Two unrelated, off-topic items:
Somehow my guess is that if this story involved a teen girl and male abuser, it would be the biggest story in America tonight:
Okla. teen claims he was held in closet for years
OKLAHOMA CITY – A woman was arrested after her 14-year-son told authorities he escaped from a home where he'd been kept for 4 1/2 years, spending most of his time locked in a bedroom closet, police said Monday.
A security guard at a National Guard facility in Oklahoma City called police on Friday after the teen showed up malnourished and with numerous scars and other signs of abuse, police Sgt. Gary Knight said.
. . . .
He told police that scars on his stomach and torso were from where alcohol had been poured on him and set on fire. Other scars were from being tied up, hit with an extension cord and choked, the boy told police.
"He had scars covering most of his body," Knight said. "They were basically from head to foot."
The teen told police he moved to the Oklahoma City area from New Jersey about 4 1/2 years ago after his mother was released from jail. Since arriving in Oklahoma, he said, he had never been to school and spent most of his time locked in a bedroom closet.
Read the rest here
_________________________________________
On Roman Polanski: I offer no opinion because I have not followed it as closely as many, many others. But this article has an interesting quote that speaks to what we do here, too: "'To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history - and as he was traveling to an event honoring him - is absolutely horrifying,' French Culture Minister FrÉdÉric Mitterrand said after Polanski was arrested upon arrival in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where he was to receive a lifetime achievement award. 'There's an America we love and an America that scares us, and it's that latter America that has just shown us its face.'"
At this site, we see the face of the America that scares us almost every day. It's the punitive, full-bodied chivalrous face that views male sexuality as dangerous and evil. It's the face that adopts a zero tolerance for even unproven "sex" allegations, and takes the approach of arrest-'em-first-ask-questions-later. It's the face that insists on treating men like animals even after they've served their time for sex offenses. It's the face that prefers to lock up an innocent man or boy rather than take a chance that he might harm my daughter, and not feel the slightest guilt about it, and not even worry that someday it might be my son somebody else will have locked up. So, yes, we "get" it. We definitely "get" it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
83 comments:
Actually, I was hoping to see an opinion by the False Rape Society on Polanski. Because his case is not like other mens' cases who might be charged years later and have to come up with an alibi and (if innocent) have no clue what they were doing back then. This guy fled and refused to face charges. I wonder what the statute of limitations is if you purposely flee when you're charged, if there is one.
Whether or not you believe in a person's guilt or innocence, don't you think it's wrong to run and hide? I doubt he would have been treated that harshly, being in movies. And it all could have been over long, long ago.
Based on your long and glorious track record here, you don't want to know how FRS feels about this case -- you're here to pick a fight.
It's generally wrong to run and hide, but without knowing all the details (e.g, the judge possibly going back on his bargain in the plea deal, etc.), I won't opine on the propriety in this case.
I am sure you will agree, Jean, that men should be treated as leniently for statutory rape as women are treated, which often means no jail time. Right? Right??!
Actually, Pierce, didn't he drug her and then have anal sex with her? To me, statutory rape is more consensual rape with someone not yet 18. She was 13, I think. And drugged. So I do think it's different. A lot different.
And no, I'm not here to pick a fight. That would be you MRAs with me. I just asked a question. But any question I ask or anything I say brands me as a troll. I guess I should just always side with the guy, no matter what, right?
How about "one time, for even three seconds, even when you're only partirally awake, in your whole life, side with a guy." How about that? Huh? Smart ass? Anyone with your track record can rightfully be called a grade-"A" misandrist. You hate men, and let's stop kidding about it, shall we?
P.S. I don't know enough about the Polanski case to comment on it.
But how about for regular old statutory rape, Jeana. You do think men and women should be sentenced equally, I am sure, don't you?
Actually, Pierce, I often side with guys. I love men. You people think I hate them. I might hate them if they hated me. But only MRAs hate me. I'm always the one sticking up for you males outside of these blogs.
Yes, I absolutely think that women should be charged the same as men for statutory rape. And non-statutory rape. Not charging them or not putting them in jail is outrageous. I have a son, you know. If any female hurt him, I'd want her dead. You have the wrong idea about me.
And I only asked these questions because you're a lawyer and I wondered what you'd say.
Good to know, Jeana.
I've been accused of inventing you to drive up traffic -- every blog needs a devil's advocate who isn't a moron like Atom.
I just asked a question.
And have repeatedly proven that you are not worth taking the trouble to answer you.
I seriously don't know enough about that case. I am certain that we are sentencing men convicted of sex crimes excessively nowadays. Even after men have served their time, they are on sex offender registries that sometimes forces them to live in the woods like animals. It is beyond barbaric. It is beyond inhumane. Why do we do it? Murderers aren't treated this way when they get out. Some of these men were guilty of having sex as teens with other teens. America is punitive beyond words when it comes to men and sex. And I blame the chivalrous law and order types mostly for this hateful state of affairs.
