Forget it, Kosma. It's Chinatown.

[Bocsius]

Epileptics are encouraged not to look at Zero's post. 

[brawndolicious]

BTW, why didn't the French or the Polish arrest him?  Not arresting a guy who does something like this just because it was on another continent just doesn't seem right.

He had dual Polish and French citizenship, neither country will extradite one of their own to the US.

But they're not even allowed to try him for that crime?

[Great Rumbler]

BTW, why didn't the French or the Polish arrest him?  Not arresting a guy who does something like this just because it was on another continent just doesn't seem right.

He had dual Polish and French citizenship, neither country will extradite one of their own to the US.

But they're not even allowed to try him for that crime?

What? The justice system has never worked that way. The crime was committed in America against an American citizen and justice can only be carried out by an American judge in an American court. Period.

Also, a great article from The Guardian:

The Roman Polanski defenders are out in force. Since his arrest, we've already heard pretty much every line that has ever been used to defend him during his decades as a fugitive: that his life has been hard, that he's suffered (because everyone who has had a sufficiently tough life is, of course, entitled to one free rape, courtesy of the US government), that he's paid his price (since living in Europe as a rich and acclaimed film director is a fate worse than death) and that the real tragedy is that he will forever be known as a rapist.

Which is not so much a "tragedy" as it is the result of the facts being known. Polanski vaginally and anally assaulted a 13-year-old girl, forced oral sex on her and pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. He did this as part of a plea bargain. When he began to fear that his sentence would not be as light as he had hoped, he fled the country. And had he not directed movies, our judgment would be unilateral and harsh. It's generally considered unacceptable, in the US criminal justice system, for a criminal to flee the country because he's afraid he won't like his sentence.

Yet the Polanski apologists keep coming. And some are actually using Samantha Gailey, the woman he raped, to make their point. They argue that she has "forgiven" him, that she has moved for the case to be dismissed. A New York Daily News article calls her his "most compelling defender", and it's rare to read an article supporting Polanski without her "forgiveness" being mentioned. She plays a key part in this petition for his release. For those like Bernard-Henri Lévy who want to give Polanski a pass, Gailey (who now goes by her married name, Geimer) is a key part of their strategy.

Which is precious, given that people who want to give Polanski a pass were responsible for a large amount of her trauma in the first place. Indeed, many seem not to have actually read her statements on the case – which are, in many cases, less about ensuring the continued welfare of poor Roman Polanski than about not wanting to have her name, family and actions dragged once more through the mud.

Consider, for a moment, her statements in the 1997 People magazine interview in which she "forgave" the man. Her statements are not about how Polanski has suffered, but about the vicious victim-blaming and harassment that followed his arrest:

    Reporters and photographers came to my school and put my picture in a European tabloid with the caption Little Lolita. They were all saying, "Poor Roman Polanski, entrapped by a 13-year-old temptress." I had a good friend who came from a good Catholic family, and her father wouldn't let her come to my house anymore. It was even worse for my mother because everyone was saying it was her fault. ... Twenty years ago everything said about me was horrible.

Is it any wonder, then, that she says now the attention is "not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining"? Praising Gailey for not pursuing the case, or using her as an excuse to argue that Polanski should be above the law, is a stunningly cynical and callous move, and a continuation both of the massive lack of empathy for her demonstrated at the time of the rape and the legacy of rape apologism that has come to define the conversation around Polanski.

I'm very happy that Gailey, by her own account, has processed the experience and moved on with her life. If she has "forgiven" him, that is her own business – and, for all I know, something she needed to do for her own health. I agree that she should be able to protect her own privacy and only involve herself in the case to the extent that she wishes to do so. I regret that her privacy may be invaded.

But what I am not happy with is the way that certain sectors of society – the same ones that were perfectly willing to shame and blame her when her family sought the conviction – are now parading her around as the good rape victim, the generous rape victim, the rape victim who has seen the light and is now the reason Polanski's 31-year refusal to be held accountable or even express meaningful remorse for raping a child should be aided and abetted by the US government.

I can't speak in Gailey's best interests. I can speak in mine, when I say that I, along with every other US citizen, stand to benefit from this case. If Polanski does finally serve his sentence, it will be a message to all of us that sexual assault is not tolerated, and that no one is above the law – not even those of us who happen to have directed Chinatown.

