Switzerland declares independence-frees Polanski [Archive]

Krugerrand

07-12-2010, 11:39 AM

I'm finding it pretty hard to celebrate the Swiss 'declaring independence' by refusing to prosecute a rapist on the grounds that he's famous.

I also find it nothing to celebrate. From the OP link, it sounds like it was the US judge that went easy on the celebrity:

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.

It looks like a case where the judge ended up embarrassed that he went easy on him and tried to find a way to make up for it. I don't blame the Swiss for staying out of the technicalities of the last 47 days of the sentence from which the state appointed doctor released him.

james1844

07-12-2010, 11:43 AM

Honestly, US pressure on the tax issue probably didn't help the extradition request.

AmericaFyeah92

07-12-2010, 01:03 PM

I'm finding it pretty hard to celebrate the Swiss 'declaring independence' by refusing to prosecute a rapist on the grounds that he's famous.

The victim has forgiven him and expressed her wish for the charges to be dropped. Case closed.

BlackTerrel

07-12-2010, 01:16 PM

The victim has forgiven him and expressed her wish for the charges to be dropped. Case closed.

That's not how it works. The man drugged and had sex with a 13 year old. That is a crime.

RM918

07-12-2010, 01:28 PM

The victim has forgiven him and expressed her wish for the charges to be dropped. Case closed.

So if you can run away for a long enough time and get the victims or their families to just give up, that makes it alright? So long as you've made a couple movies, I guess.

Stary Hickory

07-12-2010, 01:31 PM

The victim has forgiven him and expressed her wish for the charges to be dropped. Case closed.

I agree with you here, the harm was committed to the victim. If the victim forgives then all is ok. When the state prosecutes against the wishes of the victim it is in effect claiming the victim as property.

The state locking up a man that the victim does not want locked up does no justice to the victim. So the state now feels it has been injured because it's "property" was attacked.

Slutter McGee

07-12-2010, 01:47 PM

I agree with you here, the harm was committed to the victim. If the victim forgives then all is ok. When the state prosecutes against the wishes of the victim it is in effect claiming the victim as property.

The state locking up a man that the victim does not want locked up does no justice to the victim. So the state now feels it has been injured because it's "property" was attacked.

Bull Butter. Man beats wife. Wife doesn't want man prosecuted. Happens all the time. Or better yet, Father molests daughter, Daughter loves father and doesnt want him to leave. Mom will not stand up for daughter. It is a legitimate function of government to prosecute an individual for voilating the equal rights of another, despite the differing wishes of the victim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Stary Hickory

07-12-2010, 01:58 PM

Bull Butter. Man beats wife. Wife doesn't want man prosecuted. Happens all the time. Or better yet, Father molests daughter, Daughter loves father and doesnt want him to leave. Mom will not stand up for daughter. It is a legitimate function of government to prosecute an individual for voilating the equal rights of another, despite the differing wishes of the victim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

No it is not, and using a child as example will not fly. There is a difference between an adult and a child. Prosecuting on behalf of children is perfectly fine. However when the child turns 18 they should be able to forgive and lift prison sentences if they choose to.

It is not the job of the state to determine what is and what is not harmful or unforgivable. The wishes of the victim regarding punishment should always be respected. A wife who loves her husband and does not want him prosecuted has every right to demand he not be punished on her behalf when she does not want it so.

You cannot exalt the state above the individual. It's job is to protect citizens against aggression. When an act of aggression has already occurred the state must defer to the wishes of the victim. If it refuses then it is injuring the victim yet again . This is insane.

00_Pete

07-12-2010, 02:36 PM

That whole incident should give you a clue about how things work in Hollywierdoville and most of the Western show business. If you think the current a-list actors are the cream-of-the-crop when it comes to talent...

A few years ago, in Italy, there was a scandal regarding "physical activity" and how this activity dictates who gets a career and who doesnt...

heavenlyboy34

07-12-2010, 02:47 PM

So if you can run away for a long enough time and get the victims or their families to just give up, that makes it alright? So long as you've made a couple movies, I guess.

It works for the government. ;):p

RCA

07-12-2010, 02:52 PM

Sure... but if he was a black man obsessed with mutilating his face and making himself look white, he could have lived here forever.

do what?

TNforPaul45

07-12-2010, 03:21 PM

http://versatile1.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/pedobear.png
Switzerland's newest travel spokesperson.

Oh My. How in Blue Blazes did Pedobear find his way into RPF?

We must shoo him out immediately.

Bman

07-12-2010, 03:26 PM

That's not how it works. The man drugged and had sex with a 13 year old. That is a crime.

Shamefully Europe has a much different view on rape than we have in the states. Their laws are very lax on the subject.