I guess I should just always side with the guy, no matter what, right?
Why would you take your cue from us? You haven't before.
If you detect a little bias in our world-view, if you think we may err on the side of caution when discussing Roman Polanski, you'd be right. Because precious few others take this approach with any man implicated in any way with a crime that has the word 'sex' associated with it.
If you want to read about Polanski being condemned, why are you here, and not reading the more female-oriented media right now? There's no shortage of others who share your appetite, and media ready to sate it (though I suspect never quite satisfy it).
I expect the gals at Feministing are breaking out the champagne after such a grim week with the Hofstra business, what with all that painful silence they've had to maintain.
But just to add some focus, don't you think it peculiar that a man should be arrested for a 30 year old crime that hasn't been pursued with any vigor, at a border he has crossed many times in the past? Why now? Do you think the Swiss wanted to arrest him all of a sudden?
Or is it not more likely that pressure has been applied, pressure that wasn't being applied in the past?
And this only days after the largest gathering of world leaders in one place - 160 of them at the UN in New York, where all were accessible to either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton - possibly the first face-to-face opportunity for them to talk with Swiss leaders.
Bringing charges to bear for such an old crime - one that even the alleged victim thinks unwarranted - looks an awful lot like setting the agenda for what others should be thinking about. It's certainly working on you.
Just because false rape is your issue doesn't mean that you always have to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy. This guy skirted the law for a very long time. I don't think it should just be ignored. Or would it be ok for a female to go overseas when charged with something like false rape? Would you guys say, "Aw, forget about it, it's been 30 years."? Doubtful.
I don't think Atom is a moron.
I don't think it should just be ignored. Or would it be ok for a female to go overseas when charged with something like false rape? Would you guys say, "Aw, forget about it, it's been 30 years."? Doubtful.
HA HA HA!!
An 18 year old is known to be guilty of a false rape accusation only 1 week ago, and law enforcement's response has been exactly that: "Aw, forget about it". She didn't even need to go overseas - she walked without charge even though guilty.
Now you're saying we should take a 30+ year charge against a guy seriously, when even today women don't get charged for having sex with minors.
30 years ago, people smoked in airplanes, people walked around country towns with rifles slung over their shoulders and no-one batted an eyelid, kids either walked to school or rode there on bicycles and university professors had sex with their students and nobody thought it a capital offense - it was a perk of the job, and a major trophy for the student.
And we're supposed to judge a man for something he did in this very different world with the sensitivities and expectations we have now, when we still don't even hold women to the same standard?
It's pathetic. I can't think of a more perfect contrast to highlight exactly how idiotic the law and its enforcers have become: man with 30 year old crime gets arrested, women with 1 week old - and more serious - crime gets off.
I'm not sure whether Mitterand really gives a shit about Polanski, or he's just using this as an opportunity to take a swipe at America. I'm wondering if he'd do the same thing if the film-maker's last name was Smith.
I'd run and hide too, if I was innocent. Innocent people shouldn't be expected to want to go to jail.
"Or would it be ok for a female to go overseas when charged with something like false rape? Would you guys say, "Aw, forget about it, it's been 30 years."? Doubtful."
The reason we have a knee-jerk, pro-male reaction here is because of the historical injustices to men when it comes to the criminal justice system. Women have never faced those injustices.
Atom isn't a moron. That's insulting to morons.
It's pathetic. I can't think of a more perfect contrast to highlight exactly how idiotic the law and its enforcers have become: man with 30 year old crime gets arrested, women with 1 week old - and more serious - crime gets off.
This just highlights the fact that it isn't about "law" any more, it is about vengeance. Women are using rape law to seek vengeance on men for all those years of "patriarchal oppression."
This, sadly, is one of those cases where we really won't ever know what happened. And that just further shows that facts don't matter in these cases - if women think some man has harmed some female, then some man has to get punished. It really doesn't seem to matter to them if the particular man is guilty or not, because per Brownmiller all men are guilty of "conspiracy to rape" if nothing else.
I don't think it is possible to have an informed position on Polanski's case. Of course, Jeana was hoping to see an opinion on it here - she is running out of ammuntion. The intractable positions of the "loyal opposition" need to serve as evidence that we will never get the support of women and that we are in for a political battle every step of the way.
I feel sorry for the guy. His wife was among the people killed by the Charlie Manson gang, and his life has certainly had more than his share of nightmare's to it.
If there is one thing which this past week has proved - with the Hofstra case, John Phillips's daughter telling her tale of woe on Oprah, and now Polanski - it is that a great many women are eager to believe anything awful they hear about men and whether or not it actually happened does not matter to them at all.