Forgiveness is a private, personal matter. So is healing from a sexual assault. But the criminal justice system doesn't traffic in healing or forgiveness. It has one purpose, which is to ensure that those who break laws, no matter who they are, will be held accountable and face the court-mandated consequences. And that – not Gailey – is what we need to focus on in the case of Roman Polanski.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/30/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-samantha-gailey

Here are some interesting quotes:

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-polanski1-2009oct01,0,1755914.story

"One gets hung up on legal details, criticizes Switzerland, or puts the state of the rule of law in the USA in question. The Polish producer Krzysztof Zanussi goes farther, to insult the abuse victim Samantha Geimer as an "underage prostitute."

http://www.stern.de/kultur/film/der-fall-polanski-die-filmwelt-wird-von-der-realitaet-eingeholt-1512219.html

[Yeti]

[castle007]

I am not sure how I should feel about this whole incident. Polanski is obviously a scumbag and should be punished.. but the victim has already publicly stated that she wants the charges dropped (mostly because she wants to end this nightmare, I think). If she truly forgave him then I think the charges should be dropped, because in the end he was convicted for what he did to the victim, and if she sincerly forgave him then I think everyone should respect her decision and drop the issue. But if she wants to drop the charges because she is still emotionally scarred and she wants to stop hearing about the case, then I think that polansfucker should be put in prison regardless of what country he is in ASAP, and the case would be closed.

P.S: I still can't get over the fact that he got a standing ovation at the Oscars  

[cool breeze]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

[Kestastrophe]

kosmalol.jpg

omg

Jin
Yeti

[BobFromPikeCreek]

I am not sure how I should feel about this whole incident. Polanski is obviously a scumbag and should be punished.. but the victim has already publicly stated that she wants the charges dropped (mostly because she wants to end this nightmare, I think). If she truly forgave him then I think the charges should be dropped, because in the end he was convicted for what he did to the victim, and if she sincerly forgave him then I think everyone should respect her decision and drop the issue. But if she wants to drop the charges because she is still emotionally scarred and she wants to stop hearing about the case, then I think that polansfucker should be put in prison regardless of what country he is in ASAP, and the case would be closed.

P.S: I still can't get over the fact that he got a standing ovation at the Oscars  

Doesn't matter because she was a minor when it happened.

[Flannel Boy]

It's the People v. Polanski, not Gailey/Geimer v. Polanski. The state prosecutes crimes, not the victim. The state should consider the feelings of the victim, but those feelings should not be determinative. There are important policy concerns that require the state to continue to pursue this case.

[castle007]

It's the People v. Polanski, not Gailey/Geimer v. Polanski. The state prosecutes crimes, not the victim. The state should consider the feelings of the victim, but those feelings should not be determinative. There are important policy concerns that require the state to continue to pursue this case.

The more I think about this case, the more I realize that the victi
hasn't really forgiven Polanski, and it is already obvious that Polanski isn't sorry for what he did, otherwise he would have served his sentence. For this specific case, I think he should serve his sentence.

But in general, I feel that if an adult victim of rape/violence and the family of a murdered person truly and sincerly forgive their attackers and the attackers are genuinly remorseful about what they did, then I think the charges should be dropped.

I feel that it is a worse punishment for these people to live in remorse and to live in society knowing that their victims forgave them and yet society will most likely view these people as murderers/rapists. It is also better for them because instead of sitting in a 4 ft cell doing nothing and then taking rehabilitation classes, they have the opportunity to better themselves and benefit society and interact with people.

But if they don't feel any remorse and their victims never forgive them, then to hell with them.

[Flannel Boy]

But in general, I feel that if an adult victim of rape/violence and the family of a murdered person truly and sincerly forgive their attackers and the attackers are genuinly remorseful about what they did, then I think the charges should be dropped.

How do you asses whether a criminal is genuinely remorseful? Especially when most are manipulative and lack remorse, shame or guilt.

Most of the objectives of the criminal law have nothing to do with the victims themselves, but with society in general. Society needs retribution and restitution, too, not just the victims. And society wants to incapacitate and deter violent offenders, while deterring others from engaging in similar behavior.

I feel that it is a worse punishment for these people to live in remorse and to live in society knowing that their victims forgave them and yet society will most likely view these people as murderers/rapists.

Of course, many murderers and rapists are sociopaths, completely incapable of feeling remorse. They can, however, fake it.

It's quite easy for people to blend into society. We don't live in tiny villages where everyone knows everyone else.

