|
Aladdin, I see these as two completely separate that should have separate punishments. For the crime with a single victim, I think that her wishes then and now are paramount. If that was fine then, fine now and there was never really a push by her for real jail time (if there was, I'm unaware of it), then I see no reason why the State shouldn't stand by their original agreement with Polanski.
Obstruction of justice is a completely different matter, and I think that we basically agree there. I'm all for the maximum punishment for that separate crime. Perhaps I just see this situation in an odd and unusual light, but it seems to me that the OofJ crime needs a separate crime and punishment without the possibility of bail (which is standard in these cases, as I understand it).
First, Polanski committed the crime against the girl. That's separate than the one that he committed against the state when he fled. Does that make sense to anyone else or are these crazy pills on my desk?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|