Pericles

07-12-2010, 03:40 PM

That's not how it works. The man drugged and had sex with a 13 year old. That is a crime.

At least, it should be.

BlackTerrel

07-12-2010, 04:02 PM

Shamefully Europe has a much different view on rape than we have in the states. Their laws are very lax on the subject.

In which European countries is it legal to drug a 13 year old and have sex with her?

LibForestPaul

07-12-2010, 04:40 PM

In which European countries is it legal to drug a 13 year old and have sex with her?

And how much do plan tickets cost to said country? Inquiring 76 yr old directors want to know!

Pericles

07-12-2010, 05:50 PM

In which European countries is it legal to drug a 13 year old and have sex with her?
Age of consent is 13 in Spain, and 14 or 15 in most other European countries.

BlackTerrel

07-12-2010, 06:19 PM

Age of consent is 13 in Spain, and 14 or 15 in most other European countries.

Ok I am a bit confused by "age on consent" because I believe the law differs on that. Meaning - age of consent may be 13 "as long as the other is under 16" or something along those lines.

Is that the case or legitimately can a 45 year old have sex with and/or marry a 13 year old and it is legal?

noxagol

07-12-2010, 06:39 PM

The victim has forgiven him and expressed her wish for the charges to be dropped. Case closed.

This.

Doesn't matter if you think it to be a crime or not, if the victim forgives, case closed.

Pericles

07-12-2010, 07:06 PM

Ok I am a bit confused by "age on consent" because I believe the law differs on that. Meaning - age of consent may be 13 "as long as the other is under 16" or something along those lines.

Is that the case or legitimately can a 45 year old have sex with and/or marry a 13 year old and it is legal?
Can't tell you about all of Europe, only the places I have lived.

In Germany, if one of the persons is over 21, the other has to be 16, and I think this is the exception, rather than the rule. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, there were a bunch of horny old f*ckers traveling to eastern Europe for teenage females.

Liberty Star

07-12-2010, 07:23 PM

finally they are acting like a country, not a county.

Roman Polanski Free: Extradition Request REJECTED By Switzerland

No matter how big an hollywood celeb he was, if he did really drug and rape an underage Christian girl as has been alleged, how is this a cause for any celeberation on this forum?

james1906

07-12-2010, 07:38 PM

Free Hat! Free Hat!

Baptist

07-12-2010, 08:02 PM

I'm finding it pretty hard to celebrate the Swiss 'declaring independence' by refusing to prosecute a rapist on the grounds that he's famous.

+1

Guy raped the heck out of a 13-year-old girl for half a day. He is scum. But then again, so are most people who make movies, which is why I don't own a TV.

BlackTerrel

07-12-2010, 09:09 PM

Can't tell you about all of Europe, only the places I have lived.

In Germany, if one of the persons is over 21, the other has to be 16, and I think this is the exception, rather than the rule. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, there were a bunch of horny old f*ckers traveling to eastern Europe for teenage females.

Thanks.

16 I can deal with. I can also deal with 13 being the "age of consent" where they can give consent to a 14 year old or whatever.

13 being able to give consent to a 35 year old I would find very disturbing. Not our business to intervene - but still very disturbing.

Bman

07-12-2010, 09:11 PM

In which European countries is it legal to drug a 13 year old and have sex with her?

Never said it was legal. I said the laws were lax. For instance in Germany, if you don't also murder the women you will face no more than 6 years in jail for rape. It's just not as serious as an offense in many European countries as we see it over here. I'm really not surprised they didn't ship him over.

BlackTerrel

07-12-2010, 09:30 PM

Never said it was legal. I said the laws were lax. For instance in Germany, if you don't also murder the women you will face no more than 6 years in jail for rape. It's just not as serious as an offense in many European countries as we see it over here. I'm really not surprised they didn't ship him over.

Even if it's not a big deal to them isn't this the point of being allies? I assume if someone committed a crime in Swtzerland we would send him over right?

Honestly at the end of the day I do not care about a 76 year old who isn't a harm to anyone and will probably die soon. But I do think he should pay for what he did and I do think it is a bitch move to say:

"Yeah we know he raped a 13 year old girl in your country, but we're going to let him live in our country freely cause we feel like it".

NYgs23

07-13-2010, 12:16 AM

Krugerrand

07-13-2010, 06:08 AM

I agree with the principle that if the victim, being legally competent and not under duress, expressly wants the charges to be dropped then they should be dropped. Punishment for crimes should be based on compensation for the loss to the victim.

I'm not completely comfortable with this. In many cases, wealthy perpetrators can 'pay off' victims. Powerful and elite can pressure victims to 'forgive.' Equal justice for all demands that when a prosecutor can sufficiently try a case they should no matter how powerful or wealthy the person. I can accept a prosecutor considering the victims wishes ... but that should not be the only factor.