It is also better for them because instead of sitting in a 4 ft cell doing nothing and then taking rehabilitation classes, they have the opportunity to better themselves and benefit society and interact with people.

Or continue to rape and kill.

[Bocsius]

But in general, I feel that if an adult victim of rape/violence and the family of a murdered person truly and sincerly forgive their attackers and the attackers are genuinly remorseful about what they did, then I think the charges should be dropped.

I feel that it is a worse punishment for these people to live in remorse and to live in society knowing that their victims forgave them and yet society will most likely view these people as murderers/rapists. It is also better for them because instead of sitting in a 4 ft cell doing nothing and then taking rehabilitation classes, they have the opportunity to better themselves and benefit society and interact with people.

But if they don't feel any remorse and their victims never forgive them, then to hell with them.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is possibly the stupidest argument on criminal law that I have ever heard.

Well, except for "what if it didn't happen that way, did you ever think about that." Besides that one.

[duckman2000]

That would certainly benefit any kidnapper or hostage taker that has ever enjoyed the effects of the Stockholm syndrome.

[Flannel Boy]

That would certainly benefit any kidnapper or hostage taker that has ever enjoyed the effects of the Stockholm syndrome.

Or anyone who targets individual members of religious groups that preach strict forgiveness, such as the Amish.

[Bocsius]

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a verdict?"
"We have, your honor. But first, we would like to read a statement."
"Uhhh..."
"If we may."
"Allright, go ahead."
"While we think it is abhorrent that the defendant raped and murdered 17 people in three different states, and we all vomited in our mouths just a little bit when the defendant took the stand and said 'what if I didn't do it, did you ever think about that?,' and that all the evidence in the world (DNA, eye witness accounts, the defendant's own diary, the ghost of one of the deceased that was so kind to visit the courtroom on that rainy day back in March, etc.) points to the defendant's guilt, we think the defendant is truly sorry for what he did. And that hug he tried to give the mother of the fourth victim before she maced him and he was tasered by the bailiffs was nothing if not heartwrenching. Therefore, we the jury feel the defendant has learned his lesson and will therefore be of no more harm to society. We the jury find the defendant not guilty on all counts."

[Boogie]

How do you asses whether a criminal is genuinely remorseful? Especially when most are manipulative and lack remorse, shame or guilt.

Indeed.  I haven't arrested anyone yet who isn't completely innocent, respectful, and polite.  Funny how that happens when they face down a full team of police officers with guns pointed at them.

With statements like these, I can't see you as a defence lawyer, Malek.  What are you goals post-graduation?

[Flannel Boy]

My current goal is to not get kicked out of law school. I figure if I never go to class and never read my email, they can't kick me out. I discussed this with both Kosma and Castle, and they've both assured me this is a reasonable plan.

[Barry Egan]

smh

[Smooth Groove]

My current goal is to not get kicked out of law school. I figure if I never go to class and never read my email, they can't kick me out. I discussed this with both Kosma and Castle, and they've both assured me this is a reasonable plan.

You might also want to learn the difference between asses and assess.

[Flannel Boy]

Maybe that's not how I spelt it. Ever think about that?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

There's a reason I have asses on my mind 

[close]

[Human Snorenado]

Maybe that's not how I spelt it. Ever think about that?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

There's a reason I have asses on my mind 

[close]

I think I know why.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[castle007]

But in general, I feel that if an adult victim of rape/violence and the family of a murdered person truly and sincerly forgive their attackers and the attackers are genuinly remorseful about what they did, then I think the charges should be dropped.

How do you asses whether a criminal is genuinely remorseful? Especially when most are manipulative and lack remorse, shame or guilt.

Most of the objectives of the criminal law have nothing to do with the victims themselves, but with society in general. Society needs retribution and restitution, too, not just the victims. And society wants to incapacitate and deter violent offenders, while deterring others from engaging in similar behavior.

I feel that it is a worse punishment for these people to live in remorse and to live in society knowing that their victims forgave them and yet society will most likely view these people as murderers/rapists.

Of course, many murderers and rapists are sociopaths, completely incapable of feeling remorse. They can, however, fake it.

It's quite easy for people to blend into society. We don't live in tiny villages where everyone knows everyone else.

It is also better for them because instead of sitting in a 4 ft cell doing nothing and then taking rehabilitation classes, they have the opportunity to better themselves and benefit society and interact with people.

Or continue to rape and kill.  