I did have this thought about Polanski. A usual refrain is that we can't let rapists go because they'll just rape some more. In Polanski's case, that doesn't seem to be a problem, does it? He has had decades without blemish.
" . . .a great many women are eager to believe anything awful they hear about men and whether or not it actually happened does not matter to them at all."
I don't think it's gender specific. People are willing to believe the worst. When a boy accuses a female school teacher of seducing him, most people assume it happened.
The difference is that only males are considered capable of the nasty sex stuff.
Jeana was hoping to see an opinion on it here - she is running out of ammuntion.
Don’t worry about that; I’ve got tons.
And actually, I do understand the point of view from MRAs who post here about rape accusations. I don’t think that his guilt is really a question, though. Maybe the question is what do you do now? But I think my initial question is valid: isn’t running away from the law wrong in a case like this? This really has nothing to do with who is or isn’t charged with a false rape accusation. I could point to plenty of guys who were never charged with rape but should have been in order to justify a false rape accuser’s non-punishment.
Jeana, Atom is a moron.
isn’t running away from the law wrong in a case like this? This really has nothing to do with who is or isn’t charged with a false rape accusation. I could point to plenty of guys who were never charged with rape but should have been in order to justify a false rape accuser’s non-punishment.
Not only "could" you point to such, that is the entirety of the rape-lie apologists argument - that there are all these hordes of men out there walking around free who should have been charged with rape, therefore anything any woman does now is justified by that. If some innocent man gets punished, well he is just paying the price for all the men who didn't. Per Brownmiller, he was still guilty of conspiracy so he wasn't truly innocent.
As far as "running away from the law" being wrong, that depends on how much faith one has in "the law." In the Hofstra case, disbelief in the integrity of "the law" and those who enforce it are quite justified.
If I were framed for something I didn't do, and had absolutely no faith in the legal system to discover my actual innocence, I would be hard-pressed to volunteer to spend 25 years in prison just to give a vote of faith to "the law."
At this site, we see the face of the America that scares us almost every day. It's the punitive, full-bodied chivalrous face that views male sexuality as dangerous and evil.
**************
Well said.
"Just because false rape is your issue doesn't mean that you always have to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy. This guy skirted the law for a very long time. I don't think it should just be ignored."
This is the price of destroying the integrity of the law Jeana. Feminists have twisted and distorted nearly all aspects of law relating to sex, so men have diminished respect for it. When it's clear police aren't going after women because of their gender, why would they support they go after men?
You can't lower the quality of something in order to have more of what you want, and expect the process to keep working with each new drop in quality. The brewer might think he's clever by watering down his beer - and for a while he will make more than usual - but eventually no-one will want his product, and his name will be ruined.
This is the price of destroying the integrity of the law Jeana.
As well as the price for destroying the credibility of women.
I'm sorry, but using the case of Roman Polanski to prove your points isn't really a good idea.
using the case of Roman Polanski to prove your points isn't really a good idea.
We're not. It was you fembots who brought him up.
We know you are going to extract your vengeance whether he is guilty or not, so the question of his actual guilt is moot.
Funny, isn't it. Jeana, and now that you've chimed in Renee, have only bothered to focus on Polanski. Did either of you happen to notice the other part of the post? You know, the mother who tortured and abused her son for 4 1/2 years. Funny how she gets no mention, but damn if it isn't all about the guy.
Will there ever be a point where you don't walk right past the atrocious behavior of women to point out a man's flaws? Don't bother to answer that one. It was rhetorical.
I don't care about Roman Polanski. False rape accusers are never arrested 31 years after committing their crimes so why she he be arrested?
"Should," not "she."
Archivist,
Did either of you happen to notice the other part of the post? You know, the mother who tortured and abused her son for 4 1/2 years. Funny how she gets no mention, but damn if it isn't all about the guy.
Will there ever be a point where you don't walk right past the atrocious behavior of women to point out a man's flaws? Don't bother to answer that one. It was rhetorical.
Oh I'll answer it alright.
I didn't mention that case because justice was served and there wasn't much I can add to that since I agree that what the mother did was horrible and that she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It wasn't as much has it being all about Polanski as much as YOU using his case to further make your point. I pointed out the flaw of you using him to expand on your beliefs.
That's right, Renee. Better keep Polanski locked up because he'll just go and rape more innocent young women. The fact that he has had a clean record for 31 years doesn't mean a thing. I mean, he's as bad as a cruel Nazi guard in the death camps, so it's great that they kept up the pressure to nab him for decades and decades.
What they accused him of was pretty bad, but I doubt that it's all true. At any rate, his victim has made it clear that most of the harm she suffered as a result was due to the media, not Polanski.