The Kopechne family did not want to try Ted Kennedy for Chappaquiddick. He still should have gone to jail.

That said, this guy got a ridiculously reduced sentence because of who he was. He did his time. Then, the state tried to extend his sentence after the fact because it had egg on its face. That's not an issue I'd expect the Swiss to jump into. An earlier post said Germany takes it easy on people by giving rapists 6 years. This guy was sentenced to 90 days and released before half of the sentence was served!

noxagol

07-13-2010, 07:39 AM

I'm not completely comfortable with this. In many cases, wealthy perpetrators can 'pay off' victims. Powerful and elite can pressure victims to 'forgive.' Equal justice for all demands that when a prosecutor can sufficiently try a case they should no matter how powerful or wealthy the person. I can accept a prosecutor considering the victims wishes ... but that should not be the only factor.

The Kopechne family did not want to try Ted Kennedy for Chappaquiddick. He still should have gone to jail.

That said, this guy got a ridiculously reduced sentence because of who he was. He did his time. Then, the state tried to extend his sentence after the fact because it had egg on its face. That's not an issue I'd expect the Swiss to jump into. An earlier post said Germany takes it easy on people by giving rapists 6 years. This guy was sentenced to 90 days and released before half of the sentence was served!

Paying off a victim is fine. If the victim accepts the compensation of his/her assailant, then justice is served. The victim feels that whatever has been offered is just compensation for whatever violation that occurred. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean this is not justice. Justice is different things to different people.

Powerful and elite pressuring people to forgive though, is another issue. As long as they are not threatening violence though, this is the victim's fault for caving to pressure when they need not.

Yes, everyone who commits a crime should be tried as fervently as possible and with the greatest accuracy possible. However, if a victim forgives a crime, then that is the end of it. Doesn't matter if you or anyone else doesn't like it, it is solely the victim's decision.

Saying that the victim's wishes do not matter is paramount to calling them too stupid to make decisions for themselves, which is the pervasive attitude of government.

Krugerrand

07-13-2010, 08:44 AM

Paying off a victim is fine. If the victim accepts the compensation of his/her assailant, then justice is served. The victim feels that whatever has been offered is just compensation for whatever violation that occurred. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean this is not justice. Justice is different things to different people.

Powerful and elite pressuring people to forgive though, is another issue. As long as they are not threatening violence though, this is the victim's fault for caving to pressure when they need not.

Yes, everyone who commits a crime should be tried as fervently as possible and with the greatest accuracy possible. However, if a victim forgives a crime, then that is the end of it. Doesn't matter if you or anyone else doesn't like it, it is solely the victim's decision.

Saying that the victim's wishes do not matter is paramount to calling them too stupid to make decisions for themselves, which is the pervasive attitude of government.

I never said that a victim's wishes do not matter.

Your victim based criminal system leaves a lot of questions in my mind. When does putting somebody in jail ever help the victim of a crime, if that is all we're worried about?

Murder is a tricky one since the victim is dead. What retribution is possible? Perhaps the family can seek something, but what if there is no family - should there be no punishment?

Is everybody entitled to retribution? If you murder my tenant, can I demand you pay me lost rent? Is the owner of restaurant where the victim died entitled to lost profits and the waitress lost tips? Perhaps in a violent robbery my tennis shop's best customer loses his right arm. The customer forgave the perpetrator. Can I still claim lost profits now that the customer no longer buys tennis supplies?

fisharmor

07-13-2010, 08:50 AM

I never said that a victim's wishes do not matter.

Your victim based criminal system leaves a lot of questions in my mind. When does putting somebody in jail ever help the victim of a crime, if that is all we're worried about?

Murder is a tricky one since the victim is dead. What retribution is possible? Perhaps the family can seek something, but what if there is no family - should there be no punishment?

Is everybody entitled to retribution? If you murder my tenant, can I demand you pay me lost rent? Is the owner of restaurant where the victim died entitled to lost profits and the waitress lost tips? Perhaps in a violent robbery my tennis shop's best customer loses his right arm. The customer forgave the perpetrator. Can I still claim lost profits now that the customer no longer buys tennis supplies?

I don't have all the answers, and I doubt noxagol has more than ideas himself.
But the point is that in a state-based criminal system, none of these questions are even asked.
Retribution is not the purpose of the state-based system. The punishment - the revenge for crossing the state - is the only point of this system.

In the case of murder, I submit to you that slavery is not illegal in this country in 100% of cases. There is no way to restore a dead loved one. But we don't even try to make amends in our current system, despite the fact that we even have some means to try.