God, you people are dense as hell!! Try reading my post with an open mind (although I should have made it clearer) I am not talking about serial killers and sociopaths. Obviously these people can't be forgiven and sent back to society without any punishment (let alone be sent back). I am talking about people who commit acts of murder/rape/abuse once in a state of rage/under the influence, etc... Everyone is capable of killing, even the most upright and righteous people. It obviously doesn't make it right, but what if these people commit these crimes when they weren't thinking clearly, and it is obvious that they won't commit it again? I don't think they should be sent to prison if the victims/ victim's family forgive them. They should be given counselling and support from their families to help them.

I don't think a person deserves to go to prison and serve up to 15 years in prison if he ran another person over in a car accident, and then the family of the victim forgave him after they truly feel that the he is feeling remorse. There is no reason for him to go to prison!! He should be counselled by his family and his loved ones, and he should make it up to the victim/victim's family by supporting them (financially, physical labor, etc..). They shouldn't be automatically thrown in prison just like that.

[Madrun Badrun]

"Sorry I stuck it in you're butt, but I had a bad case of the rape rage going on.  I've talked it over with my family and it won't happen again." 

[castle007]

"Sorry I stuck it in you're butt, but I had a bad case of the rape rage going on.  I've talked it over with my family and it won't happen again." 

Unbelievably dense and ignorant. Why do I bother with this forum?

[Madrun Badrun]

Forgive me, I was only joking.  Everyone is capable of being dense some times and I was in a rage caused by the stupidity of your post.  I've talked it over with my mom and this won't happen again. 

[AdmiralViscen]

[Flannel Boy]

God, you people are dense as hell!!

This is a good way to start. I hope you've never called Dawkins an arrogant asshole.

Try reading my post with an open mind (although I should have made it clearer) I am not talking about serial killers and sociopaths. Obviously these people can't be forgiven and sent back to society without any punishment (let alone be sent back). I am talking about people who commit acts of murder/rape/abuse once in a state of rage/under the influence, etc... Everyone is capable of murder, even the most upright and righteous people.

I don't think everyone is capable of murder. Killing? Maybe. Murder? No. But if everyone is indeed capable of murder, as you claim, then that gives society even more reason to try to deter its members from committing the crime.

It obviously doesn't make it right, but what if these people commit these crimes when they weren't thinking clearly, and it is obvious that they won't commit it again? I don't think they should be sent to prison if the victims/ victim's family forgive them. They should be given counselling and support from their families to help them.

Did you not just claim that everyone is capable of murder? Yet now you claim it can be obvious that someone will never reoffend. Odd.
And obvious to whom? The families of the victims? Because, according to you, they are the ones that decide, not--say--psychiatrists. No, the families of a murdered victim are in the best position to judge. . . .

I don't think a person deserves to go to prison and serve up to 15 years in prison if he ran another person over in a car accident, and then the family of the victim forgave him after they truly feel that the he is feeling remorse. There is no reason for him to go to prison!!

I don't think you know what an "accident" means.

and he should make it up to the victim/victim's family by supporting them (financially, physical labor, etc..). They shouldn't be automatically thrown in prison just like that.

Yes, counseling by one's family members, THAT SHOULD WORK!

and he should make it up to the victim/victim's family by supporting them (financially, physical labor, etc..). They shouldn't be automatically thrown in prison just like that.

And if he's unable to support them financially, he or she should be thrown in prison? So the rich can kill as much they like while the poor rot in prison?

[brawndolicious]

[youtube=560,345]3nopKDuydRo[/youtube]

[Bocsius]

How about the rapers and murderers that are truly repentant but happened to rape and/or murder someone whose family is wholly vindictive? Sucks to be him, huh? Seems a violation of due process and equal protection, to me.

[castle007]

God, you people are dense as hell!!

This is a good way to start. I hope you've never called Dawkins an arrogant asshole.

Try reading my post with an open mind (although I should have made it clearer) I am not talking about serial killers and sociopaths. Obviously these people can't be forgiven and sent back to society without any punishment (let alone be sent back). I am talking about people who commit acts of murder/rape/abuse once in a state of rage/under the influence, etc... Everyone is capable of murder, even the most upright and righteous people.

I don't think everyone is capable of murder. Killing? Maybe. Murder? No. But if everyone is indeed capable of murder, as you claim, then that gives society even more reason to deter others from committing the crime.