Everybody forgets that the plea agreement he signed would have resulted in him being sentenced to time already served! The only reason he fled was because the crooked judge was planning to screw him. The moral of the story is that we have a plea-bargaining system that is inherently sleazy and coercive. He might never have been convicted of anything if he hadn't been arm-twisted into signing that deal.
The moral of the story is that we have a plea-bargaining system that is inherently sleazy and coercive. He might never have been convicted of anything if he hadn't been arm-twisted into signing that deal.
Echoes of the strains of "That's the Night that the lights went out in Georgia, that's the night that they hung an innocent man... the judge in the town has blood stains on his hands" are running through my head right now.
Another moral of the story is that more men need to choose to fight the charges rather than plea bargain. It might seem like the easiest way out at the time it is being presented, but is inherently a falsehood which is dependent totally on the discretion of a human being who may have disctinct biases about the situation.
Polanski certainly had the resources to go through with a trial. He has not been in prison the past several years, but obviously has been considered a fugitive from justice. I don't know what his sentence would have been, but simply his flight from authorities will earn him some jail time now (perhaps the rest of his life) regardless of what happens on the original charge.
Renee - "I didn't mention that case because justice was served..."
What justice has been served? That she's been arrested and charged?
It's highly likely that she will be declared to be "deeply troubled" (the catch-all for women behaving badly), and be given therapy rather than jail time.
The boy? He will still have the scars, both physical and emotional, for the rest of his life. He'll most likely languish in foster care until he's 18 and booted out. Uneducated, and incapable of anything approaching normal relationships with others, what do you suppose will become of him?
So, his mother does, at most, minimal time, is given therapy, job training, free rent at a half-way house, etc., then set free upon society again. Is that justice?
no, Renee, that story deserved a Hell of a lot more than to dismiss it because "justice was served"
Keep in mind that they're doing this at a time when literally tens of thousands of convicted felons are pouring onto the streets as California's "justice" system is downsized. The vast majority of them will be back in prison after a few years.
Roman Polanski -- a model citizen while on the lam for 31 years -- will literally be occupying a bed that could be holding a dangerous felon.
Something needs to be made clear about the Polanski case:
He plead guilty to RAPE and FLED! And if I'm correct if you flee the country after you plead guilty, then you become a wanted person! What, should there be a statue of limitations for any person who commits a criminal act, pleas guilty, and flees the country to advoid sentencing? Or should this only apply to Polanski?
Here's a must read article about the case:
Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child
Yeah, Renee, he's such a threat to society! Wait a great prize in catching him - it's like catching Osama bin Laden.
Renee said...
Something needs to be made clear about the Polanski case:
He plead guilty to RAPE and FLED! And if I'm correct if you flee the country after you plead guilty, then you become a wanted person!
That's true. And, AFAIK there is no statute of limitations on being a fugitive from justice.
There is an interesting lesson in credibility here. A few days ago Broadsheet there was a lengthy justification for not printing the Hofstra rape-liars name. It was pretty much the same article I saw dozens of times written by women all saying pretty much the same thing, one of whom stated "I'm not naming the student out of some mix of pity and sisterhood."
I'm personally not willing to give Polanski a pass based on "brotherhood." Using his money and connections he fled the country to escape prison time for a crime that there is the sworn testimony of the girl that he did commit. Perhaps he had memories of what happened to Fatty Arbuckle -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle
There were many problems with the Arbuckle case, but he was tried in the Hearst media and became the target of a zealous Nifong-like prosecutor.
The rape issue has become so grossly over-politicized that facts more often than not get lost in all the emotions that a case brings up. Just as many people on the jury which acquitted OJ viewed the legal system with extreme suspicion and distaste and distrusted it, men are coming to distrust the legal system and the word of women when it comes to dealing with rape.
The very same people who were arguing here just a few days ago that "we will never know" what happened at Hofstra and who quickly gloss over any misdeed by a female, show a lynch mob mentality toward men.
Sorry, grrls, we are not going to be among those who cheer enthusiastically when you try to lynch us. I don't see Polanski as any sort of symbol for the issues discussed here, and you all are doing such a fine job of lynching him that you certainly do not need our help.
"Just as many people on the jury which acquitted OJ viewed the legal system with extreme suspicion and distaste and distrusted it, men are coming to distrust the legal system and the word of women when it comes to dealing with rape."
Wow! Great comment.
Renee,
The point you seem to be missing here, is that of the 2 cases listed, which one didn't you, or jeana comment on at all. The one where the woman was the evil bitch who tortured her son, FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS. So he was 9 1/2 when that started. Which is more evil? IF all the facts about Polanski are true, they both are. But not a peep from you, or jeana, or atom. Your misandry is disgusting.
Slwerner laid it out exceptionally, so I won't rehash the "justice is served" comment.
Yeah, Renee, he's such a threat to society! Wait a great prize in catching him - it's like catching Osama bin Laden.