Krugerrand

07-13-2010, 08:57 AM

I don't have all the answers, and I doubt noxagol has more than ideas himself.
But the point is that in a state-based criminal system, none of these questions are even asked.
Retribution is not the purpose of the state-based system. The punishment - the revenge for crossing the state - is the only point of this system.

In the case of murder, I submit to you that slavery is not illegal in this country in 100% of cases. There is no way to restore a dead loved one. But we don't even try to make amends in our current system, despite the fact that we even have some means to try.

I'd sure hate to know how much tax payer dollars have been spent trying to get this guy to finish the last 47 days from which the state had released him.

Pericles

07-13-2010, 09:38 AM

Thanks.

16 I can deal with. I can also deal with 13 being the "age of consent" where they can give consent to a 14 year old or whatever.

13 being able to give consent to a 35 year old I would find very disturbing. Not our business to intervene - but still very disturbing.

Germany and Switzerland (16 in Switzerland, except for 3 year or less age difference - meaning a 13 year old can consent to a 16 year old) are on the conservative side. In most countries a 14 year old or 15 year old can consent to a 35+ year old.

AmericaFyeah92

07-13-2010, 11:10 AM

So if you can run away for a long enough time and get the victims or their families to just give up, that makes it alright? So long as you've made a couple movies, I guess.

He ran because the deal he had worked out with prosecutors/judge was thrown out the window at the last second by a judge who was worried about looking "soft."

And yes, crime is between criminal and victim. The state should only punish/deter criminals when the individual is unable to, and if the victim wishes to drop the matter it is no business of the state to pursue it. Waste of resources, and very un-libertarian. Any rational "justice" system should recognize the value of individuals coming to their own agreements, and use the state as a last resort

AmericaFyeah92

07-13-2010, 11:11 AM

I never said that a victim's wishes do not matter.

Your victim based criminal system leaves a lot of questions in my mind. When does putting somebody in jail ever help the victim of a crime, if that is all we're worried about?

Murder is a tricky one since the victim is dead. What retribution is possible? Perhaps the family can seek something, but what if there is no family - should there be no punishment?

Is everybody entitled to retribution? If you murder my tenant, can I demand you pay me lost rent? Is the owner of restaurant where the victim died entitled to lost profits and the waitress lost tips? Perhaps in a violent robbery my tennis shop's best customer loses his right arm. The customer forgave the perpetrator. Can I still claim lost profits now that the customer no longer buys tennis supplies?

Murder would have to have a mandatory sentence because the victim is not around to speak for themselves. In that case I would be against families "forgiving" and demanding payment or something in lieu of prison time, since they weren't the victims

dannno

07-13-2010, 11:18 AM

In which European countries is it legal to drug a 13 year old and have sex with her?

Probably the one where the girl can claim she willfully took the drugs and willfully engaged in sexual activity with an adult where it is legal to do so at age 13. I dunno if any of them fit that description.

Theocrat

07-13-2010, 11:34 AM

The victim has forgiven him and expressed her wish for the charges to be dropped. Case closed.

This.

Doesn't matter if you think it to be a crime or not, if the victim forgives, case closed.

What is stated above shows how much relativism has infected some people's views on the nature of justice. A crime has been committed, and the demands of the law require that the crime is adjudicated for restitution of the victim and punishment of the criminal. Just because the victim forgives the criminal doesn't excuse the act of what the criminal has done. A payment (or atonement) still needs to be made.

In fact, it doesn't even prove the criminal is repentant for what he or she has done to the victim. All it does is allow the opportunity for the criminal to do what he or she did to the forgiving victim to someone else's person or property in society, maybe hoping his or her next victim will be as forgiving so he or she can get away with it again.

NYgs23

07-13-2010, 11:44 AM

I'm not completely comfortable with this. In many cases, wealthy perpetrators can 'pay off' victims. Powerful and elite can pressure victims to 'forgive.' Equal justice for all demands that when a prosecutor can sufficiently try a case they should no matter how powerful or wealthy the person. I can accept a prosecutor considering the victims wishes ... but that should not be the only factor.

Well, as I said, if it's under duress, it has no legal weight. But you have cases in which the person didn't even feel like a victim--in which case the act is essentially a victimless crime--but the state goes after perp anyway. Where's the justice in that? Justice should be based on redressing the victim for a perceived rights violation by the victim. In this case, the victim is a grown woman, apparently under no pressure from Polanski, who successfully settled the matter with him in civil court (would you consider civil court suits "paying off" the victim?) and has repeatedly stated she wants the matter closed. She even issued a formal request with the police to have the charges dropped. So I see no reason for the state to pursue this any further other than to get its own pound of flesh.

