Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

[Martinus]

Nice theory, but trying to put it into practice would be a disaster.  In order to prove a charge of child molestation, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual child in question was in fact too emotionally immature to be able to give meaningful consent.

Yes the law must cater to the majority, otherwise it can't be applied.  However what I'm saying is that the 'external authorities' involved in such cases (social services, judges, police, etc) should consider any particular affair without the baggage of pre-frabricated morality.  It is probably too much to hope considering how people are.



G.

Well, I don't consider the idea that it's wrong for adults to sexually prey on children "baggage"--and yes, I understand that you're talking about teenagers, not younger kids.  That wasn't my point, however.  My point was that the law has to make it clear what is and isn't legal.  If the law says that the age of consent is 15, then you can have consensual sex with 15-year olds with impunity, but you would know that you'd be subject to arrest if you had sex with a 14-year old.  But if the law said that you could legally have consensual sex with a minor IF in the judgment of the authorities said minor was emotionally mature enough to give meaningful consent, you wouldn't know whether or not it was legally permissable for you to have sex with a 16-year old or not, because your evaluation of their level of maturity might not be the same as that of the authorities.

Indeed. Criminal liability (especially in cases as serious as child abuse) should not hinge on the ex-post-facto psychological evaluation of the minor. This would be a legal nightmare and would fail to meet the most basic criteria of criminal law, that is the certainty.

[DontSayBanana]

Indeed. Criminal liability (especially in cases as serious as child abuse) should not hinge on the ex-post-facto psychological evaluation of the minor. This would be a legal nightmare and would fail to meet the most basic criteria of criminal law, that is the certainty.

It's kind of odd; Grallon's worried about the state abusing power with sweeping generalizations about the mental state of a minor, yet he advocates putting more unchecked power into the realm of administrative law...

[Grallon]

It's kind of odd; Grallon's worried about the state abusing power with sweeping generalizations about the mental state of a minor, yet he advocates putting more unchecked power into the realm of administrative law...

I had sex with minors when the opportunity arose and they were willing and enthousiastic participants.  The law as it is fail to recognize this possibility other than specifying an age of consent that changes depending on the mood of the times or the agenda of interests groups.  This basically means that one year I'm a criminal and the next I'm not, depending on whatever floating morality presides over the legislative machinery at any given time.  This is what I find deplorable, nay, outrageous.  But as I said, common sense is almost always the loser in a battle against rigid doctrine.



G.

[DontSayBanana]

I had sex with minors when the opportunity arose and they were willing and enthousiastic participants.  The law as it is fail to recognize this possibility other than specifying an age of consent that changes depending on the mood of the times or the agenda of interests groups.  This basically means that one year I'm a criminal and the next I'm not, depending on whatever floating morality presides over the legislative machinery at any given time.  This is what I find deplorable, nay, outrageous.  But as I said, common sense is almost always the loser in a battle against rigid doctrine.

G.

Law changes, usually to reflect society's current tolerances, and it's often delayed by the mechanism of legislation, but it's hardly as whimsical as you're trying to paint it.  To be prosecuted, the crime has to have been a crime when you committed it.  Ex post facto legislation is abhorrent, agreed, but that's entirely another can of worms.

[Neil]

Wait a minute here.  If we allow the authorities to determine who is and is not mature enough for sex on a case by case basis, rather than setting an age limit, wouldn't that be the same as banning gay sex?  After all, it is a well-known fact that homosexual are inherently immature.

[Berkut]

It's kind of odd; Grallon's worried about the state abusing power with sweeping generalizations about the mental state of a minor, yet he advocates putting more unchecked power into the realm of administrative law...

I had sex with minors when the opportunity arose and they were willing and enthousiastic participants.  The law as it is fail to recognize this possibility other than specifying an age of consent that changes depending on the mood of the times or the agenda of interests groups.  This basically means that one year I'm a criminal and the next I'm not, depending on whatever floating morality presides over the legislative machinery at any given time.  This is what I find deplorable, nay, outrageous.  But as I said, common sense is almost always the loser in a battle against rigid doctrine.



G.

So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?

You think that would be an improvement over simply knowing ahead of time that nailing someone under the defined age of consent was illegal?

[grumbler]

So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?

You think that would be an improvement over simply knowing ahead of time that nailing someone under the defined age of consent was illegal?

Clearly, he wants to be found innocent of any criminal child rape charges, no matter the child's age.  Pretty much the opposite of what you are proposing.

What he refuses to recognize is the possibility (and maybe the probability) that the solution would be far worse than the system it would replace.  Her would never be free of the possibility of being charged, no matter how old the partner was, if a prosecutor and judge can agree that the partner was too immature to consent under the law.