Why do you have such a problem in his capture? He committed a crime, confessed, and fled the country. What's your problem?
Anon Sep 30, 2009 10:02:00 PM,
You said you're not willing to give Polanski a pass, but I fail to see the connection between the rest of what you posted and Polanski's case.
"Why do you have such a problem in his capture? He committed a crime, confessed, and fled the country. What's your problem?"
I don't have a problem with whatever is going to happen - I just can't understand why you've got such a hard-on about it. What interest is this case to you any more than a thousand other crimes that were committed today, or this past year, or these past THIRTY years? Why the intense interest in seeing "justice" done for something that happened 31 years ago? I will tell you why, in case it's not obvious to everyone: rape isn't just a crime to you, it's a mantra, a symbol of patriarchal oppression. Admit it, Renee. You want this guy nailed to the cross for the sisterhood.
Pierce posted two stories in this post and like a broken phonograph, you are stuck on a guy who committed a crime probably before you were born.
I'm not sure it is pure misandry here. It strikes me more like "keep changing the subject." Every time female misbehavior is brought up, you can guarantee that there will be a chorus of women saying "oh, teh poor menz. Women have it so much worse." It is a very slick form of denial and discounting.
Of course, we will "never really know what happened" all those years ago. Perhaps if Polanski had made a video it would have shown something very different than the girl's story - perhaps nothing.
That is the problem with plea bargains. Given an adequate legal arsenal to throw at some guy, copping a plea that supposedly guarantees a fixed and lesser penalty than he might have to face could be pretty attractive. A few weeks ago my brother was stopped for failing to stop at a stop sign. The small town where it happened has a bunch of new police cars, and a bunch of new police, and has to finance all that somehow. Finding ways to fine the residents seem to be working just fine. They told him he could "plead it down" to a broken tail light (which he didn't have - notice how willing prosecutors are to lie when it suits their purposes) for $400. The thing is that the failure to stop would have put points on his license where a broken tail light would not. Silly justification, but prosecutors pursue lots of silly courses of action.
The stupid thing was that my brother had no points on his license, and the fine even if he was found guilty was only $30, so he said "take it to trial."
The fact that Polanski pled guilty doesn't mean he was guilty - all it means is that no one would make the excuse for him that he was a "deeply troubled man" and therefore ought to be let off. The lynch mob was formed, and he might have seen a plea as his way out. Then the judge tried to stiff him on the bargain.
To me, the moral of the story is - never allow a 13 y/o girl in your house, or ever be alone with one, without witnesses, just as the PUA community has taken the moral from the Hofstra rape-lie to be "always video your bangs."
You said you're not willing to give Polanski a pass, but I fail to see the connection between the rest of what you posted and Polanski's case.
Doesn't surprise me. Maybe you can get a friend to draw you a picture.
The Archivist,
No misandry is involved here, don't be so dramatic.
I only pointed out that you all using the Polanski case to expand you beliefs wasn't a good idea...that's all. Then a few of you made comments that basically condemed his capture. Why is that?
Believe me, I'm all for women who either have sex with or rape a minor to be prosecuted. But I just don't understand people who basically DEFEND Polanski, especially after he plead guilty.
We all are pretty much on the same page about the woman who brutally abused her son and that she's evil. There wasn't much for me to add. Slwerner has his own ideas about how the woman will be punished, but I believe that based on the severity what she did, that she will be punished accordingly. If not, then I'll admit that I was wrong.
IF Polanski were a woman who'd be on the run for 31 with a clean record, is there any reader out there who doens't doubt -- there'd be a TON of womyn's groups whining, "Why are they prosecuting her? They're only prosecuting her because she's a womyn . . . WAAA!"
You know it.
Oops. Typos. IF Polanski were a woman who'd been on the run for 31 years with a clean record, is there any reader out there who doens't doubt -- there'd be a TON of womyn's groups whining, "Why are they prosecuting her? They're only prosecuting her because she's a womyn . . . WAAA!"
You know it.
Every time female misbehavior is brought up, you can guarantee that there will be a chorus of women saying "oh, teh poor menz. Women have it so much worse." It is a very slick form of denial and discounting.
Well that's not what I did. I made one little comment about using his situation to further your points.
The fact that Polanski pled guilty doesn't mean he was guilty
Of course.
Side note: can't this apply to recantations? Just because you recanted/dropped the charges, that doesn't always mean that you're guilty of false accusations. And before you start, NO I'm not for false accusations.
To me, the moral of the story is - never allow a 13 y/o girl in your house, or ever be alone with one, without witnesses
How about this...never give a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne or instruct her to get into a jacuzzi naked.
Renee,
I think the answer here is pretty obvious.
