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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 02:23 am (UTC)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.