quote:

It is a strange world you live in where you can change the meaning of words to suit your own bias.
Polanski pled guilty to carnal knowledge of minor not rape...so no mater how much you want it to be different it is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I understand the argument - I'm just not accepting it. If we accept trial by absentia then we accept the principle that it is okay to try people without them being present.

quote:

Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case?

quote:

By this argument, you could never pardon people post mortem, because they can't be present - even if the DNA evidence shows that they are not guilty.

quote:

Why is being on trial in absentia so abhorrent to you? Why is that a "violation" in every case? Surely there are some cases that trial in absentia is ok.

quote:

Plus, you are using YOUR rules to judge other cultures and other countries. Let's do that in reverse - if another country says OUR rules don't count, does that invalidate our rules? No. If someone breaks Italian law, we should fork over the dummies and let them be tried by Italian courts. Don't leave our country if you don't want to abide by other countries rules. (unless you can depose their dictator...then it is ok).

quote:

Are you sure there isn't a hint of resentment at some mickey mouse Eurotrash court thinking that they're entitled to try Americans in your attitude?

quote:

Italy broke the NATO Status of Forces agreement...the trial was illegal by this agreement. At least as far as the US is concerned I believe.

quote:

They weren't prevented from participating in their defence by the court, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case?

Yes it is, but we cannot allow the emotions of the accused to trump due process or the rights of the accused. If we did we wouldn't have a crinimal justice system - we'd have anarchy.

What if the person the victim thinks is guilty isn't (a case of mistaken identity - which has happened more than once)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

They weren't prevented from participating in their defence by the court, though.

I've already addressed this more than once in this thread. I'am too dizzy to keep spinning in circles.

It's time for me to go get my beard trimmed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

It is a strange world you live in where you can change the meaning of words to suit your own bias.
Polanski pled guilty to carnal knowledge of minor not rape...so no mater how much you want it to be different it is not.

quote:

Oh cripes not you again. Very well, one last time. There are legalities and then there are realisties. Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. Then he fucked her despite her repeated protests. That makes him a rapist.

Now goodbye.

I hve no clue what "relisties" are...do you?
It has been "alleged" that Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl.  It is alleged that he fucked her despite her repeted protests...he has never been convicted of the crimes you ascribe to him.  Have you tried him in absentia?
Now if the truth is too difficult for you to discuss rationally there is always the block button .

(in reply to Marc2b)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you.

Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect

I have already spoken to this point. Please reference post 54 of thise thread.

I recognize that other nations have their own laws - that is not the point. The point is: are those laws just? Do they protect or violate human rights? In Iran being homosexual can get you arested, thrown into prison, even exacuted. By your "reasoning," this is okay because, after all, it's their law. Bullshit. I recognize that I am utterly powerless to affect Italian law but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to call bullshit on it.

quote:

Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ?

By catching him (within legal means) and dragging his scrawney ass into court.

I'm not sure if Bin Laden is the best example for that, however, because he is more akin to a military commander who is violating accepted rules of war. Any attempt to capture him would be more akin to a military action than a police action - which means we can shoot the mother fucker on site.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you.

Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect

I have already spoken to this point. Please reference post 54 of thise thread.

I recognize that other nations have their own laws - that is not the point. The point is: are those laws just? Do they protect or violate human rights? In Iran being homosexual can get you arested, thrown into prison, even exacuted. By your "reasoning," this is okay because, after all, it's their law. Bullshit. I recognize that I am utterly powerless to affect Italian law but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to call bullshit on it.

quote:

Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ?

By catching him (within legal means) and dragging his scrawney ass into court.

I'm not sure if Bin Laden is the best example for that, however, because he is more akin to a military commander who is violating accepted rules of war. Any attempt to capture him would be more akin to a military action than a police action - which means we can shoot the mother fucker on site.

This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case?

Yes it is, but we cannot allow the emotions of the accused to trump due process or the rights of the accused. If we did we wouldn't have a crinimal justice system - we'd have anarchy.

What if the person the victim thinks is guilty isn't (a case of mistaken identity - which has happened more than once)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Makes me glad to not live in Italy...can they really find you guilty and sentence you without the right to face your accuser?  And people are cheering this on?

Wow.

Irony of ironies. Here we have a poster moaning about the rights to a fair trial, for a bunch of guys guilty of kidnapping people off the street and sending them for torture. It would be laughable if it wasnt so pathetic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights.

Your post brings up an interesting point Politesub...I believe, I may be wrong, but the US considers itself at war with Bin Laden and his organization. It would be a little hard to pursue a war when you must capture and prosecute each enemy soldier...No I believe Bin Laden will be killed on site just as other Leaders of his organization have been targeted and killed. This would be perfectly legal in world law.

So trying to use him as an example in this reference is wrong.

Butch

quote:

I hve no clue what "relisties" are...do you?
It has been "alleged" that Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. It is alleged that he fucked her despite her repeted protests...he has never been convicted of the crimes you ascribe to him. Have you tried him in absentia?
Now if the truth is too difficult for you to discuss rationally there is always the block button .