A lot of us no longer see the police as the good guys - especially in the area of rape and sexual assault. They don't represent us - they see us in the same way the Planet of the Ape gorillas saw humans. Dirty worthless scum to be rounded up, declared guilty and thrown in a prison for 25 years. The more, the better. Just a damn shame about a few pesky legal aspects, but soon those won't be a problem either.
I'm rooting for Polanski because I want to see someone escape their reach - especially when that someone isn't really a threat to anyone, and has brought a lot of people pleasure.
I know I should be supporting the law and that I should accept that just because some laws don't work in my favor doesn't mean I should reject the whole package. But I'm way past that now. I couldn't care less.
I wouldn't bore you with this if I didn't think there were others who think the same way. I think there are so many it would frighten you - it frightens me. But I already live in a world where barbarians roam the streets, beat up innocent men and stick tazers up their asses. You don't. If a cop stuck a tazer up your ass the whole world would know about it tomorrow and the cop would be lynched.
If a guilty guy like Polanski can be forgiven, that might mean that innocent men can also finally be "forgiven."
Society is sicker than anything Polanski ever did, and we see proof of the sickness every week here on this blog.
Right, Anon at 1:53. Law enforcement views men as the real criminals, and even when women do things much, much more harmful, their misconduct is excused or minimized, and they are rarely punished in a manner consistent with the punishments men receive.
How about this...never give a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne or instruct her to get into a jacuzzi naked.
Since I would never do that, my concern is about the person who can lie and say I did and automatically be believed.
Well that's not what I did. I made one little comment about using his situation to further your points.
That's exactly what you did. Every conversation has two sides and if you aren't getting across what you mean to get across, both sides of the communication really need to be examined.
From the male perspective we are comparing the societal response to the events of one night versus multiple years of systematic torture. The response seems, shall we say, "disproportionate".
The very first response to the isolation and torture story was jeana saying -
"Actually, I was hoping to see an opinion by the False Rape Society on Polanski"
("Quick, a woman has gotten caught doing something bad, come up with something a man has done bad, change the subject to that, and keep the focus on it so nobody talks about what the woman does!")
I don't remember anything about Polanski in the original post, so it appears that Pierce added it in response to jeana's bait.
As far as the female torturer being appropriately punished, we'll see if the "troubled woman" defense gets trotted out and she gets a bit of time in a mental health spa and patted on the head and told to not do it again. Mary Winkler was able to get away with shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun in cold blood and served something like 67 days.
The US in-justice system doesn't have a track record of punishing women who do evil things that inspires any confidence at all in men that they will be fairly treated.
If women did not always rush to circle the wagons and protect liars out of "sisterhood", their accusations would have a lot more credibility with men. But, the picture we see is that a woman can tell a lie and most women will swear to it, and when it is exposed will come up with all sorts of lame justifications.
Women severely damaged their credibility with the Ndonye case. They would have been much better off to not try to sweep it under the rug the way they did and instead generally call for some severe punishment instead of making excuses for her. If they will support one lie and liar they will probably support all lies and liars.
Some men do seem to be rooting for Polanski in the same way that the jury acquitted OJ less on the merits of the case than on deep distrust in the injustice system. Others are so fatigued by the whole issue that we no longer care very much. He's caught, you women will get your pound of flesh, and that will be that. You are not going to find a huge amount of outrage and sympathy for your cause when all we see from you for ours is denial, stonewalling, and a bit of occasional lame lip-service. We don't need to join the lynch mob and pile on him because you all have already done that job very nicely.
How about this...never give a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne or instruct her to get into a jacuzzi naked.
The problem with this is that "we will never really know what happened." Perhaps the Quaalude was just like the ropes in the recent Hofstra case. In the absence of a video which can clearly be used to prove that the accuser is lying, all we have to go on is her story.
Of course, "women never lie" and we have to "always believe the woman", which is sexism at its purest - making judgments about a person based on nothing but her sex.
Reality has fallen prey to the feminist meta-narrative. The denial that women are really human beings much like men, with all the same foibles, failings, and temptations to act in despicable ways, creates a situation in which evil acts, intentions, motives, and people are allowed to flourish, and true innocence is punished.
Cathy Young pointed out that Emily Bazelon tried to work the meta-narrative in the following manner - "Let's agree that something disturbing happened to that 18-year-old woman at Hofstra. Something she feels awful about."
It is an interesting rhetorical device to simply declare by fiat something which is not necessarily true. "Let's all just agree..." Except, we don't necessarily agree.
The shell game which transfers the same stigma of a "rape" which did NOT happen to whatever did actually happen forces a foregone conclusion on whatever did actually happen. In effect, the story itself doesn't even need to exist because the bigoted beliefs are already in place and need no confirmation and are impervious to any evidence to the contrary. The passive voice and the meta-narrative that women are weak, stupid, clueless, and largely asexual effectively removed Ndonye from the picture. Nothing could possibly be more dis-empowering to women.
