We should all rejoice, as with Nazi war criminals, that perverts (yes, a loaded term if there ever was one, but if there was ever a better shorthand for it, suggestions please) eventually have to answer for their crimes. Clearly forcing yourself on impressionable 13-year-olds cannot go unchecked or unpunished.
But...dangerous precedents apply. The Polanski case, in the greater scheme of things, is less to do with a priapic child molester than it is to do with Europe's thoroughly unhealthy and subservient role in the face of American power, which is neatly crystallised in wholly one-sided extradition treaties. In other words, we are that vulnerable child cowing to a domineering, demanding presence. No should mean no.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Now ¼ baked!
Rant Donor
Also to be found at:
My Moulderings
Photos
Choonz
- All Natural
- Bauhaus
- Björk
- Black Grape
- Blur
- Dizzee Rascal
- Dr Octagon
- Dr Phibes and the House of Wax Equations
- Duran Duran
- Faith No More
- Fields of the Nephilm
- Girls Aloud
- GLC
- Gwen Stefani
- Incredible String Band
- James Ray and the Performance
- Jay-Z
- Jurassic 5
- Kate Bush
- Led Zeppelin
- Lilly & the Prick
- Lily Allen
- Madness
- Massive Attack
- MC Solaar
- Melrose
- Muse
- Natasha Bedingfield
- New Model Army
- Orbital
- Pink Floyd
- Plan B
- Portishead
- Rammstein
- Red Hot Chili Peppers
- Roots Manuva
- RZA
- Senser
- Siouxsie and the Banshees
- Sisters of Mercy
- Sleaford Mods
- Spearhead
- Tame Impala
- The Cardigans
- The Cult
- The Doors
- The Maccabees
- The Mission
- The Prodigy
- Urban Species
- Wu-Tang Clan
1 comment:
The first-order question is whether a man should be tried for allegedly drugging and raping a 13-year-old--crimes for which the individual has already at least partially admitted guilt--regardless of how long ago the events occurred. To me, it takes an amoral person to hind behind any statute of limitations.
If one believes this man should be held to account, the second-order question arises of how to do so. If the authorities in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred have the resources, competence, and will to pursue the case, then the case should be tried in that jurisdiction, unless there are compelling reasons for the case to be tried elsewhere (e.g. doubt of fair trial or physical security of the defendant).
How extradition treaties should play into this matrix depends on whether one determines that there are compelling reasons for a trial not to be held where it is currently proposed. If there are no compelling reasons--the existence of "one-sided extradition treaties" is not a compelling reason, for it ought not to have any influence on whether the accused has access to a fair trial--then the host country should extradite the accused, so long as that process is fair.
Taking a step back, we can see that extradition treaties inhibit the ability of the accused to hide behind national barriers to avoid being subject to the judicial process. A country refusing either to extradite or prosecute the accused reflects a moral relativism that is considerably more troubling than any perceived power dynamic between states.
Post a Comment