Academic and Work Pursuits, Polanski and Commie Debates

[tcpip]

Received my results for the first two units of my MBA, Financial Management and Management Perspectives; I passed both with Distinction grades. This was an enormous relief, especially for the Financial Management exam, which I thought was extremely difficult at the time. It also means that, assuming I complete Marketing and Information Systems, I will have a Graduate Certificate in Management (Technology Systems) by the end of next month. Then on to the Graduate Diploma. On a related angle, I have been given the necessary task of trying to make some sense of the internal wiki, external website and some of our marketing material. It doesn't make sense to pitch with generic marketing speak to scientists, for some well-known reasons, which have recently become evident at the Australian Synchrotron.

The events of Roman Polanksi's extradition for sexual assault have been long discussed. If you have the stomach for it, you can read the testimony of the young Samantha Geimer on the events themselves. When some members of the entertainment industry tried to defend Polanksi on the grounds of his international cultural reputation, most people responded to this with appropriate outrage. An unexpected angle however has come from the Sparticist League who have defended Polanski because Samantha was sexually experienced and had tried quaaludes previous. You can read the Sparticist League's position in the Communist Party of Great Britian newspaper in issue 794 and my response in 795.

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Thanks; I stumbled out of that Financial Management exam shell-shocked. I as hoping that my assignment grade of 88% would drag me over the line for a pass. As it turned out I picked up 73% (how!?) leading to a "just fine" final grade.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Looking at the petition of the big names, which does include many people I respect, I am trying to work out their reasoning.

Interestingly the text does not refer to the case as such, but rather refers to the circumstances (arrested in a third country outside of the US and France) and, bizarrely, the damage it could do to Franco-American relations.

I can understand where they are coming from in the first concern. The second is utterly irrelevant.

[sebastianne.livejournal.com]

*haha* Where can I get one??? :D

[(Anonymous)]

I feel sorry for what Polanski has been through in his life, but it in no way explains nor excuses his behaviour in my opinion. Many people experience some pretty awful life experiences and not all of them go on to do bad things. A large number of child sex perpetrators have abuse histories themselves- does that mean we should excuse pedophilia? Because a lot of people who have been abused actually go the other way and out of an awareness of what they have been through are able to empathise with other people and become more committed to doing acts of good in the world. What Polanski did to that little girl shows what a complete lack of empathy he had for her and for the effects his abuse whould have on her life. I think that anyone who is happy to prioritise the temporary physical gratification of their sexual urges over the emotional, psychological and physical wellbeing of a child deserves to face the consequences...

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

Re: "understand where they're coming from on the first concern"

I'm afraid I don't really sympathize here either. Extradition is hardly new, and he's effectively been a fugitive from justice for three decades. The fact that he's probably a harmless old man now is no salve, either - he got to live thirty years free when others have done their time by rights.

And yes, Franco-American relations prooooobably won't be hurt by the arrest of a man wanted for rape. If they are (which they won't be), then we see something of the French culture and it's worth the price.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I think it's more to do with national sovereignty issues between France, the U.S. and Switzerland. Just because I understand it however, doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't think rights of national sovereignty surpass universal rights.. like the right not to be drugged and sodomised against one's express will.

The Franco-US thing is a bit odd; if the French had an issue with the US whisking away one of their citizens from a third-party country, I would be more concerned with the Swiss allowing it.

[droog64.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the living-through-the-Holocaust bit. And it's a long time ago and the girl says she's over it and has a family and the judge tried to shaft him the way he shafted her.

I just think some charity might be warranted. Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. As I mentioned both in my letter and here - and a result of what comes to an almost-anarchist approach to criminal law - if she says "let it go", then the rest of us should respect those wishes (indeed, there may be a word for not respecting them).

Mind you, he could certainly do with more than a few sessions at the psychoanalyst.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on how one interprets justice. If the point of justice is to exact retribution for the wrongs done to the victim, then certainly the victim should be able to decline that payback.

But IMHO, the point of the justice system isn't to avenge past wrongs, it's to prevent future ones. The point of jailing Polanski is to discourage the next guy who's thinking about taking advantage of some under-age girl. While the court should be considerate to those involved, there are future victims who are also affected by leniency.

And, yes, there is a problem with 'victimless crimes'; I think the solution there is to include prior consent as a defense.

[castleclear.livejournal.com]

CONGRATULATIONS on your academic results. LOL re: having a Time Tunnel in your garage! (And now exiting Stage Right to bypass the Roman Polanski discussion.)

[droog64.livejournal.com]

Couldn't we all?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not denying the role of punishment as a preventative measure.

My concern here is entirely on who claim to be the receiver of damage. Generic things like "harm to society" have an unfortunate habit of meaning "whatever the majority/ruling class doesn't like"; such as the application of the death penalty for working on the Sabbath.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Nice dodge there sir :)

[castleclear.livejournal.com]

Why, thank you! ;-)

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

It does, and I don't have an easy solution to that.

But one way or another, a legal system needs to be able to acknowledge some situations where the specific victims can't be identified. If I vent a crapload of pollutants into the air and the rate of respiratory illness goes up 10%, nobody can prove exactly which cases were my fault, but it's still pretty clear that I'm harming somebody. I view this one in a similar light.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Any legal system can manage instance like that with pollutant taxes etc

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

But the rationale for that is based in the recognition that there are victims of those acts, even if we can't name them.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Right, and those victims presumably would want to be compensated for damages caused to them. They are real, visceral people, not abstract ideas. So I am not sure what point you are making by bringing this up as an example..

