Replies

Alan Colmes opinion on anything is most questionable. However, the victim’s opinion is another matter entirely.

If the law is to balance the competing rights of individuals with conflicts, then the law must also factor in the wishes of the victim.

This is a perspective that goes all the way back to Jewish Law and forgiveness under that system. Interestingly, American Law used to give wide latitude to the citizens, in that Grand Jury members did not have to follow any law if they felt justice required their doing as they so felt.

Likewise, SCOTUS has affirmed, on multiple occasions, that jury nullification is both constitutional and legal. For collectivists, jury nullification means that as triers of both fact AND law, they jury has the right to rule as they so see fit.

The opposition tends to see law as perfectible, and believe in “legal rationalization”. The original discussion of this idea took place in Ancient Greece, where it was admitted that the Greek City/State was too large to allow mere humans to write laws capable of covering all circumstances, such that all would be treated equally, always.

Note, that said Greek City/State was only 40,000 voting citizens and some slaves. This was a community which we in America would call a small town.

Yet, thousands of years ago, the Greeks knew that man could not write enough laws to cover all situations.

Those Greeks knew that they would have to rely on judgment - judgment, as in that activity once exercised by a jury of our peers.

However, we allowed lawyers (liars for hire) and judges (also lawyers) to usurp the role of the jury.

Bad move, that.

I’d suggest that if Polanski’s victim is satisfied, under traditional American Law, that should be sufficient.

As for the argument that criminal penalties will prevent unwanted behavior, if you believe that, I have some prime swamp land to sell you.

Parents, churchs, communities can, and do, teach people to internalize the societial mores, acceptable behaviors, etc.

All the courts and do is deal with the cleanup after crimes occur. As the victim is not wanting jail time, I am unconvinced that jailing Polanski will in any way prevent a future “Chester T. Molester” from his nasty behavior.

I wish criminals, and the “Chesters” are criminals, were afraid of the consequences of their crimes, but in many cases they clearly are not.

Gun laws are perhaps the best example. Control of guns fails to prevent crime, or possession and use of guns, by criminals.

AN armed citizenry either inhibits/prevents crime or deals with it on the scene of the crime. However, imagine the legal repercussions of a father were to invoke the traditional parental right to defend his family from the predatory behavior of “Chester”.

The once well recognized right of the aprent to take a bat to Chester, and then have Chester thrown out of town has been replaced by a swarm of officers who arrest, try, counsel criminal and victim alike, treat, track, ad nauseam.

Did I forget the prison employees, the Parole functionaries, the social workers, and many more.

I propose we let the family deal with “Chester” in the historical manner. It worked, and was vastly cheaper.

And, to borrow a line from Sam Clements, “It couldn’t hurt, it might help, and it would be so much fun.”

He was, of course, talking about hanging lawyers. Speaking of which........

s the victim has made clear that she does not want her attacker jailed, then since she has accepted Polanksi’s