Did Polanski actually give the girl a Quaalude and all the other things she said he did? "We'll never know..." because no video or other corroboration of her version of events exists. In general, women are going to go along completely with the meta-narrative, and even if a video did exist which showed that nothing of the sort happened, then I am sure there would be some women saying "Let's agree that something disturbing happened to that 13-year-old girl in Jack Nicholson's apartment. Something she feels awful about."
Anon Oct 1, 2009 8:46:00 AM,
First off, when I first read this thread, the Polanski case was already added to the OP. I didn't know that originally it wasn't there. In that sense, I didn't bring up Polanski simply because I wanted to avoid talking about the case of the female abuser.
What bothers me is that while you point out that some men support Polanski, you imply that women in general supported Ndonye even after it was proved that she lied. Why is it ok to generalize women but not men?
And believe it or not, it's not only women who want to see Polanski brought to justice.
Also, what's makes you think that if a man tells a lie, other men won't swear to it?
------------
Anon, Oct 1, 2009 1:53:00 AM
I'm rooting for Polanski because I want to see someone escape their reach - especially when that someone isn't really a threat to anyone, and has brought a lot of people pleasure.
Well this is just sad. As a black woman, I'm aware of cases in which the actions of the police are either questionable or downright wrong. But you don't see me rooting for actual rapists and other criminals to escape justice.
If a cop stuck a tazer up your ass the whole world would know about it tomorrow and the cop would be lynched.
Well, considering that I'm a black woman, if the cop was white, I doubt that the whole world would know. And by chance if they do, then people would assume that I must have done something to deserve it.
-------------
Anon, Oct 1, 2009 4:25:00 AM,
Society is sicker than anything Polanski ever did, and we see proof of the sickness every week here on this blog.
Uhh...well...what Polanski did is one of the MANY things that makes our society so sick.
Anon, Oct 1, 2009 11:04:00 AM,
The problem with this is that "we will never really know what happened."
Be careful, I said that once on here and I was railroaded for it.
Now did you say this because of lack of evidence or something?
------
There's something I'm wondering about here. Do you guys believe that the Polanski case was a case of statutory rape? Is that why some of you don't think he should be prosecuted? Because from what I've read, this was a case of rape.
What bothers me is that while you point out that some men support Polanski, you imply that women in general supported Ndonye even after it was proved that she lied. Why is it ok to generalize women but not men?
The women here were essentially unanimous in their support of first Ndonye's lies, and then of her escaping any serious penalties for them.
Google either "Danmell Ndonye" or "Hofstra rape" and read the articles posted between the time when the story broke and when it got settled with her sworn statement to the DA. Every last one of them
1) repeat the trope that false accusations are rare
2) make the argument that punishing false accusers will a) make women afraid to report real rapes, and b) discourage women from recanting, and
3) slide from the point that no rape actually did occur to saying that what the boys did was disgusting and leaving the impression hanging in the air that they deserved some sort of punishment for that even if they didn't actually rape her.
As Pierce has said many times, "rape" is no longer crime, but a feminist mantra. With men being convicted of rape because it took them 10 full seconds to slam into a brick wall of passion and cease and desist once the magic token of "consent" got snatched away by the woman, the re-definition of rape by women makes it impossible for a man to engage in a sexual relationship which meets HIS needs and not just hers. I would love to see a man get a woman just to the brink of ogasm then suddenly announce "I don't want to do this any more" and if she does not go along with it perfectly good-naturedly be able to send her to prison.
I can certainly generalize from my own experiences. Those experiences have included enough ambigous situations - in many of which I was the one on the receiving end of a great deal of pressure to engage in sex - that the wholesale criminalization of it simply on the word of a woman and taking her view of events as gospel truth is not going to get my support.
The obfuscation game works both ways. Since we can "never really know" what happened in that Hofstra restroom, we can also "never really know" what happened in Jack Nicholson's apartment over 30 years ago. There were no ropes as Ndonye claimed, so there may have been no Quaalude as the 13 y/o girls claimed.
The mistake women have made is in trying to erase the distinction between a man who really is guilty and one who is not guilty. Since the number of men who would not rape a woman greatly exceeds the criminals who would, this extremist position has alienated far more men than you will ever catch in your "let's get even with all men" net.
Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. Polanski was never convicted of anything. ALL other charges (drugging, sodomy, etc...) were dropped.
There's something I'm wondering about here. Do you guys believe that the Polanski case was a case of statutory rape? Is that why some of you don't think he should be prosecuted? Because from what I've read, this was a case of rape.
It was a case of statutory rape (whatever that means). That's what Polanski pled to. He was prosecuted for that.
I'd imagine what most reasonable people have a problem with is after getting the guilty plea the judge changes his mind, tears up the agreement, and reportedly starts bragging at his country club he's going to send Polanski away for 50 years. That's gross judicial misconduct.
