I'm not defending his crime by any stretch,(my personal thought is that rapists should be afflicted with sudden onset lead poisoning) but it seems that talk radio wasn't giving the full story today. I am disappointed that they overlooked, or perhaps ignored, such a vital fact as why he skipped town. I would like to know why the judge reneged on the agreed penalties. Did some legal rule forbid him from following through? Or does his honor lack honor?
Roman Polanski raped a thirteen year old, using alchohol, drugs, and intimidation. This was not as brutal as if he had bitten her lips together, and held her that way while forcing her down on the bed until he was done. But, it was clearly forcible rape.
I am more concerned that anyone would have considered a plea bargain in such a case, than with any reasons why that plea bargain might have fallen through. If raping a thirteen year old is not a crime that demands the death penalty, I don't know what is.
Sorry, the United States Constitution forbids the death penalty for rape, even for raping little girls, even if they are tortured, even if they are three, even if there are a hundred of them.
It's cruel and unusual. Executing people who do it, or anything else other than really bad murder, that is.
A DA can make a plea bargain but the judge isn't bound by it. In this case the judge didn't buy in. Any lack of honor was with the DA offering a plea to begin with.
*snort*
ReplyDeleteGood one.
Hollywierd ... first to go to the defense of leftists who anal-rape drugged little girls, or aid and abet ACORN funding of kiddie sex-slave rings.
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful hill these Demo'tards have chosen to die on.
Even more insane than Republicans excusing the use of torture.
I mean, how much worse can the American public do at election time? Maybe elect Cthulhu?
My favourite line about this, from one of his defenders, Whoopi Goldberg:
ReplyDelete"Would I want my fourteen year old having sex? Not necessarily."
How many jokers in a pervo poker deck? Lord knows you can't play stud with one.
ReplyDelete"Would I want my fourteen year old having sex? Not necessarily."
ReplyDelete"Would I want my fourteen year old drugged and forced to have sex? Not necessarily."
I'm just waiting for Elizabeth Taylor to voice his support: "You know, Some of my bestest friends are child molesters."
pun the librarian
Hmmmm, for a wee bit more perspective on the Polanski situation, check out this 2003 statement by the girl.
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23
I'm not defending his crime by any stretch,(my personal thought is that rapists should be afflicted with sudden onset lead poisoning) but it seems that talk radio wasn't giving the full story today. I am disappointed that they overlooked, or perhaps ignored, such a vital fact as why he skipped town. I would like to know why the judge reneged on the agreed penalties. Did some legal rule forbid him from following through? Or does his honor lack honor?
Roman Polanski raped a thirteen year old, using alchohol, drugs, and intimidation. This was not as brutal as if he had bitten her lips together, and held her that way while forcing her down on the bed until he was done. But, it was clearly forcible rape.
ReplyDeleteI am more concerned that anyone would have considered a plea bargain in such a case, than with any reasons why that plea bargain might have fallen through. If raping a thirteen year old is not a crime that demands the death penalty, I don't know what is.
Sorry, the United States Constitution forbids the death penalty for rape, even for raping little girls, even if they are tortured, even if they are three, even if there are a hundred of them.
ReplyDeleteIt's cruel and unusual. Executing people who do it, or anything else other than really bad murder, that is.
Kennedy v. Louisiana, it was in the 2008 term.
A DA can make a plea bargain but the judge isn't bound by it. In this case the judge didn't buy in. Any lack of honor was with the DA offering a plea to begin with.
ReplyDelete