It obviously doesn't make it right, but what if these people commit these crimes when they weren't thinking clearly, and it is obvious that they won't commit it again? I don't think they should be sent to prison if the victims/ victim's family forgive them. They should be given counselling and support from their families to help them.

Did you not just claim that everyone is capable of murder? Yet now you claim it can be obvious that someone will never reoffend. Odd.
And obvious to whom? The families of the victims? Because, according to you, they are the ones that decide, not--say--psychiatrists. No, the families of a murdered victim are in the best position to judge. . . .

I don't think a person deserves to go to prison and serve up to 15 years in prison if he ran another person over in a car accident, and then the family of the victim forgave him after they truly feel that the he is feeling remorse. There is no reason for him to go to prison!!

I don't think you know what an "accident" means.

and he should make it up to the victim/victim's family by supporting them (financially, physical labor, etc..). They shouldn't be automatically thrown in prison just like that.

Yes, counseling by one's family members, THAT SHOULD WORK!

and he should make it up to the victim/victim's family by supporting them (financially, physical labor, etc..). They shouldn't be automatically thrown in prison just like that.

And if he's unable to support them financially, he or she should be thrown in prison? So the rich can kill as much they like while the poor rot in prison?

HOW DO I REACH THESE KIIIIDZ

I agree with you about the counselling part, there should be professional counselling, but there should also be family counselling (someone you know, someone that understands you). And yes, everyone is capable of killing, but not everyone is going to do it obviously. Not everyone feels remorseful after committing a crime; and in most cases the victim/victim's family will not forgive the killer/rapist. But in the rare cases that they do, I think the cases should be treated very differently and acquittal should be heavily considered and given. It is like I am saying that everyone that kills and rapes is going to run free.

and the last quote... great logic buddy.


Also, about the "accident" part.. lets say that you were driving a car and you took your eyes off the road for a fraction of a second and suddenly this little girl runs on the street and you end up killing her. You are a normal person who would never even dream about hurting someone when your mind isn't clouded (alcohol, drugs, etc..). You are going to get arrested and possibly spend up to 15 years in prison because of what you did. In the beginning, the victim's family is going to be angry, upset and they would want you to spend a good portion of your life in prison for taking away their little girl. But then you meet face to face and express to them sincere regret and absolute remorse for what you did and the pain that you caused them. They believe you and forgive you for what happened. Would you want to spend those 15 years in prison in a 4x4 cell getting butt raped by guys (I am expecting a snarky "oooh yeah" reply) or would you want to spend this time trying to cope with what you did by supporting the victim's family and getting constructive and healthy support from your family and psychiatrists?

[Barry Egan]

lets say that you were driving a car and you took your eyes off the road for a fraction of a second and suddenly this little girl runs on the street and you end up killing her. You are a normal person who would never even dream about hurting someone when your mind isn't clouded (alcohol, drugs, etc..)

do you really think a drunk driver deserves to be let off the hook because they would never drive carelessly when they're sober?  this thread is absolutely insane.

[castle007]

lets say that you were driving a car and you took your eyes off the road for a fraction of a second and suddenly this little girl runs on the street and you end up killing her. You are a normal person who would never even dream about hurting someone when your mind isn't clouded (alcohol, drugs, etc..)

do you really think a drunk driver deserves to be let off the hook because they would never drive carelessly when they're sober?  this thread is absolutely insane.

In the Malek's case he is sober. 

Seriously though, I am not saying that they should be let off the hook (did you even read my post, or do you pick and quote random parts??). They should be punished, unless in the rare case that the victim/victim's family forgive them for the reasons I mentioned in my posts.

[duckman2000]

If you get in a car drunk/high or for other reasons not fit to drive, and you end up killing someone because your reaction time was slowed, then you threw everything out the window you started the car and decided that you were worth more than anyone else at that moment. Fuck cushy rehabilitation, and fuck prison. If it was up to me, you'd get terminated at the scene of the crime.

If it's an accident, it should be considered an accident. If it's a direct result of drinking, then it should be treated like any other violent crime. And I don't particularly give a fuck if the dude is repentant or not, or if the victim's family has forgiven the dude. It's a violent crime following another crime, so fuck leniency.