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

those victims presumably would want to be compensated for damages caused to them

But who are "those victims"? There's no way to distinguish between the 1000 people who would have gotten sick regardless of my actions, and the 100 people whose illness actually is my fault. On probabilities, we can be pretty sure that I hurt somebody, but we don't even know for sure how many people, since there will be random variation in the background rates.

By the same token, if we let rapists go free because their past victims forgive them, that causes harm to real, visceral people - assuming we accept the argument that lower chances of going to jail reduce the deterrent effect, which I don't think is a terribly controversial one.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

if we let rapists go free because their past victims forgive them, that causes harm to real, visceral people

That part is in dispute (and in the case in point, I don't think Polanksi, for example, is recidivist). Indeed, in this particular crime, recidivist rates area among the lowest, and those which are repeat offenders suffer from mental pathologies). Unlike the example of pollution, where there is continuing harm with emissions this is typically unlikely to be the case.

As for the deterrent effect, surely it is obvious that if this is reduced by given the victim the power to take up the adversarial then the option is available to increase the punishment applied where the victim wants proceedings to continue? Certainly that would be better than the dragging a victim, both real or 'socially determined', through a process against their will?

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

That part is in dispute (and in the case in point, I don't think Polanksi, for example, is recidivist). Indeed, in this particular crime, recidivist rates area among the lowest, and those which are repeat offenders suffer from mental pathologies).

I'm not talking about recidivism. What I said above was that the point of jailing Polanski is to deter the next guy who's thinking about doing something like this. (I grant that this is unlikely to have much effect on the pathological repeat offenders; this is more about deterring the non-pathological types who might try it once if they think they can get away with it.)

As for the deterrent effect, surely it is obvious that if this is reduced by given the victim the power to take up the adversarial then the option is available to increase the punishment applied where the victim wants proceedings to continue?

I don't find that an appealing argument, for a couple of reasons:

- IMHO, the punishment a person receives for an act should be based on the factors that are within their own sphere of control. If I try to shoot somebody, that shouldn't be treated any more lightly because (unbeknownst to me) they're wearing a ballistic vest. The perpetrator should be held responsible for their own choices, not whether the victim feels forgiving. (Since I'm looking at this from the angle of deterrence, there is no guarantee that the prospective victim next time around would feel the same way.)

- It has the potential to exacerbate systemic inequities. I strongly suspect that you'd see social pressure on victims to show more leniency to 'nice' white college kids than to the Scary Black Man who commits the same offence. Unequal punishments are already a major problem, but at least in the current system we can look at a judge's sentencing records etc. and call public attention to the worst cases. With decisions made by the victims, there are even less options for addressing the problem, because everybody in the justice system can wash their hands - "nothing to do with us".

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

What I said above was that the point of jailing Polanski is to deter the next guy who's thinking about doing something like this.

Even if the next guy thinks - somehow - that the victim will be of the same mind as Samantha Geimer then I believe then I believe as deterrence that can be incorporated into more severe sentencing.

The perpetrator should be held responsible for their own choices, not whether the victim feels forgiving.

Yes, and this is our fundamental difference. In my opinion (coming from my "almost anarchist" legal theory), crimes must have victims, and the victims must also feel whether the crime is worth proceeding upon. Otherwise you will end up with victimless crimes, and, where there is a victim, punish the victim further by acting against their express will.

It has the potential to exacerbate systemic inequities.

I acknowledge that is possible, however it is a different matter.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Even if the next guy thinks - somehow - that the victim will be of the same mind as Samantha Geimer then I believe then I believe as deterrence that can be incorporated into more severe sentencing.

My recollection, and it's been a while since I looked at the studies, is that the severity of a sentence doesn't actually have a lot of influence on deterrence; what has a larger effect is the probability of conviction.

crimes must have victims, and the victims must also feel whether the crime is worth proceeding upon

How would you deal with a situation where it's not possible to determine the victim's wishes?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

... what has a larger effect is the probability of conviction.

That is interesting. I would like to have a look at such data. I would think that basic risk analysis would work out to as punishment times likelihood%.

How would you deal with a situation where it's not possible to determine the victim's wishes?

*nods* I have thought about this, in the most obvious cases (e.g., a murder victim can hardly call for prosecution). In these cases I would do agree for public prosecution. However, I may disagree where there was clear and prior statements to the contrary (the famous German voluntary cannibalism case comes to mind)

My main interest here is to ensure that actions are not taken that against the desires of real or imagined victims.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I would think that basic risk analysis would work out to as punishment times likelihood%.

It does, but if people were that rational about risk decisions, nobody would buy lottery tickets.

On criminology, see e.g. Nagin & Pogarsky, Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats into a Model of General Deterrence: Theory and Evidence:

Deterrence studies focusing on the certainty and severity of sanctions have been a staple of criminological research for more than thirty years. Two prominent findings from this literature are that punishment certainty is far more consistently found to deter crime than punishment severity, and the extra-legal consequences of crime seem at least as great a deterrent as the legal consequences

Further, as discussed here, harsher penalties can have paradoxical effects: they make juries more reluctant to convict, lowering the rate of conviction, and from the would-be criminal's side the reduced risk of conviction can outweigh the increased consequences.