Hollywood Backing Roman Polanski...

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I don't see re-victimizing the victim as being inconsequential, in a case this old.

Since it was a long time ago it no longer counts? Doesn't the American justice system have an interest in demonstrating that, in a case like this, it will not be dropped if you run long enough?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

What is the statute of limitations on re-victimizing?

Would it have been ok after 5 years? 10? 15?

Originally Posted by goof2

Since it was a long time ago it no longer counts? Doesn't the American justice system have an interest in demonstrating that, in a case like this, it will not be dropped if you run long enough?

There are times when you have to consider the welfare of the individual over retribution, or demonstrative justice by The State.

If you'll stop the pile-on for 10 seconds to re-read my original post on the subject, you'll see that I "question" the automatic assumption that he should be brought back to face his sentence, in this specific instance.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

There are times when you have to consider the welfare of the individual over retribution, or demonstrative justice by The State.

If you'll stop the pile-on for 10 seconds to re-read my original post on the subject, you'll see that I "question" the automatic assumption that he should be brought back to face his sentence, in this specific instance.

When someone who fled American jurisdiction to escape prosecution or sentencing is captured in a country with which America has an extradition treaty I would hope there is an automatic assumption they be brought back. It is not the State Department's job to decide outcomes for criminals. That job is for the courts.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

There are times when you have to consider the welfare of the individual over retribution, or demonstrative justice by The State.

The United States is a nation of law. Not a nation of emotion. He broke the law and was caught. He should be sent back and tried for both the child molestation or "rape" (not rape-rape). And even if found innocent of the rape charges he should be charged for fleeing.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

The United States is a nation of law. Not a nation of emotion. He broke the law and was caught. He should be sent back and tried for both the child molestation or "rape" (not rape-rape). And even if found innocent of the rape charges he should be charged for fleeing.

He was already tried and found guilty. Well, technically plead guilty, but it's still a trial.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

He was already tried and found guilty. Well, technically plead guilty, but it's still a trial.

True, but as part of his plea deal he only plead guilty to one crime rather than the 6 he was originally charged with. Since running for 30 years wasn't part of the original plea deal I suspect they will hit him with everything again, requireing a new trial.