I found Ms. Shore's comments to be quite interesting, considering that she wrote a prior piece in HuffPo in November 2007 entitled "What Are We Doing to Our Children?", where she decried a schoolteacher having his way with a 13-year old boy and called it "robbing the cradle with a sinister new twist." She applauded Interpol for arresting such "sex-sick" fiends and bringing them to justice. I suppose these people did not charm her or Mike Wallace to the extent that Polanski did.

Germans assuming and asserting their own superiority . . . hmmm . . . I hear that doesn't always work out real well.

- The A&E industry didn't close rank around RP
- No statements by French Cultural Ministers
- No petitions signed by an international Who's Who
- No Debra Winger crying foul
- Or Whoopi (rape-rape)
- What would that look like
- What are these people afraid of
- By not supporting him
- Never being invited for Apres Ski ever again
- Or partying with him in Cannes
- Not appearing in any of his future productions
- Getting no love from Roman

What If

Only accidentally so. My assumption of moral superiority would primarily include myself, and I'd happily extend it to anybody worthy of it, regardless of nationality.

Yes, considering that with hundreds of thousands of court cases, it is basically a given that at some point, somewhere somebody must indeed have been sentenced to prison for a speech crime, I also should have been careful with my wording. I was wrong. I'm not sure what you want me to say here. Still, those cases are going to be the exception.

Germany is a nation of beasts and barbarians. But you live in a nation that is justly condemned by all civilized peoples for its history of blindly following the commands of morally degenerate monsters.

Since a nation is just an anthropological abstract, I'm sure Germany will not have any hard feelings

I don't know about the American reasoning. I could insert another snarky remark here about how I wouldn't be surprised…, but I won't. I think we can leave it at that. You come off more sensible in the comments than in your post, and this issue just pushes my buttons.

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!

Pretty juvenile, sure, and as a defense, if it was intended as such, worthless, but the core proposition is certainly not incorrect. That a certain hypocritical approach to sex and youth in our society exists has been pretty well established, and whenever I hear that idea of rapists supposedly having an especially bad time in prison because all those murderers there think they are oh so morally superior, or if I read the comment on the other post from the guy who seems proud that he thinks he would hunt down a friend rapist and kill him, I can't help but think that some peoples moral compass about the wrongness of murder vs rape isn't quite in sync with my own.

Other than that, I wish I'd put it that gently.

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!

Bear in mind, for context of what he means by "little girls," that at this point he had admitted under oath that he knew she was 13.

It seems he was sentenced to two years. Not exactly for wearing armbands, but certainly not an outcome I am happy with.

Don't split hairs. Your concession is especially graceless considering that you have access to German language media, while I don't. I studied Russian, because I wanted to speak the tongue of a civilized people. Yet it took me less than a minute to demolish a cavalier assertion that you, in your assumption of moral superiority, had made without checking.

However, if you’d like me to, I am sure I’d be able to dig up a sentence by a US court I can agree with. Don’t make this out to be US vs Germany (I admit I may have contributed to that).

You assuredly did. And yet I'd do it anyway, because Germany is a nation of beasts and barbarians. I'm not speaking of you, personally. I'm sure you're a nice person. But you live in a nation that is justly condemned by all civilized peoples for its history of blindly following the commands of morally degenerate monsters.

No, I brought it up because I wanted you to think about why they exist. Which you did apparently. I disagree with your conclusion though. This is/should not be the main reason.

"Is" and "should not be" are different. You are entitled to your moral evaluation that it should not be. I'd be interested in seeing any historical or case authority for the proposition that American statutes of limitation are not, actually, based on the value of repose as I articulated it.

If you feel you need to establish your moral supremacy by calling me a moral cretin for disagreeing with you, then I guess I’m just motivated to do the same.

I don't find all arguments in support of Polanski morally cretinous. I would describe your particular view about the passage of time deeply flawed and without what I see as a justifiable moral basis. If you started to combine it willy-nilly with other arguments — as others have — then I might start calling the whole package morally cretinous — if, for example, you tried to dismiss the charges against Polanski as Puritanism.

It seems he was sentenced to two years. Not exactly for wearing armbands, but certainly not an outcome I am happy with. However, if you'd like me to, I am sure I'd be able to dig up a sentence by a US court I can agree with. Don't make this out to be US vs Germany (I admit I may have contributed to that). There are plenty of people in Germany who agree with Poland, and the ACLU seems like a sensible bunch. This is about the underlying ideology.

