|
Post by thomasjerome on Mar 23, 2018 0:28:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2018 0:36:07 GMT
Surely many will do their best to take Blanchett to task for this, but she's right. Social media is great for creating awareness of an issue, but it's up to the legal system to investigate and properly do due diligence in cases such as these. Unfortunately, the second that an accusation is thrown into the ether, it is automatically treated as a condemnation and conviction.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 23, 2018 0:39:02 GMT
I fucking love this woman.
Hypocrites, take note.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 23, 2018 1:43:39 GMT
Social media is annoying. A bunch of people playing moral police when they know good and well they need to be checked also.
|
|
|
Post by skibidido on Mar 23, 2018 2:26:22 GMT
Very good answer.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 23, 2018 2:40:07 GMT
She's full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Mar 23, 2018 6:34:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 23, 2018 13:36:08 GMT
Like she didn't know. She's no better than Natalie Portman signing a petition to bring back Roman Polanski and then bitching on about this MeToo movement.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Mar 23, 2018 14:37:50 GMT
Like she didn't know. She's no better than Natalie Portman signing a petition to bring back Roman Polanski and then bitching on about this MeToo movement. Yeah but Polanski is a convicted rapist . We don't know that much about Allen yet . I mean I find it hard to believe that she has never heard about those allegations but she's not completely wrong about the rest.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 23, 2018 16:12:22 GMT
Nothing Blanchett said sounds odd to me really - not that she didn't about Dylan's renewed allegations - a lot of people weren't paying attention to those pre-#Metoo and the rest is exactly logical and precise - not support exactly but not hypocritical or cowardly (Portman somewhat, Gerwig and Chalamet moreso).
I don't think there's anything wrong with signing the Polanski petition either btw, there's no hypocrisy there at all, you can support his guilt and not support jail time, and that petition supported his not being extradited which was an entirely different thing anyway
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 23, 2018 16:40:41 GMT
I don't think there's anything wrong with signing the Polanski petition either btw, there's no hypocrisy there at all, you can support his guilt and not support jail time, and that petition supported his not being extradited which was an entirely different thing anyway How can you say that a rapist of a 13 yo girl doesn't deserve jail is something I can't get. Extradition is something that is related to politics between countries. Italy has been waiting for years the extradition of the terrorist Cesare Battisti from Brazil and from France before that,and he killed some random shop owners during robberies. Apparently some so called intellectuals consider him a political refugee.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2018 16:50:52 GMT
I don't think there's anything wrong with signing the Polanski petition either btw, there's no hypocrisy there at all, you can support his guilt and not support jail time, and that petition supported his not being extradited which was an entirely different thing anyway How can you say that a rapist of a 13 yo girl doesn't deserve jail is something I can't get. Extradition is something that is related to politics between countries. Italy has been waiting for years the extradition of the terrorist Cesare Battisti from Brazil and from France before that,and he killed some random shop owners during robberies. Apparently some so called intellectuals consider him a political refugee. The argument isn't whether or not Polanski deserves jail time for his crime. He actually did spend time in jail for it. The issue stems from the plea agreement that everyone accepted at the time, which stipulated that five of the six charges of criminal behavior against Polanski would be dropped and that in exchange, he would plead guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" and serve three months at Chino undergoing psychiatric evaluation, and that he would get out after 42 days and be under probation after the fact. However, after Polanski served this sentence, the judge decided to renege on the plea deal and sentence Polanski to a hard prison sentence. You can make the argument that the first deal should never have been struck and that Polanski deserved to be imprisoned for a long time. The problem is, however, that legally, the deal was agreed upon by all parties and that after the fact, the judge overstepped his legal boundaries, and that's extremely problematic from the judicial angle, because our entire system of law is predicated on everyone's right to a fair shake by the law, and that if a deal is made that all parties are amenable to, you can't simply "take it back", especially once the party in question has already done the agreed-upon sentence. That is the root of the debate and why people signed the petition, not that they were trying to exonerate Polanski of what he had done. Nobody's arguing that he should be forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Mar 23, 2018 16:56:40 GMT
I'm glad someone high profile and respected finally said it. Social media wants to be the judge, jury, and exection crowd.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 23, 2018 16:58:45 GMT
I am not saying he didn't deserve jail time, I am saying that anyone who was convicted of his crime with no previous criminal record didn't get jail time from 1975-1977 in LA County (1 count is what he faced only Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a minor) and the court psychiatrists weren't pursuing jail time either.
Now I understand the judge can veto that deal he had in place, I am not saying he didn't deserve more or less I am just saying that's not what the petition was about.