[Flannel Boy]

HOW DO I REACH THESE KIIIIDZ

I agree with you about the counselling part, there should be professional counselling, but there should also be family counselling (someone you know, someone that understands you). And yes, everyone is capable of killing, but not everyone is going to do it obviously. Not everyone feels remorseful after committing a crime; and in most cases the victim/victim's family will not forgive the killer/rapist. But in the rare cases that they do, I think the cases should be treated very differently and acquittal should be heavily considered and given. It is like I am saying that everyone that kills and rapes is going to run free.

The punishment for a crime should be commensurate to the act committed and the culpability of the accused, not the wishes of the family. The law demands uniformity, predictability, and fairness. There's nothing uniform, predicable, or fair about varying a sentence simply because someone killed an Amish girl instead of a girl whose family has different values and beliefs.

and the last quote... great logic buddy.

Someone has to explain to you what the consequences of your beliefs. A rich accused has the means to either pay off the family legally or simply bribe them. Money should not be a factor in how a murderer is sentenced. (BY THE WAY HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF CIVIL COURTS, WHICH ARE SEPERATE FROM CRIMINAL COURTS. If the family wants restiution as well as a criminal sanction, they are free to sue.)

Also, about the "accident" part.. lets say that you were driving a car and you took your eyes off the road for a fraction of a second and suddenly this little girl runs on the street and you end up killing her. You are a normal person who would never even dream about hurting someone when your mind isn't clouded (alcohol, drugs, etc..). You are going to get arrested and possibly spend up to 15 years in prison because of what you did. In the beginning, the victim's family is going to be angry, upset and they would want you to spend a good portion of your life in prison for taking away their little girl. But then you meet face to face and express to them sincere regret and absolute remorse for what you did and the pain that you caused them. They believe you and forgive you for what happened. Would you want to spend those 15 years in prison in a 4x4 cell getting butt raped by guys (I am expecting a snarky "oooh yeah" reply) or would you want to spend this time trying to cope with what you did by supporting the victim's family and getting constructive and healthy support from your family and psychiatrists?

Well, that's not an accident.

Also, drinking and driving is a big problem in North America. The sentences are far to lenient and don't serve to deter people enough. Yet, you want to make the sentences lighter?

[chronovore]

My current goal is to not get kicked out of law school. I figure if I never go to class and never read my email, they can't kick me out. I discussed this with both Kosma and Castle, and they've both assured me this is a reasonable plan.

You might also want to learn the difference between asses and assess.

Polanski is probably wishing he had assessed some of those asses.

[castle007]

HOW DO I REACH THESE KIIIIDZ

I agree with you about the counselling part, there should be professional counselling, but there should also be family counselling (someone you know, someone that understands you). And yes, everyone is capable of killing, but not everyone is going to do it obviously. Not everyone feels remorseful after committing a crime; and in most cases the victim/victim's family will not forgive the killer/rapist. But in the rare cases that they do, I think the cases should be treated very differently and acquittal should be heavily considered and given. It is like I am saying that everyone that kills and rapes is going to run free.

The punishment for a crime should be commensurate to the act committed and the culpability of the accused, not the wishes of the family. The law demands uniformity, predictability, and fairness. There's nothing uniform, predicable, or fair about varying a sentence simply because someone killed an Amish girl instead of a girl whose family has different values and beliefs.

and the last quote... great logic buddy.

Someone has to explain to you what the consequences of your beliefs. A rich accused has the means to either pay off the family legally or simply bribe them. Money should not be a factor in how a murderer is sentenced. (BY THE WAY HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF CIVIL COURTS, WHICH ARE SEPERATE FROM CRIMINAL COURTS. If the family wants restiution as well as a criminal sanction, they are free to sue.)

I am not sure how you got that paying the family/victim is part of the system that I mentioned.  

I listed helping the family/victim financially as a possible way for the person who committed the crime to try to amend for what he did AFTER he had been forgiven by the victim/family and the charges were dropped. It is just an example of a way for the person to amend for what he did out of free will. It has nothing with the legal system or bribery.

[Great Rumbler]

Wasn't there some NFL player that served a few months in prison after he got drunk and ran over, and killed, a guy? I thought it was pretty ridiculous, but apparently the family of the guy that died was fine with it since he was sorry [and immediately called 911 after the accident].

[CajoleJuice]

He also paid off the family.

[twerd]

Forgiveness should not enter the court of law because forgiveness is easily feigned and is not only rooted in emotion, but IS an emotion, something that is supposed to be kept separate from a court of law. You sound noble, castle007, but communism sounded noble too, and it just didn't work, because if people can abuse and bend laws/governmental systems, they will.

