Polanski attitudes poll
- Thread starter Aardvark154
- Start date
Wrong, re-read the criminal code. It is clear.
The law doesn't require "casual verification" it requires "all reasonable steps". Not one reasonable step, or two reasonable steps, ALL reasonable steps. Asking for ID is a reasonable step.
That's Canada, I don't know about California.
Are we getting into a debate over lynching again?
Are you saying that suspected rapists should be locked up and the key thrown awaywithout a trial?
Cycleguy007
Banned
It is if you keep putting words in my mouth...
No. I am not saying that at all danmand... (Never did in that "other" thread you are referring to either...) I am saying that if someone is guilty he/she should be punished. Plea bargains, and legal wrangling (I believe the word is "technicalities") by the "highly respected members of the bar" should not have any baring on this. And in this case, if the guy fled the country in order to escape his sentence... he should be taken into custody and made to serve his punishment if and when that is possible.
Given that this is an escort review board, you may be sure that I will put
nothing into your mouth.
The fact is however, that Roman Polanski did NOT have a trial.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that plea bargaining is a parody of justice.
If the DA thinks someone has committed a trial, charge him and prove it.
Otherwise let him go. There should be no other options.
remember Homolka?
Cycleguy007
Banned
Unfortunately yes... I do remember that she devil. And the travesty that allowed her to go free... and the heart ache the parents of her victims must be feeling.
I also remember that there was crucial video evidence being with held in the case... and that there was some "technicality" that did not allow for this to be used in her trial (but was for Paul's if memory serves) or some shit I don't know... Again, more legal mumbo jumbo by the lawyers! involved...
Ok, so let us say that the video tape did not exist or Bernardo had never told his lawyer about it. Do you believe the Crown would have been able to secure a conviction on Bernardo without without either the tape or Homolka's testimony? Would you really want the Crown to take that kind of crap shoot. And to step back from the hypotheical do you think that the Crown would have offered Homolka a plea if Bernardo had either implicated her or the tapes had been properly turned over?
Further there are plenty of times when the defendant did do what they are charged with, but it was a first time offense or there is some other extenuating circumstance don't you want the Crown to have the option of offering a plea to a lesser included offense? That's along the lines of saying that every time a Constable has the option of issuing a summons or arresting someone they should arrest.
I don't want to discuss the Homolka case again, suffice it to point out that
justice was not served.
And my position, as a lay person in the law, having grown up in judicial system
where plea bargaining does not take place, is that it does not serve justice,
and that it creats more of an appearance among lay persons that justice is
a matter of shady deals between lawyers.
I think you will find, although I am too lazy to search for numbers, that the
judicial system (and lawyers) are held in higher esteem in the scandinavian countries
where plea bargaining does not happen.
My understanding is that Polanski pled guilty to a lesser charge and agreed to a sentence of 42 days in a correctional facility. However, he fled before the plea bargain was taken before the judge because he was afraid the judge would throw out the suggested sentence and be tougher on Polanski.
The guy has had a tough life. His mother was killed in a concentration camp while he survived the war. Then his pregnant wife (Sharon Tait) was killed by the Manson group.
HOWEVER, that doesn't give him the moral right to act as a predator as he certainly did in this case. He drugged and then raped a 13 year old girl for christ sake!! Bring him back to do the time he should have done 30 years ago (and I'm not talkin' 42 days!)
The guy has had a tough life. His mother was killed in a concentration camp while he survived the war. Then his pregnant wife (Sharon Tait) was killed by the Manson group.
HOWEVER, that doesn't give him the moral right to act as a predator as he certainly did in this case. He drugged and then raped a 13 year old girl for christ sake!! Bring him back to do the time he should have done 30 years ago (and I'm not talkin' 42 days!)
IIRC, Canadian law does not require looking at someone's ID. It just requires that the accused have a reasonable idea that the girl was not a minor and this could be gleaned from social circumstances, appearance, etc. I mean, no one is going to ask a date or a club pickup for ID.
Of course, you could probably argue that RP's circumstances were different in that the girl was introduced by her mother and it was supposed to be a prfessional photo shoot.
That is encouragement to crime.http://www.celebs-sex-scenes.com/carla-bruni/carla-bruni-nude-004.jpg
I believe it is article 227-25 of the French Penal Code:
"The commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000."
Now on the other hand article 222-24 reads
"Rape is punished by twenty years' criminal imprisonment
1° where it causes mutilation or permanent disability;
2° where it is committed against a minor under the age of fifteen years"
Now interestingly in light of previous discussion on this point in 1998 the following article was added.
