforded due process after indictment, was arrested, released on > bail, obtained legal counsel and negotiated a plea bargain to plead guilty > to lesser charges-- sex with a minor-- and avoid the charges of rape and > sodomy. Polanski on the advice of legal counsel agreed to this deal in the > hope, not the guarantee that the prosecutors would be able to persuade the > judge to agree to the reduced sentencing and all that jazz. The judge did > not agree. Polanski then, according to due process, could have withdrawn > his guilty plea, and could have asserted his innocence of the more severe > charge and faced a trial and the decision of a jury of his peers. He > elected instead to process a little due on his own and flee the country. He > has lived well in France and Switzerland for some 30 odd years, and I don't > care about that either. > > 6. I do not believe that those defending Polanski, or expressing "concerns" > about this process are supporters of child molestation, excusers of rape. I > do think those who express those concerns are, however, wasting their time > and ours, by maintaining that there is some "overstepping" of legality, > there is some witch-hunt going on. Polanski is what he is-- a child-abuser I > do think those who excuse Polanski, based on his age, his "creative > contributions," his tragic past [give us break on that one, please], are in > fact excusing child rape. To my knowledge, no one on this list is arguing > that. > > 7. Those who think, however, that this event says anything at all one way > or the other about the US judicial and/or political system, are making > something out of nothing, or in this case, something out of a scumbag. > Literally. > ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