And yet you brought it up, and smugly suggested that Americans were inconsistent in allowing statutes of limitations for rape. [...] that it is fundamentally unfair to charge someone with a crime so many years after it happened that it is unreasonably difficult to defend against it.

No, I brought it up because I wanted you to think about why they exist. Which you did apparently. I disagree with your conclusion though. This is/should not be the main reason.

Nor can I see a coherent moral argument that someone should be left alone

I never said it is a moral imperative that he be left alone. I'm saying the reverse isn't true either.

Why does that bother you more than them articulating their moral view?

If you argue that he should be extradited and sentenced, I have no problem with that. If you feel you need to establish your moral supremacy by calling me a moral cretin for disagreeing with you, then I guess I'm just motivated to do the same. Which is sort of childish, yes. I probably should be above that kind of thing.

I think that’s what I said in my post (that it may be legally irrelevant). My argument is that there are reasons why we have statutes of limitations: For example, most of the justifications for punishment (say, deterrence) lose their validity over time. Note also note the careful phrasing in the original blog post: “…. moral responsibility for rape has a shelf-life”.

And yet you brought it up, and smugly suggested that Americans were inconsistent in allowing statutes of limitations for rape.

Statutes of limitations are based on concepts of repose — that it is fundamentally unfair to charge someone with a crime so many years after it happened that it is unreasonably difficult to defend against it. To the extent there is a moral underpinning to that, I don't see how it applies to someone who was charged, pled guilty, and fled before sentencing.

Nor can I see a coherent moral argument that someone should be left alone, and allowed to escape a sentence for an admitted crime, because they successfully escaped justice for a prolonged period of time. The delay is a consequence of Polanski fleeing to a country that would not extradite him, not a consequence of indifference by the United States. Making a moral argument of that is the equivalent of the classic "forgive me for killing my parents, because I'm an orphan now."

’m bothered by this argument, because it doesn’t seem to me as if many of the Polanski supporters writing letters etc. force their moral view on you. They just argue theirs: That their morals do not require Roman Polanski to be punished at this point, in the given circumstances. They are reacting to the arrest. You are reacting to their reaction.

And I am not forcing my moral view on them. I am articulating it. Why does that bother you more than them articulating their moral view?

As for wearing Nazi armbands, until I see evidence to the contrary, I feel comfortable claiming that nobody actually went to prison over anything like that either.

Smugness breeds comfort:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a7d98.html

(Search for the word Karlsruhe and you'll see what I mean.)

But comfort in smugness is a small sin, as Germany's sins go, so I'll give you a pass Michael.

I think that's what I said in my post (that it may be legally irrelevant). My argument is that there are reasons why we have statutes of limitations: For example, most of the justifications for punishment (say, deterrence) lose their validity over time. Note also note the careful phrasing in the original blog post: "…. moral responsibility for rape has a shelf-life".

I'm bothered by this argument, because it doesn't seem to me as if many of the Polanski supporters writing letters etc. force their moral view on you. They just argue theirs: That their morals do not require Roman Polanski to be punished at this point, in the given circumstances. They are reacting to the arrest. You are reacting to their reaction.

That would depend upon whether the outcome is a principled application of Swiss law

Fair enough. But isn't it common that certain government positions have the ability to pardon people? Say, for example, Governor Schwarzenegger could grant clemency to Polanski, and wanted to think about it. What principles should he follow when making that decision?

where you live, pedophilic rape is regarded as a minor crime, and people who wear a Nazi armband go to prison while people who are actually involved in massacres that kill thousands receive short sentences.

Well, rapists and massacrists both receiving compressively short sentences seems quite consistent, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, besides that sentences generally are lower, which is, while rather simplified, generally along the lines of what I was trying to say.

As for wearing Nazi armbands, until I see evidence to the contrary, I feel comfortable claiming that nobody actually went to prison over anything like that either. Now, the fact that it is a crime in the first place is a different topic whatsoever. I certainly dislike the European approach to civil rights in general, and free speech in particular as much as the US approach to criminal justice.

Ah, see, the thing that confuses me is: How could you let those rape apologists in several states get away with placing rape offences under various statutes of limitations?

I'm not sure if you are trying to draw a parallel, Michael. But statutes of limitation only place limits on bringing charges for the first time against a defendant. They do not, under any stretch of the imagination, apply to a defendant who was charged, and pled guilty, during the limitations period, then fled before sentencing.

I wonder what you are going to say if Polanski wins his appeals in Switzerland. After all, that would be perfectly legal outcome.

That would depend upon whether the outcome is a principled application of Swiss law, or some variation on the "He's a Great Man" "it was just sex" and etc. defense.