“I don't disagree at all with the point that law enforcement here seems to have dropped the ball in a major way. After 33 years, to all of a sudden go after a major figure in film is a bit much and I also believe that his messaging as a film-maker probably will do more good for the world. I also agree that the ongoing risk to society should be one criterion by which degree and scope of punishment should be judged. However, if there are to be standards of justice, equally applied, it's difficult to weight too heavily subjective views into account. If the crime were less serious but the victim more adamant, would that make a difference? ”
Posted over 3 years ago
“While I do agree that standards of justice should be equally applied, I see it as less an issue of fairness and more of an issue of proper discretion. Rules can't be applied blindly. Subjective criterion have to come into play if we don't want to live under eye-for-an-eye style law. It's an interesting point you bring up about the victim and perhaps there wouldn't be as much support for Polanski if the victim appeared still to be suffering. (And the public sentiment likely carries heavy weight here.) That said, if we're talking about justice, discretion and resources, I still think the situation is a bit unsavoury. Have taxpayers been paying for 33 years of chasing (and hoping to extradite?!) Roman Polanski, someone who has lived in exile -- publicly -- and is in no way a threat to society? Or did the idea just "come up"? Does our justice system realistically chase all criminals to foreign territories indefinitely and invest resources into "trapping" and extraditing everyone who breaks the law? Because then it might seem more fair.”
Posted over 3 years ago
Print
