Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I am in favour of the legal precedent that admitted and proven paedophiles and rapists face a minimum of 15 years staring at a concrete wall 23 hours a day.
I would settle for 10 years for this criminal in light of his age alone - it should be a sufficient sentence to ensure any useful amount of life he has left is spent with the public protected by him being behind bars.
The next question is whether any studio who released and profiteered from his work after he was a declared fugitive could face charges under RICO / proceeds of crime laws (not to sure what they are in US, but in the UK it is not legal to profit from a crime).
|
It is cases like this, where the public's bloodlust leads them to be shortsighted about the consequences of the precedent they want to set, that create the potential for future great injustices.
In this case, double jeopardy is in play and Polanski can't be retried for the more egregious of his crimes. You may not like that, but what's the alternative? In this case, the issue is twofold: prosecutors meeting with judges without the defense present, and judges deciding to do away with a plea deal without allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea. And while you might say that Polanski deserves that, that sets precedent, and precedent that is not particularly linked to any type of crime.
And mandated minimum sentences for statutory rape are unnecessarily meddling that generally leads to great injustices . Not because I defend pedophiles, but because real pedophiles would never get the minimum anyways. The ones who are affected by the minimum mandatory sentences are kids like Genarlow Wilson, a 17 year old kid given a 10 year sentence because he received a blow job from a 15 year old girl.