If you're worried about dangerous criminals being kept off the street, I really don't think this guy is too dangerous to be allowed in public places, do you? I wouldn't let him babysit my daughter, of course, but I don't think we have to worry about him mugging anyone or anything.

noxagol

07-13-2010, 11:52 AM

What is stated above shows how much relativism has infected some people's views on the nature of justice. A crime has been committed, and the demands of the law require that the crime is adjudicated for restitution of the victim and punishment of the criminal. Just because the victim forgives the criminal doesn't excuse the act of what the criminal has done. A payment (or atonement) still needs to be made.

In fact, it doesn't even prove the criminal is repentant for what he or she has done to the victim. All it does is allow the opportunity for the criminal to do what he or she did to the forgiving victim to someone else's person or property in society, maybe hoping his or her next victim will be as forgiving so he or she can get away with it again.

Crimes are only crimes because the victims have been violated against their consent. Consent can be given at any time, before OR after, said event (during even too).

Law is not absolute, values are not absolute. These things ARE relative. Your perspective might be skewed to think that there is only one way, but that does not make it truth. I know your logical basis, and I can't convince you otherwise, so this will be my only argument against you.

NYgs23

07-13-2010, 12:00 PM

What is stated above shows how much relativism has infected some people's views on the nature of justice. A crime has been committed, and the demands of the law require that the crime is adjudicated for restitution of the victim and punishment of the criminal. Just because the victim forgives the criminal doesn't excuse the act of what the criminal has done. A payment (or atonement) still needs to be made.

A payment was made. She sued him in court and, so far as I know, the received payment she requested. What more can you ask? If the victim doesn't want any payment, what then? I don't see how its moral relativism to argue that restitution of the victim should be based on what the victim herself considers just restitution. If not the victim, than who? The state? Why should we trust the state to better determine just restitution than the victim?

All it does is allow the opportunity for the criminal to do what he or she did to the forgiving victim to someone else's person or property in society, maybe hoping his or her next victim will be as forgiving so he or she can get away with it again.

If you're concerned about dangerous people who are likely to harm someone else, I think that's a different debate. That's far from the case here. It's a septuagenarian who hasn't been accused of anything in 30+ years.

heavenlyboy34

07-13-2010, 12:39 PM

Promontorium

07-13-2010, 02:37 PM

If we were in a state of anarchy that might fly. But in a nation of laws, the criminal does not simply violate a victim, they violate the nation to its core. If a man is on a raping spree, and each victim refuses prosecution, then the rapist will continue until someone finally prosecutes? That's insane. Also you make it seem as if turning 18 retroactively makes child rape ok. She didn't "forgive" him for decades. Your "independent" nations harbored a child rapist for decades. And you applaud that. You applaud child rape, and those who protect child rapists, and denounce those who think child rapists should be prosecuted. You are absolutely vile humans. Liberty is not harming others. LIBERTY IS NEVER ABOUT HARMING OTHERS. You defend harm every which way, all these illogical roadblocks and retroactive excuses, and leave no room for justice or an individual's right to not be drugged and raped. It doesn't matter if decades later it is forgiven. It was a crime, and you applaud the nation for harboring the criminal and protecting the criminal from justice. Disgusting. Absolutely deplorable.

BlackTerrel

07-13-2010, 04:53 PM

dannno

07-13-2010, 04:58 PM

If a man is on a raping spree, and each victim refuses prosecution, then the rapist will continue until someone finally prosecutes? That's insane.

No, it's called consensual sex :rolleyes:

dannno

07-13-2010, 05:02 PM

+1. Liberty does not give you the right to drug and rape a 13 year old. This is pretty disturbing stuff.

Well 13 is certainly pushing it, but let's switch to a situation where a guy "drugged" a 16 yr old girl and had his way with her, and she was perfectly ok with it, then it's not rape unless you apply the arbitrary age of 18 for statutory rape given by the state, which is pretty ludicrous.

osan

07-13-2010, 05:12 PM

I'm finding it pretty hard to celebrate the Swiss 'declaring independence' by refusing to prosecute a rapist on the grounds that he's famous.

What a parochial POV. First of all, he broke a US law, not Swiss law. It's been what, 30+ years - I'd chalk this one up to experience and forget about it. I am by nomeans fresh on the details of the case, but as I recall, "rape" had nothing to do with it. Underage seX is not rape. It is not even close - it is an arbitrarily chosen prohibition that cannot be justified based on any objective criteria.

I woudl say that this is far better news than any narrowly held POV of eminently questionable validity could defeat. Let us see how that idiot in the Whitehouse responds. I'd love to see him try to send in the troops. :)

heavenlyboy34

07-13-2010, 05:13 PM

No, it's called consensual sex :rolleyes:

Good point. It seems a lot of people are ignoring the individual's nature here. Just as once upon a time, 13 year olds could do hard labor like modern adults, the maturity of the individual to be able to consent varies by individual. (not that I would have sex with a 13 year old, just sayin)

osan

07-13-2010, 05:24 PM

Shamefully Europe has a much different view on rape than we have in the states. Their laws are very lax on the subject.

