Walsingham Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Poziomy, you have defended your position into a corner and now you can't get out because it would mean losing the argument. You don't know anything about the character of the girl Polanski raped. The fact that she had sex before is unusual, but not relevant to whether she was raped. Polanski admitted the crime and fled, knowing full well that if he ever got caught he would go to prison. If you are going to cry 'miscarriage of justice' show me something other than speculation. Hear hear. Funny how it's always a miscarriage of justice. You'd think the courts never sentenced a guilty man. Free John Gotti! "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Guest PoziomyPion Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) 1st He admitted to a crime of having a sex with a minor not rape the minor. 2nd I said before I am stating my opinions by filling the loopholes in this case, by being biased and being aware of my bias. I also stated that if I take away my own emotions out of this case and the bias I feel that I am unable to judge both parties like a professional judge, taking responsibility for that. Everybody seems to forget about that post I made earlier, I just want to offer a differnt view on that situation and I am ready to admit I was wrong if the new evidence will point to me being wrong. At this point assuming that Polanski is a dirty rapist is just like me saying he had an illegal intercourse with that girl but he did not rape her. And no I am not in this topic only to win or loose an argument but maybe instead of joining this discussion I just should write that I'll wait for the sentence and then make up my mind. If I knew I have to join a circle jerk to have a discussion I would stay away and not touch this slimy case and instead from now I'll stay away from discussing such things on the foreign forums and keep my toughts to people/places I can communicate more easly with. Edited October 3, 2009 by PoziomyPion
Hurlshort Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Isn't his sentence like 45 days? I think Martha Stewart had the same sentence for insider trading!
Wrath of Dagon Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 I thought for Martha it was a year or so. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Hurlshort Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Martha served 5 months. Ah, I read up a bit, seems Polanski served 42 days in a psych hospital and thought that should be it. So he has to be sentenced again.
Volourn Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 "Can you be sentenced for something you aren't charged with?" He was charged with rape. He pleaded guilty to lesser charges like manyc riminals do as the prosecution always tries to find ways to avoid long dragged out cases. It was rape. There is tons of evidence including Polanski's own admissions. He used drugs, alcohol, and an abuse of authority and continued to rape her even after she repeatedly said no. It's rape no matter how much you try to spin it to try to paint the victim as a ****. The fact she had sex before this incident doesn't equate to him being guilty. It's silly to claim that just ebcause someone has ahd sex it's no longer rape. I guess it is impossible to 'rape' a mother since all mothers (well... almost) have had sex before. That's beyond sex. It was rape. It was rape. It. was. rape. IT WAS RAPE DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Walsingham Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 I'm even more confused now. Not only do you weirdos refuse to accept the idea of statutory rape, but now as Volo helpfully points out, using drugs and coercion to make someone have sex with you isn't rape. I honestly don't believe this. And I believe all sorts of strange things. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Amentep Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 1st He admitted to a crime of having a sex with a minor not rape the minor. It should be pointed out California doesn't have a code called "Statutory Rape"; the "Unlawful Sex With A Minor" (PC 261.5) is, however, a subsection of PC 261, which defines Rape. I don't believe that it is unfair to think that "Unlawful Sex With a Minor" is equivilent to "Statutory Rape" whether they dropped the charges related to PC 261 or not. Ergo I remain unconvinced classing Polanski as a "rapist" to be incorrect terminology. He plea bargined to the lesser charge in hopes of getting a lighter sentence, not dissimilar to a drunk driver pleading to Manslaughter so as to not face murder charges. It should also be pointed out that PC 261.5 indicated that those convicted of Unlawful Sex can have a liability in civil trial (hence the civil trial, settled out of court, where Polanski paid his victim). I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Volourn Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 "Statutory Rape" I hae this phrase. It demeans the the word rape. I really wish they'd come up for another term when someone has sex with a minor. It's not rape. Doesn't make it right, but it's not rape. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
taks Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) that's just silly, volourn. statutory rape is rape because children are not legally capable of giving consent due to their (implied) lack of maturity. hence, sex with a minor is sex without consent. this also applies to those that are mentally impaired, though i do not know if this applies to those incapable of giving consent for some other reason, e.g., being in a vegetative state. not all jurisdictions call it statutory rape, btw. taks Edited October 3, 2009 by taks comrade taks... just because.