[Martinus]

So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?

You think that would be an improvement over simply knowing ahead of time that nailing someone under the defined age of consent was illegal?

Clearly, he wants to be found innocent of any criminal child rape charges, no matter the child's age.  Pretty much the opposite of what you are proposing.

What he refuses to recognize is the possibility (and maybe the probability) that the solution would be far worse than the system it would replace.  Her would never be free of the possibility of being charged, no matter how old the partner was, if a prosecutor and judge can agree that the partner was too immature to consent under the law.

I really hate to say it but: my thoughts exactly. 

[The Brain]

No one on Languish would qualify. At least no one pretty enough to fuck.

[Grallon]

So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?

Observe this reaction gentlemen, the very phrasing used is prejudiced and biaised.  There's the implied crime, the disparaging description and the confusion generated by the bundling together of kids and teens.  Typical Languish dishonesty(TM) naturally.  However, and unfortunately, it is also a perception far too common among the population.

Nonetheless, nobody will ever make be believe that a 15yo studling is to be treated on par with an 8yo child, which is what the law says.




G.

[garbon]

That's the reaction you should get.

[Barrister]

Nonetheless, nobody will ever make be believe that a 15yo studling is to be treated on par with an 8yo child, which is what the law says.

Trust me on this: if you touch for a sexual purpose an 8 year old, the law will treat you very differently than if you touch in the same manner a 15 year old.

The law is more nuanced than you give it credit for.  There are different standards for what will and will not be acceptable at 12, 14 and 16 years of age.

[Berkut]

Nonetheless, nobody will ever make be believe that a 15yo studling is to be treated on par with an 8yo child, which is what the law says.

Trust me on this: if you touch for a sexual purpose an 8 year old, the law will treat you very differently than if you touch in the same manner a 15 year old.

The law is more nuanced than you give it credit for.  There are different standards for what will and will not be acceptable at 12, 14 and 16 years of age.

lets not confuse the issue with "facts".

[jimmy olsen]

Not only special treatment, but the fucker's made bail! 

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/11/27/2009-11-27_inmate_roman_polanski_gets_special_treatment_in_swiss_jail.html

Roman Polanski gets special treatment in Swiss jail

By Soraya Roberts
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Friday, November 27th 2009, 2:05 PM
The earliest Roman Polanski would be released from prison is Monday, the Swiss justice ministry says.
AP
The earliest Roman Polanski would be released from prison is Monday, the Swiss justice ministry says.

Roman Polanski has been getting the star treatment behind bars.

The filmmaker, 76, was allowed regular calls to his wife, French actress Emmanuelle Seigner, and his attorneys, according to Yussi Akram, an inmate who served time with Polanski. Prison guards also kept the "Rosemary's Baby" director away from other inmates, Akram told Zurich's Radio One.

Polanski's cell phone was equipped with an emergency button to summon guards, The Los Angeles Times reports.

But, according to The Associated Press, Polanski is just getting the same rights as any extradition detainee, a group who are afforded more privileges than prisoners who have committed crimes on Swiss soil.

Director Janusz Morgenstern, a close friend of Polanski's, told Radio One the director is depressed and has lost 30 pounds.

"His fear of the U.S. verges on panic, and he has lived with that fear for so long that it's become obsessive," Morgenstern said, adding that Polanski's kids have been taken out of school after being taunted by their peers.

Polanski has been in the Swiss prison for two months after his arrest on a warrant from a 1978 child sex case in Los Angeles.

The earliest he would be released from prison is Monday, the Swiss justice ministry told the BBC.

Swiss officials had repeatedly denied the director bail in the past on the grounds that he was a flight risk. The director fled from the U.S. before his sentencing on Feb. 1, 1978, and has been a fugitive until his recent arrest.

The court ultimately decided to release Polanski after he pledged $4.5 million in bail and agreed to electronic monitoring, which will alert authorities if he attempts to flee house arrest.

"It is very rare to get bail in an extradition case and especially in cases where the person's fled," Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and Loyola law professor, told the Los Angeles Times. "This is a little like giving bail to O.J. after the Bronco chase."

The L.A. Times reports that Polanski will likely stay at his three-story chalet, dubbed Milky Way, at a Gstaad ski resort.

Legal experts say the bail will only prolong the decision over whether Polanski should be extradited to L.A. to face sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

The filmmaker was accused of raping Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot in 1977 after giving her champagne and a sedative.

Polanski was indicted on six felony counts of rape by use of drugs, child molestation and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse.

He fled to France in 1978 on the day of his sentencing and has been living there ever since.

[Jaron]

No one cares anymore.