[Mandark]

I am not sure how you got that paying the family/victim is part of the system that I mentioned.  

I listed helping the family/victim financially as a possible way for the person who committed the crime to try to amend for what he did AFTER he had been forgiven by the victim/family and the charges were dropped. It is just an example of a way for the person to amend for what he did out of free will. It has nothing with the legal system or bribery.

Yeah, in a system where families of the victims determined the sentence, bribery would never become an issue.

It would just be a surprise act of atonement after they had selflessly forgiven the criminal.

[Flannel Boy]

I am not sure how you got that paying the family/victim is part of the system that I mentioned.  

I listed helping the family/victim financially as a possible way for the person who committed the crime to try to amend for what he did AFTER he had been forgiven by the victim/family and the charges were dropped. It is just an example of a way for the person to amend for what he did out of free will. It has nothing with the legal system or bribery.

Yeah, in a system where families of the victims determined the sentence, bribery would never become an issue.

It would just be a surprise act of atonement after they had selflessly forgiven the criminal.

But Mandark, we are talking about situations in which the person was genuinely remorseful and the family was genuinely forgiving. In such situations, bribery would never come up.
QED

[castle007]

I am not sure how you got that paying the family/victim is part of the system that I mentioned.  

I listed helping the family/victim financially as a possible way for the person who committed the crime to try to amend for what he did AFTER he had been forgiven by the victim/family and the charges were dropped. It is just an example of a way for the person to amend for what he did out of free will. It has nothing with the legal system or bribery.

Yeah, in a system where families of the victims determined the sentence, bribery would never become an issue.

It would just be a surprise act of atonement after they had selflessly forgiven the criminal.

If that actually happens and the the accused bribed the victim, then the victim should receive some sort of punishment.  If you accept a bribe after being raped then you are officially fucked up in the head  . The same goes for a victim's family if they do the same.

Besides, how do you know that this doesn't happen in real life? You don't think bribery isn't an issue? Lets say that a woman is raped by some super rich dude and he pays her off to stay quiet about it. How is this any different than a victim accepting a bribe and "forgiving" her rapist? In both cases, the rapist is free.

[Great Rumbler]

Sometimes being sorry just isn't enough.

[Flannel Boy]

If that actually happens and the the accused bribed the victim, then the victim should receive the same sentence that the his attacker would have gotten (if the court ever finds out). If you accept a bribe after being raped then you are officially fucked up in the head  . The same goes for a victim's family if they do the same.

So a rape victim should receive a long sentence normally given to rapists for accepting a bribe--a non violent crime, while in other cases rapists don't serve any time at all? You have come up with a well-though-out and just system.  

Besides, how do you know that this doesn't happen in real life? You don't think bribery isn't an issue? Lets say that a woman is raped by some super rich dude and he pays her off to stay quiet about it. How is this any different than a victim accepting a bribe and "forgiving" her rapist? In both cases, the rapist is free.

You're creating a greater incentive. currently, a victim could go to a civil court, as the victim in the Polanski case did. You are creating a system in which a very wealthy rapist can give the rape victim a far, far larger settlement to keep quite, AND HE DOESN'T HAVE TO HIDE IT.

Judge: Why did you give her $15 million
Polanski: Making amends, judge! I also baked a pie.

[Mandark]

I'm pretty sure it does happen in real life, in cases where a conviction would hinge on testimony by the victim.  But also in real life, prosecutors make the decision whether or not to prosecute, so the victims aren't responsible for pressing or dropping charges.

It's not like a ban on bribery would be enforceable anyway.  How could you keep someone from making a handshake agreement to make the payment later, so they could pretend to be remorseful?

And HOLY SHIT WAITAMINUTE, did you just say that if a woman gets raped and chooses to take the cash over the revenge of imprisonment, that she should be thrown in jail as if she herself had raped someone?  Tha fuck?

[Bocsius]

Could the family of the deceased face prosecution if they are unwilling to forgive an obviously remorseful killer? What's the greater crime, after all? An act of rage that is clearly never, EVER going to happen again, or a continued, careless, callous hardening of one's heart?

I think we all know the answer here.

[Bocsius]

Mandark, that's the precedent as established by Kosma v. TheBore. Go after the victim, they're the real menace.