Shameful or not, it is their prerogative. Christ sakes - some of you folks are such god damned hypocrites. You whine like bitches about "sovereignty" and the right of a people to self-determination out of one side of your mouth and spew this kind of bullshit out the other. Some of you have such yawning credibility problems and apparently don't even realize - it's mind numbing. No wonder much of the world shuns the "liberty" movement - some of you sound off like of dumb asses.

If you really believe in national sovereignty, then you should be happy about this event, even if you don't like the specifics. Are you not able to take a broader view of things?

Yeah, the world is doomed because so many people are dumber than 2x4s.

osan

07-13-2010, 05:31 PM

Bull Butter. Man beats wife. Wife doesn't want man prosecuted. Happens all the time. Or better yet, Father molests daughter, Daughter loves father and doesnt want him to leave. Mom will not stand up for daughter. It is a legitimate function of government to prosecute an individual for voilating the equal rights of another, despite the differing wishes of the victim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Utter nonsense. If two people agree to play Russian roulette and one inevitably blows his own brains out, there is no crime. If Johnny pays Joey to kill him, there is no crime. One either believes in the validity of contracts or does not. There is nothing in between. I will also point out that any contract wherein a crime is integral to its provisions is not, in fact, a contract - so no whining on that point. For example, if I have your sister hostage and will release her only on the condition that you kill yourself, there is no contract because of the criminal elements integral to the "agreement".

osan

07-13-2010, 05:38 PM

In fact, it doesn't even prove the criminal is repentant for what he or she has done to the victim. All it does is allow the opportunity for the criminal to do what he or she did to the forgiving victim to someone else's person or property in society, maybe hoping his or her next victim will be as forgiving so he or she can get away with it again.

You list irrelevancies. Repentance is irrelevant. If I rob you and get 5 years, my state of repentance at the end of that time is irrelevant. I can stroll out of the prison and laugh in your face as I pass by, neenering for all I am worth and neither you nor the "state" will have anything to say about it.

One poster mentioned the ONLY case where unilateral state-initiated charges are legitimate - where the victim is incapable of seeking justice himself. A man with no family to speak of is murdered, the state is legitimate in filing charges. But if X beats the living snot out of Y and Y refuses to press charges, the state should have no recourse. Period.

Once again we see an example of colored "freedom". It is utterly disgusting.

osan

07-13-2010, 05:42 PM

Crimes are only crimes because the victims have been violated against their consent. Consent can be given at any time, before OR after, said event (during even too).

Law is not absolute, values are not absolute. These things ARE relative. Your perspective might be skewed to think that there is only one way, but that does not make it truth. I know your logical basis, and I can't convince you otherwise, so this will be my only argument against you.

Finally someone speaks some sanity and sense. +1+

I feel the need for a new "freedom" movement - the "real freedom" party or some such because much of the voice for "freedom" is polluted with the most egregious stupidity and nonsense imaginable.

osan

07-13-2010, 05:46 PM

No matter how big an hollywood celeb he was, if he did really drug and rape an underage Christian girl as has been alleged, how is this a cause for any celeberation on this forum?

Why did you feel the apparent need to pollute the opinion with the "Christian" qualifier? Would it have been OK had she been Jewish? How about Hindu? Muslim?

osan

07-13-2010, 05:56 PM

I'm not completely comfortable with this. In many cases, wealthy perpetrators can 'pay off' victims. Powerful and elite can pressure victims to 'forgive.'

Well, is it not the victim's right to determine the value of their loss? If so, then they are within their rights to accept a "payoff". Imagine a girl from a crap 'hood who would never be able to escape that circumstance - she is violated by one of those horrid "wealthy" people. Said horrid person offers her $500K in compensation for the act. That money could put her through college so she could get herself into a position to get the hell out of the ghetto.... just one of a million hypotheticals for such a person. Are you suggesting she reject that chance to have a better life? She cannot be "unviolated", so what are we satisfying in forcing her to go through a trial? In the end, the horrid rich many may or may not go to prison, she remains having been violated, and remains in shit circumstances. What has been bought here? Slavish compliance to a principle, the legitimacy of which is eternally questionable on even the best of days.

If the victim feels that the perpetrator must see prison time, they are always free to press charges. As for pressure - well, that is what investigation is ostensibly for. If the victim meets with pressure, they are within their rights to report it to the proper authorities who can then investigate and add charges to the extant litany.