Again, the Swiss weren't commenting on his guilt in the rape they were addressing the legality of them being responsible to send him back to the US.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 23, 2018 17:03:14 GMT
stephenDo you mean that psychiatric evaluation automatically gives you freedom? Because I have the feeling he didn't consider himself guilty and he was ready to reiterate the crime.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2018 17:56:54 GMT
stephen Do you mean that psychiatric evaluation automatically gives you freedom? Because I have the feeling he didn't consider himself guilty and he was ready to reiterate the crime. The three months under psychiatric evaluation was the sentence, plus whatever probation was part of it. Regardless of whether or not he considered himself guilty, that was the sentence and it was (or should have been) legally binding. It doesn't make it right in a moral sense, but when you start going down that road, the only satisfactory sentences to the masses would be "an eye for an eye."
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 23, 2018 18:33:57 GMT
stephen Do you mean that psychiatric evaluation automatically gives you freedom? Because I have the feeling he didn't consider himself guilty and he was ready to reiterate the crime. The three months under psychiatric evaluation was the sentence, plus whatever probation was part of it. Regardless of whether or not he considered himself guilty, that was the sentence and it was (or should have been) legally binding. It doesn't make it right in a moral sense, but when you start going down that road, the only satisfactory sentences to the masses would be "an eye for an eye." Maybe our system is different. We have psychiatric evaluation instead of jail for some people with mental issues, but the purpose of it is being sure that the criminal won't be dangerous and won't reiterate the crime. If he hasn't understood his guilt, he won't be released.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2018 18:35:12 GMT
The three months under psychiatric evaluation was the sentence, plus whatever probation was part of it. Regardless of whether or not he considered himself guilty, that was the sentence and it was (or should have been) legally binding. It doesn't make it right in a moral sense, but when you start going down that road, the only satisfactory sentences to the masses would be "an eye for an eye." Maybe our system is different. We have psychiatric evaluation instead of jail for some people with mental issues, but the purpose of it is being sure that the criminal won't be dangerous and won't reiterate the crime. If he hasn't understood his guilt, he won't be released. How can you prove that, though? Also, Polanski actually pled guilty to the sexual assault (as par of the plea agreement), so he in essence confessed to doing it.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 23, 2018 18:49:31 GMT
stephenEvaluation is psychiatrists' job. And declaring you did something doesn't mean you feel you did something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2018 18:56:30 GMT
stephen Evaluation is psychiatrists' job. And declaring you did something doesn't mean you feel you did something wrong. Again, how can you prove that? Legally, in America, a confession of guilt is sufficient when submitting to a plea bargain.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 23, 2018 19:15:44 GMT
stephen Evaluation is psychiatrists' job. And declaring you did something doesn't mean you feel you did something wrong. Again, how can you prove that? Legally, in America, a confession of guilt is sufficient when submitting to a plea bargain. I mean proving that you understood your crime and you won't reiterate it is psychiatrists ' job. You can't avoid prison though if you are guilty, even if you confess, unless you are considered mentally ill. At best you'll have a reduced jail time.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Mar 24, 2018 2:55:47 GMT
She's not wrong. I wish more people would respond like this, instead of bowing to peer pressure.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Mar 25, 2018 5:37:01 GMT
How can you say that a rapist of a 13 yo girl doesn't deserve jail is something I can't get. Extradition is something that is related to politics between countries. Italy has been waiting for years the extradition of the terrorist Cesare Battisti from Brazil and from France before that,and he killed some random shop owners during robberies. Apparently some so called intellectuals consider him a political refugee. The argument isn't whether or not Polanski deserves jail time for his crime. He actually did spend time in jail for it. The issue stems from the plea agreement that everyone accepted at the time, which stipulated that five of the six charges of criminal behavior against Polanski would be dropped and that in exchange, he would plead guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" and serve three months at Chino undergoing psychiatric evaluation, and that he would get out after 42 days and be under probation after the fact. However, after Polanski served this sentence, the judge decided to renege on the plea deal and sentence Polanski to a hard prison sentence. Not completely true. What happened was Polanski plead guilty to a lesser charge. But the actual plea deal makes it clear that no sentence had been agreed upon and no promises had been made. And remember, the judge is not bound by a plea deal. This whole narrative that paints Polanski as a victim was of course invented by his defense and supported by the media (same media that was in one of Polanski's biggest supporters, Harvey Weinstein's pocket). If you read the actual plea deal, it even gets Polanski to admit that no promises had been made regarding his punishment. And since he fled before sentencing, I don't feel bad for him at all- even if you focus purely on the legality of the situation. And I really believe those people signed that petition out of some tribalist Jewish boy's club allegiance. They just wanted to protect one of their own or just follow the direction of whoever was in that club trying to protect their own. If Polanski were not in that club, these are the same people who would have gladly and publically shunned him. That petition was bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Mar 31, 2018 4:04:28 GMT
Good for her. About time a public figure who worked with him said something like this out loud.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Apr 19, 2018 22:57:35 GMT
|
|