I'm not sure any crime is worth pushing through the criminal justice system thirty years after it was committed
Roman Polanski's 2 crimes are raping a child and absconding before his sentencing. What's the minimum number of years that have to go by for the courts to let a child rapist and jail skipper not have to worry about serving his time?
if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison.
You know, a good way to avoid jail time is to not rape children. In fact, maybe someone who has an "Auschwitz experience" should have been even more averse than your average Joe to committing acts that could increase his odds of having to go to prison.
I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood.
I don't even know what this statement means. Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side? Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 07:25 pm (UTC)Roman Polanski's 2 crimes are raping a child and absconding before his sentencing. What's the minimum number of years that have to go by for the courts to let a child rapist and jail skipper not have to worry about serving his time?
if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison.
You know, a good way to avoid jail time is to not rape children. In fact, maybe someone who has an "Auschwitz experience" should have been even more averse than your average Joe to committing acts that could increase his odds of having to go to prison.
I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood.
I don't even know what this statement means. Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side? Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?