[ferrarimanf355]

[youtube=560,345]3nopKDuydRo[/youtube]

[castle007]

relax people, I wasn't being serious about the half sentencing people for accepting bribes. I was going actually put a laughing smiley face. But opted to put a maf one, because it would actually still piss me off that a rape victim would do that.

does anyone know of a story where this actually happened? (a woman accepting bribes after being raped??) I want to know WTF she was thinking. O.o

Obviously, the court would have found that she accepted the bribe, otherwise there would be no story to report.

[castle007]

Could the family of the deceased face prosecution if they are unwilling to forgive an obviously remorseful killer? What's the greater crime, after all? An act of rage that is clearly never, EVER going to happen again, or a continued, careless, callous hardening of one's heart?

I think we all know the answer here.

hmm.. no. If the victim/family can never forgive the killer/rapist, then the case should proceed as it is. But it is good know that the killer is remorseful. God is forgiving.   

And now everyone will take this discussion into 3 more pages because I mentioned God. 

[twerd]

i'd be remorseful too if it was remorse or a noose hanging round my neck.

castle be straight up trolling.

[Bocsius]

Could the family of the deceased face prosecution if they are unwilling to forgive an obviously remorseful killer? What's the greater crime, after all? An act of rage that is clearly never, EVER going to happen again, or a continued, careless, callous hardening of one's heart?

I think we all know the answer here.

hmm.. no. If the victim/family can never forgive the killer/rapist, then the case should proceed as it is. But it is good know that the killer is remorseful.

Oh, so we're back to it being the murderer's tough luck that he went after a vindictive family. Is it dawning on you yet how ridiculous of a legal system you are imagining?

Anyway, it sort of already works the way you want it. Not all the way (thankfully), but remorse/family feelings are often considered. That's why there are plea bargains and leniency during sentencing from time to time.

[castle007]

i'd be remorseful too if it was remorse or a noose hanging round my neck.

castle be straight up trolling.

But the victim/family has to be convinced that you are genuinely remorseful.  

Have fun trying to convince them.  

[Fresh Prince]

Okay who's being more stupid? Kosma or castle007?

[Flannel Boy]

Nice attempt at a bailout.

i'd be remorseful too if it was remorse or a noose hanging round my neck.

castle be straight up trolling.

But the victim/family has to be convinced that you are genuinely remorseful.  

Have fun trying to convince them.  

I'd rather have a court determine the sentence based on precedent, mitigating factors, and sentencing guidelines. Under your "family forgiveness sentencing," you'll have similar cases involving similar defendants with similar levels of remorse experiencing very different sentences based on a criterion that doesn't serve society's best interests.  

[castle007]

Could the family of the deceased face prosecution if they are unwilling to forgive an obviously remorseful killer? What's the greater crime, after all? An act of rage that is clearly never, EVER going to happen again, or a continued, careless, callous hardening of one's heart?

I think we all know the answer here.

hmm.. no. If the victim/family can never forgive the killer/rapist, then the case should proceed as it is. But it is good know that the killer is remorseful.

Oh, so we're back to it being the murderer's tough luck that he went after a vindictive family. Is it dawning on you yet how ridiculous of a legal system you are imagining?

Anyway, it sort of already works the way you want it. Not all the way (thankfully), but remorse/family feelings are often considered. That's why there are plea bargains and leniency during sentencing from time to time.

Not really. The case would proceed like any other murder/rape case, but the option should be open for the victim/victim's family to step in and forgive the murderer/rapist at any time. So, unless the family/victim wants to forgive, the case would proceed normally.

I am going to sleep now 

[Flannel Boy]

Not really. The case would proceed like any other murder/rape case, but the option should be open for the victim/victim's family to step in and forgive the murderer/rapist at any time. So, unless the family/victim wants to forgive, the case would proceed normally.

So the cases would proceed like every other rape or murder case in which the state decides whether to prosecute the accused--except the family would decide whether to prosecute. Oh wait, that's not like every other murder or rape case. This isn't a minor alteration to the legal system, it's a fundamental change to the criminal law, which is enforced by governments representing society as a whole, not private individuals.

[drew]

I am going to sleep now 

tldr version of what tt has become

hang up your hats king of kings

fuck up and off to gaf ot

where people will read what you write

or just continue bein an armchair lawfag

pursuit of happiness is a right i guess

you should be worrying more about actually having sex than arguing about rape on the internet

[Fresh Prince]

It's like slam poetry.

drew's hidden art degree comes out

[Reb]

I like it, although I'm not quite sure who he's talking to.