oh, American (Swiss?) cruelty!

[intertribal]

The God Save Roman Polanski Movement is in full swing:

Jack Lang, a former French culture minister, said that for Europeans the development showed that the American system of justice had run amok.

While Mr. Polanski had committed “a grave crime,” Mr. Lang said, “he is a great creator and artist, and there’s a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago, in which the victim has decided to drop the case, is unreasonable, a kind of judicial lynching. In Europe, it would be unimaginable to punish someone in a situation like this.

“Sometimes the American justice system shows an excess of formalism,” Mr. Lang said, “like an infernal machine that advances inexorably and blindly. It sometimes lacks equity and humanity.”

And they're going to plead their case to Hillary?  This Hillary?  Good fucking luck.  I hope she roasts them like marshmallows.  And I don't even like Hillary.

Comments

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Gonna have to disagree there. Well, first, I don't exactly like the Amer. justice system, or probably any state justice system, but not knowing the details about how the case was dropped, I can't say anything about that.
And I don't think it does any good to punish him. Like, is he a danger to society? No.

As for “like an infernal machine that advances inexorably and blindly. It sometimes lacks equity and humanity,” I pretty much think that's true of bureaucracy and our whole fucking American post-modern mindset.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

The case wasn't dropped - he was convicted and negotiated a plea deal with an apparently corrupt judge, who has since died, and when the plea deal looked like it was falling through (and he'd have to serve time), he left the country and hasn't been back in the U.S. since (hence the Academy Award acceptance speech streamed from Europe several years back).

I don't like the American justice system either, but I don't think special creative people should be exempt from it, unless we want to just say everybody's exempt from it, starting today. Everyone who's on the lam, congratulations, your convictions have been overturned. If we're going to make that jump, remake the whole system, fine. Until we do, he needs to be held accountable by it (the broken system). Everybody else is. I realize that sounds vindictive, but I think exempting certain people from the infernal machine because they're powerful people with powerful friends just makes things worse. That's part of why the machine is broken in the first place.

Is the purpose of prison to keep people who are a danger to society sequestered away? I don't think so, but I'm more legalistic than you are.

Don't think Europe (or any country) is any better in that regard, I'm afraid. The same arguments got tossed at Spain by Americans when they were trying to convict an American co-ed there of murder.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, that's fun.

Of course I'm not saying anybody deserves special treatment, but it seems sort of absurd to say that because nobody gets special treatment, we should all put up with pointless bullshit. I'm more for, you know, not having anybody have to do that. If we don't start with one person, with our own lives and our own decisions, then we won't start anywhere. We aren't going to make any jumps or remake any systems. The individual decisions we make are the only way things will change.

It's the only justifiable reason I can think of. Prison doesn't teach people a lesson. It doesn't make them 'pay their debts'. I don't believe in eye for an eye or making people pay for crimes with suffering. Teaching, I believe in. "Justice," I don't.

I don't think Europe's much better either. I'm sure the cultural/economic phenomenon I'm thinking of affects the First World generally, although the U.S. plays a particular sort of role in it....way to be vague.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Well, if Roman Polanski's supporters want to start a campaign to make sure that it's not just Roman Polanski who gets to be uplifted, then sure, you know, go for it. My sense is that they're only interested in protecting genius old white European men from prosecution, and I fear that if it's not a systemic, collective effort - if it's all left up to individual cases - it's going to amount to powerful people having the resources and knowhow to get out of it, and we already have that going on anyway.

Why would they learn lessons if they weren't being forced to learn them (i.e., in jail)? I mean, ideally "rehab" would be part of prison. What are you gonna tell them, sign up for lessons on not hurting people, but if you don't, nothing will happen to you? No one will sign up. And then there will be the revenge-seekers, and when the revenge-seekers kill the original person, they'll get the chance to take optional lessons, and they won't either, and it will all be eye-for-an-eye anyway. Some might say individual whacking back and forth is preferable, but societies tend to come up with communal enforcement of the society's values.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing for Roman Polanski's supporters. I'm just saying, as a matter of principle, that is how I feel about individual cases. The sort of, 'I realized it was all wrong, that everything had to change, and that that change had to start with me.'

I really don't think jail achieves education. Are you kidding me? They 'learn their lesson'? I'm not so naive as to think that criminals really learn shit from being put in shit conditions after, often, having lived in shit conditions their entire lives (Since, you know, the entire prison system is a way of re-enforcing racial and economic inequality, as well). So what's the point? Just deprive them of even more freedom, starve their souls? Sounds fantastic. Seriously, if people aren't endangering society, why do you want them locked up? Hell, why don't we want to honestly deal with people? What's wrong with actually paying them some attention? To hell with lessons and rehabs and punishments. This reminds me of a song I have, "Aw judge, your damn laws, the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't follow 'em, so what use are they?" We've all learned force, violence, coercion, and revenge are the only ways to accomplish things--it's only a matter of who gets to use them and how. How would we ever expect people to learn to be different when we teach them using the same methods?

Yes, exactly, and there are much better--and more effective, and more humane--forms of communal enforcement than state prison systems.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

But the change can't stop after that one case, either. I also don't think Polanski has actually been screwed over by any system (he screws the system over), but I guess that's a different issue.

Um, no, jail in and of itself doesn't achieve education. I didn't say that. That's why I said rehab should be part of prison - as in, education IN prison. Some systems have it, most don't (or at least don't make it available or required for everyone in prison, which defeats the purpose).

But I don't think most people who are endangering society will sign up for education if it's a choice, which is why there needs to be some sort of enforcement measure. Should it necessarily be putting them in a brick building surrounded by wire fences? No. But it needs to be enforced somehow (shunning is not effective either). It could mean house arrest, if we figure out an effective way to do it. It could mean public stocks, though that doesn't seem very humane either. But it can't just be "salvation here if you want it, otherwise go home and go back to your life" because not everyone will take salvation. They might just keep on killing people. Prison is just an easy way to make somebody do something, but unfortunately they're not presently used to make anybody do anything that would help any situation. Enforcement, however, is necessary.

If they're not endangering society - if they're not taking away someone else's rights - they shouldn't be breaking the law. Period. If there are truly laws that punish people who are not endangering society/taking away other people's rights, then those laws should be stricken, imo.

I also think that society needs to constantly and seriously debate why people are breaking its laws. Maybe we all need more truth commissions. Maybe there's something wrong with the law, or something wrong with society, or some aspect of some societal system needs to be improved. That's what's not happening enough. If there's something wrong with the law, get rid of it. If there's something wrong with society, fix it and good luck. But as long as the law stands, it needs to be enforced.

What do you mean by dealing honestly with them? What are these other forms of communal enforcement? Would they be applicable in a large state, or do they only work in small communities? Would it be a community-by-community system? What if the community chooses a more inhumane or arbitrary system?