It all boils down to choices. If one wishes to take the money and let the bad guy off the hook, that is their prerogative. The "state" needs to keep its nose out of it until it is asked to butt in.

None of this is terribly complicated.

osan

07-13-2010, 06:02 PM

Murder would have to have a mandatory sentence because the victim is not around to speak for themselves. In that case I would be against families "forgiving" and demanding payment or something in lieu of prison time, since they weren't the victims

This I can be on board with. I would say that a family's demand to press charges should always be met positively. Demands NOT to proffer charges should be met positively only after a full investigation as to why the demand is being made. Murder is indeed a special case, particularly because the victim is unable to speak for themselves in person. No statute of limitations for murder I can also agree with. Any other crime... I'd have to see that on a case by case basis, though there are some that are indeed so horrible that I'd not allow for such limitations. For example, that vermin filth who kidnapped that woman in CA, amputated her arms and legs and then left her to die. She lived and still lives AFAIK - I'd give such a criminal no benefit of a statute of limitation in that sort of case. Murder is not necessarily the worst of all crimes. IMO, of course.

osan

07-13-2010, 06:28 PM

If we were in a state of anarchy that might fly. But in a nation of laws, the criminal does not simply violate a victim, they violate the nation to its core.

Nonsense. This reminds me of the sort of crap one sees in criminal charges in states such as NJ where they refer to the "dignity of the state" having been violated. Bull. Shit. This is the sort of toxic nonsense that has destroyed this nation in wholesale fashion.

If a man is on a raping spree, and each victim refuses prosecution, then the rapist will continue until someone finally prosecutes?Could be. I would point out to you that if you have a string of "victims" who refuse to press charges, they are likely to refuse to cooperate with the criminal proceeding, in which case the prosecutors will not have much of a case. We cannot have prosecutors dragging people into courts and telling juries that Mr. Defendant raped Jane Wilson, Harriet Jones, Kimberly Hudson, and Jamila Johnson without testimony of those persons to back it up... right? Otherwise, Mr. DA, having become pissed off at Mr. Osan would then be able to charge the latter with rape and secure conviction even when there was no actual victim. All he would have to do is make up a name and say she refuses to testify.

That's insane.No. It's the breaks and the risks inherent in the fabric of a free nation. That cost is nothing compared with the benefits afforded by Liberty. They key here, and everyone on this board really needs to pay attention to this, is that you cannot have liberty at no cost. These sorts of downsides that you and so many others whine about, and it is whining at the bottom of it all, are the costs - the risks that we take when we choose liberty over slavery. The world isn't perfect and there will always be those who escape being called to account for their perfidious acts, no matter what system we may have in place, so you all need to get used to that and get over this apparently irrational desire for some sort of perfect world free of all costs. It doesn't exist. It never will. Ever. The only remaining question, then, is what sort of imperfect world do you prefer? I prefer liberty, replete with all the risks such a world brings with it. I accept them because they are far and away less onerous to me than are the costs I currently pay to be a slave.

LIBERTY IS NEVER ABOUT HARMING OTHERS.Dead wrong. Utterly, completely, and absolutely WRONG. Where there is mutual consent, liberty IS about doing harm. For example, we decide to help each other inject dangerous drugs into each others' veins. That is between us and it is nobody else's business what we do, even when harm is the result. People harm themselves every day in myriad ways, many of them legal. People drink, smoke, engage in questionable sexual practices, participate in very dangerous and harmful sports. How about football? Highly injurious to all players. My oldest friend, Butthole, has no knees left because of football. He engaged knowingly in a harmful activity and his team mates, coaches, parents, teachers, etc. are all complicit. Are you of the mind that they should all have been forcibly prohibited from this? His coach very directly caused him to come to harm by allowing him to play.

You defend harm every which way, all these illogical roadblocks and retroactive excuses, and leave no room for justice or an individual's right to not be drugged and raped. It doesn't matter if decades later it is forgiven. It was a crime, and you applaud the nation for harboring the criminal and protecting the criminal from justice. Disgusting. Absolutely deplorable.All silly and nonsequitur. Really, you should be better than this. You certainly have been in many other posts. Bad day?

noxagol

07-13-2010, 08:03 PM

Murder is a special case, because as pointed out, the victim isn't around to have his/her say in the matter.

Krugerrand

07-14-2010, 07:12 AM

Well, is it not the victim's right to determine the value of their loss? If so, then they are within their rights to accept a "payoff". Imagine a girl from a crap 'hood who would never be able to escape that circumstance - she is violated by one of those horrid "wealthy" people. Said horrid person offers her $500K in compensation for the act. That money could put her through college so she could get herself into a position to get the hell out of the ghetto.... just one of a million hypotheticals for such a person. Are you suggesting she reject that chance to have a better life? She cannot be "unviolated", so what are we satisfying in forcing her to go through a trial? In the end, the horrid rich many may or may not go to prison, she remains having been violated, and remains in shit circumstances. What has been bought here? Slavish compliance to a principle, the legitimacy of which is eternally questionable on even the best of days.

