Polanski
Out of context: Reply #50
- Started
- Last post
- 150 Responses
- jimbojones0
- he is not a hazard to society
you never know until after it's too late- victim doesn't want him to be convicted, doesn't want publicity and emphasizes it wasn't rape at all
back then it pretty much seemed like rape- mr. Polanski had a very traumatic past, which is not something to justify a crime or letting him go, but in a lot of courts in decent nations you have such a thing as a human aspect.
not something to justify a crime
- he has shown to be a warm, generous man to those who are close to him and is of very high artistic value to many, for instance those who were victim of WWII.
why would this matter at all?- it's not like he is some sort of Gary Glitter, repeatedly travelling to poor countries to rape kids below 13 even
agreed- most nations (in EU at least) have a period in which the crime expires, usually between 10 and 30 years, even for murder (!)
rape and murder don't expire, as they are some of the worst things one human can do to another.- and yes, i grew up with a lot of work by Polanski and learned to appreciate the art cinema as i grew up. both my parents were of artistic nature (also professionally) in film etc. so i may be biased.
you may be biased- i, personally(!) do not believe so much in justice for the sake of justice, as it sometimes can do more harm than good. Just as I am strongly opposed against the death penalty.
in felony there is ONLY justice for the sake of justice. the damage is irreparable, so why bother? if someone wipes out a whole family and is otherwise a nice guy, well, nobody's there to seek revenge so let's forget about it?- any dutch judge will say "revenge" is only the smallest portion of a judgement. and so it should be imho.freitag
- then it's only justice for the sake of justicejimbojones