Volourn Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) "statutory rape is rape because children are not legally capable of giving consent due to their (implied) lack of maturity. hence, sex with a minor is sex without consent. this also applies to those that are mentally impaired, though i do not know if this applies to those incapable of giving consent for some other reason, e.g., being in a vegetative state." I could posisbly live with th term if it referred to young children, but not when it's used for teenagers. To me rape is about forced sex while 'statuary rape' is illegal CONSENSUAL sex with a minor. Nowhere near the same as rape. "though i do not know if this applies to those incapable of giving consent for some other reason, e.g., being in a vegetative state." Wouldn't this be just plain, old fashion rape? Edited October 3, 2009 by Volourn DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Purkake Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Oh wow, now you're arguing over semantics? Keep it up, it won't be long till Godwin's law comes into effect.
Volourn Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Not semantics. It's an abuse of the word rape. Rape is about forced unwanted sex. 'Statuary rape' is about consensual sex. They aren't even in the same ballpark, and therefore should not be sharing the same descriptor. Period. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Purkake Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 And yet they do in legal text(though, apparently not in California). Arguing about it is not going to change it.
taks Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 'Statuary rape' is about consensual sex. no, it is not. consent cannot legally be given by a minor, period. since it is a legal standard you are arguing, you need to use legal definitions, volourn. taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Wouldn't this be just plain, old fashion rape? it would depend upon how the law is written. mentally impaired people are legally incapable of giving consent, so it is the same situation as a child. someone in a coma is physically incapable of giving consent, so it might be different. gromnir is a lawyer, he may know more. taks comrade taks... just because.
213374U Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 He was charged with rape. He pleaded guilty to lesser charges like manyc riminals do as the prosecution always tries to find ways to avoid long dragged out cases.My bad. If the plea bargain had been rejected by the judge, Polanski would just have withdrawn his guilty plea, though. I'm even more confused now. Not only do you weirdos refuse to accept the idea of statutory rape, but now as Volo helpfully points out, using drugs and coercion to make someone have sex with you isn't rape. I honestly don't believe this. And I believe all sorts of strange things.Just whom is this comment aimed at? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Volourn Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 "no, it is not. consent cannot legally be given by a minor, period. since it is a legal standard you are arguing, you need to use legal definitions, volourn." You are ignorantly missing the point. I know what the legal terms mean. I'm not arguing that it means something else currently; but it shoulod. My argument is that said legal definition should be changed. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 That should cue something akin to "Words have definitions" type response...
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 a guinea pig is neither from guinea nor a pig
Volourn Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 "That should cue something akin to "Words have definitions" type response... " Absolutely. Rape has a certain meaning to it, and having statuary in front of it just demeans the world rape. Rape is rape. This idea of 'rape rape' is just another lame thing. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Walsingham Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 It's not complex. Rape means sex without full consent, in the same way as drug rape or alcohol rape. Statutory rape means that a minor isn't fully capable of giving consent. A fact enshrined in many ways in law, including minimum age of criminal responsibility. I might point out here that other countries will subject minors to the death penalty also. Statutory rape doesn't demean the word rape any more than the term 'emperor penguin' demeans the word penguin. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Agreed, Walsh. Statutory Rape is rape. Plain and simple. Polanksi raped a child, and those who support that and him are just sick in the head. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Lare Kikkeli Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Polanksi raped a child, and those who support that and him are just sick in the head. or civilized poles
Purkake Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Polanksi raped a child, and those who support that and him are just sick in the head. or civilized poles That's like saying civilized barbarians, an impossibility if I ever saw one.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now