If the victim feels that the perpetrator must see prison time, they are always free to press charges. As for pressure - well, that is what investigation is ostensibly for. If the victim meets with pressure, they are within their rights to report it to the proper authorities who can then investigate and add charges to the extant litany.

It all boils down to choices. If one wishes to take the money and let the bad guy off the hook, that is their prerogative. The "state" needs to keep its nose out of it until it is asked to butt in.

None of this is terribly complicated.

I'm not ready to say this is wrong. I'm just not yet comfortable with it to say it is correct - especially what I've highlighted. I think to mafia type situations. It was exceedingly dangerous to cross the mafia. When convictions could be proven without including the victim - that protected victims from further violence.

Sadly, as it is now, who you know and how much money you have plays a huge rule in the judicial system. I think to force the victim to be in control of justice might tilt things even further into the hands of the wealthy and well connected.

Maybe you're right, though. Maybe lifting the farce that government is there to protect you will encourage people to be more vigilant in their own defense.

Krugerrand

07-14-2010, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Promontorium View Post
If we were in a state of anarchy that might fly. But in a nation of laws, the criminal does not simply violate a victim, they violate the nation to its core.
Nonsense. This reminds me of the sort of crap one sees in criminal charges in states such as NJ where they refer to the "dignity of the state" having been violated. Bull. Shit. This is the sort of toxic nonsense that has destroyed this nation in wholesale fashion.

I'm not ready to write this off as nonsense. Consider the DC sniper. The actions of the DC sniper caused panic in many communities. Who specifically gets to forgive or chose to prosecute that?

Or, as I mentioned in an earlier post ... the chain reaction of consequences of violence can affect more than just the immediate victim.

osan

07-14-2010, 07:52 AM

I'm not ready to say this is wrong. I'm just not yet comfortable with it to say it is correct - especially what I've highlighted. I think to mafia type situations. It was exceedingly dangerous to cross the mafia. When convictions could be proven without including the victim - that protected victims from further violence.

Sadly, as it is now, who you know and how much money you have plays a huge rule in the judicial system. I think to force the victim to be in control of justice might tilt things even further into the hands of the wealthy and well connected.

Maybe you're right, though. Maybe lifting the farce that government is there to protect you will encourage people to be more vigilant in their own defense.

Fair enough - at least your mind is open, which is more than I can say for many people, some even in this forum. :(

As for Mafia - I understand your concern, but we once again must choose based on a broader view of freedom. We will always have these sorts of problems, so why not couch them in the greatest amount of individual freedom? I don't see ever increasing government oppression being a viable solution to these sorts of situations.

If we coupled freedom (real freedom) with very stern consequences to those violating the rights of others, I think we would see a notable shift for the better even for m ob-type activity. More to the point, what reason would there be for mobs to exist if we were all truly free? There would be some, no doubt, but consider that all mobs I can think of arose out of prohibition (save, perhaps the unions). The Mafia came to the fore as the result of the Volstead Act. Drug cartels, the war on drugs - and so on. Can we name a mob that didn't arise out of prohibition? Prohibit prohibition and we should be as close to golden on the issues as humanity is able. No?

osan

07-14-2010, 07:56 AM

I'm not ready to write this off as nonsense. Consider the DC sniper. The actions of the DC sniper caused panic in many communities. Who specifically gets to forgive or chose to prosecute that?

Or, as I mentioned in an earlier post ... the chain reaction of consequences of violence can affect more than just the immediate victim.

Yes, and each case is individual. The great mistake people make (one of the many) is to glom numbers of individual cases together and attrubute to the set the characteristics of an individual. It is a monumental failure in the cognitive process.

Krugerrand

07-14-2010, 08:20 AM

...More to the point, what reason would there be for mobs to exist if we were all truly free? There would be some, no doubt, but consider that all mobs I can think of arose out of prohibition (save, perhaps the unions). The Mafia came to the fore as the result of the Volstead Act. Drug cartels, the war on drugs - and so on. Can we name a mob that didn't arise out of prohibition? Prohibit prohibition and we should be as close to golden on the issues as humanity is able. No?

I hope to not distract from the thread ... but this is something that I wonder about when gangs and cartels are suspected to disappear when MJ is legalized (which I support). Do the gangs and drug cartels exist because of prohibition, or does prohibition attract the thugs of the world? I have a hard time believing that mob behavior will go away with the elimination of prohibition. I think the unsavory will find some other illegitimate way to make a buck.