Article 227-27-1
"Where the infractions (misdemeanours) under articles 227-22, 227-23 or 227-25 to 227-27 are committed abroad by a French national or a person habitually residing on French territory, French law shall apply notwithstanding the second paragraph of article 113-6 and the provisions of the second sentence of article 113-8 do not apply."
ARTICLE 113-6
"French criminal law is applicable to any felony committed by a French national outside the territory of the French Republic.
It is applicable to misdemeanours committed by French nationals outside the territory of the French Republic if the conduct is punishable under the legislation of the country in which it was committed.
The present article applies even if the offender has acquired French nationality after the commission of the offence of which he is accused.
ARTICLE 113-8
In the cases set out under articles 113-6 and 113-7, the prosecution of misdemeanours may only be instigated at the behest of the public prosecutor. It must be preceded by a complaint made by the victim or his successor, or by an official accusation made by the authority of the country where the offence was committed.
French
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&dateTexte=20090930
English
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=33&r=3618
Wrong. It is written right into the criminal code that a reasonable idea is inadequate. The law actually requires you to take positive, reasonable steps to confirm age. You cannot base your decision on appearances, or vague social circumstances.
The code explicitly requires that you take "all reasonable steps" to ascertain age, that is positive action on your part aimed at discovering age, and everything that you could reasonably do. There is case law that if you have taken several reasonable steps you can stop--so presumably, if you have just attended her 18th birthday party with all her friends and family, you don't have to ask for ID.
"Gleaning" it from appearances specifically does not pass the laugh test as everybody knows there are 13 year olds who look older than they are. The law requires you to check.
What is not going to be acceptable is that she told you she was 16 or you heard that from her pimp, or some other equally unreliable source.
In summary, if you are fucking relative strangers who are young and potentially under age then yes indeed the law more or less requires you to ask for ID. To rely on social circumstnaces you would have to have hard facts to go on, like you know that she attends a college or university (likely 16), you've seen her driving a car (has a drivers license), and so on. Note you need MULTIPLE factors.
If you hardly know someone they could be lying about being in college, driving a car, etc., so you should ask for ID.
No, Fuji. Regina v P. (L.T.) BCCA (1997) 113 CCC (3d) 42.
The annotation of the case in Martin's Criminal Code reads: "While in certain circumstances, a visual observation may suffice, where it does not, further reasonable steps should be considered having regard to the complainant's physical appearance, her behaviour, the ages and appearances of those in whose company the complainant was found, the activities engaged in, the times, places and other circumstances the accused observes the complainant and her conduct.... "
Nothing about ID checking. If she is 17, but hanging out in a bar with a bunch of other girls who look 20 and she looks and acts 20 as well, the guy is safe.
I concede that this is not relevant to the RP situation.
The annotation of the case in Martin's Criminal Code reads: "While in certain circumstances, a visual observation may suffice, where it does not, further reasonable steps should be considered having regard to the complainant's physical appearance, her behaviour, the ages and appearances of those in whose company the complainant was found, the activities engaged in, the times, places and other circumstances the accused observes the complainant and her conduct.... "
Nothing about ID checking. If she is 17, but hanging out in a bar with a bunch of other girls who look 20 and she looks and acts 20 as well, the guy is safe.
I concede that this is not relevant to the RP situation.
From The Times last week:
This week Helen Goddard, a 27-year-old teacher, was jailed for conducting a lesbian affair with a 15-year-old pupil. The pupil was said to have provided much of the impetus for the relationship. While Melanie Phillips, writing in the Daily Mail, said that this was no excuse and “the fact that [children] are acting out a parody of adult behaviour does not turn them into adults”, others took a more relaxed view.
In yesterday’s times2 Germaine Greer wrote of the affair: “I’m supposed to think that falling in love with people under the age of consent is evidence of deep perversion and vileness, but I don’t. Young people shouldn’t fall in love, you wish they wouldn’t and yet they do, very often . . .”
Indeed some, including the Cambridge law professor John Spencer, propose reducing the age of consent (in the UK) to 13.
Earlier this year an NHS (Govt controlled National Health Service) pamphlet aimed at 14 and up girls circulated in Sheffield (UK) and caused uproar because it told pupils that they have a right to a good sex life and that enjoyable sex was beneficial to health, adding the rider: “An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away.”
With the search function out of wack, this was the only thread I could find on the topic.
According to today's edition of The Daily Mail
According to today's edition of The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...Roman-Polanski-fears-fleeing-Switzerland.html
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