The media has unleashed a flood of sanctimony against Polanski that has drowned out the initial support for him. The American people live in a moral vaccuum in which all that matters is what happened 30 years ago, not whether or not our system works, not whether or not he has done anything wrong in thirty years, not whether or not other criminals like Michael Nifong are given a free ride, not whether or not our sanctimonious legal system and society destroy innocent people and make rehabilitation impossible.
In short, the American people are talking with their butts, as usual.
Anon at 1:26: Beautifully written. If you'd ever want to contribute to FRS, just write to me at thefrs@ymail.com
Anon, Oct 1, 2009 1:26:00 PM
What I'm saying is that those women don't represent ALL women. Like how some men support Polanski, some supported Ndonye. That's the problem I have. You say that you have a right to generalize based on your personal experience, but you or others on here condemn those women who do the same when concerning men.
The obfuscation game works both ways. Since we can "never really know" what happened in that Hofstra restroom, we can also "never really know" what happened in Jack Nicholson's apartment over 30 years ago.
So what are you saying exactly, that he's not guilty of rape or that you simply don't know? Like I said, I remember using almost that exact same phrase on here resulting with negative reactions. But perhaps since the situations are different, that's why the others are basically silent.
---------
ztp,
Who's to say that he didn't plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor simply because it was part of a plea deal, not because it was what actually happened? What, should we only take his word for it?
--------
What do you guys believe? If a person commits a crime, pleads guilty and flees, and for 30+ years is able to escape capture and prosecution, the justice system should just forget about it? Even if that person only committed that crime one time, he/she shouldn't be punished for it? Or does it depend on the crime?
Let me point out that I do agree with you all in that female criminals are let off much easier than men, that crimes committed by women aren't condemned as much compared to men, that male victims and female criminals aren't seen as that important of a news report, etc.
The mistake women have made is in trying to erase the distinction between a man who really is guilty and one who is not guilty.
Seriously??? But hey, there may actually be women who make this mistake, but not ALL women. Certainly not me.
Since the number of men who would not rape a woman greatly exceeds the criminals who would, this extremist position has alienated far more men than you will ever catch in your "let's get even with all men" net.
And all this generalizing of yours has most likely alienated women as well. And who are you referring to when you say "you" and "your"....ME? As if I personally want to "get even with all men".
Who's to say that he didn't plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor simply because it was part of a plea deal, not because it was what actually happened? What, should we only take his word for it?
The grand jury had come up with a number of felony charges against Polanski. ALL were dropped, except for the "unlawful" sex charge. What does that tell you about the strength of the District Attorney's case?
What do you guys believe? If a person commits a crime, pleads guilty and flees, and for 30+ years is able to escape capture and prosecution, the justice system should just forget about it?
The judge aborted the justice process. Not Polanski. A plea agreement had been reach. The judge reneged. Reportedly bragged at his country club he was going to give Polanski 50 years. Gross judicial misconduct.
Even if that person only committed that crime one time, he/she shouldn't be punished for it? Or does it depend on the crime?
Polanski did serve his time as part of the plea agreement. The judge broke the agreement without cause. Where is the redress for a corrupt judiciary?
Why is this so difficult to understand? Is the idea that people (even judges) must keep their word and contracts must be honored so unsettling?
If Polanski's deal was premised on his receiving a certain sentence, in Polanski relied on a deal that he not have to serve any more jail time, and if the judge breached that agreement, it stands to reason that we have no idea whether Polanski would have entered into that plea bargain if he had known the judge's true intentions. If that's the case, it's not fair to assert that Mr. Polanski is a statutory rapist. He would be entitled to his day in court. If the judge knowingly misled Polanski, it is actually fraud on his part.
So what are you saying exactly, that he's not guilty of rape or that you simply don't know? Like I said, I remember using almost that exact same phrase on here resulting with negative reactions.
Yes, basically I am throwing it back in your face to show how it can be used against women as much as it can be used by women. Maybe being on the receving end of it will make you realize that it isn't a very good way to get anywhere.
You are young, so you missed the first 3 decades or so of the "gender war." You were about 6 years old when Susan Faludi derailed what was actually fairly decent progress toward rebalancing the old gender roles with her "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women." The fact that progress toward changing the entire social values of a culture wasn't happening fast enough for her got twisted into an "Undeclared War Against American Women" just as Betty Friedan claimed that "women had been sold into virtual slavery by a lie invented and marketed by men."
Those were some fairly broad generalizations against men, and there have been very few women speaking out against that sort of stuff.
So, yes, the method to some of this meanness is to put you on the hot seat and the receiving end of what men's lives have been like for the past 40 years to make the point that you probably wouldn't like it either.
There is a significant part of the culture in which men and women have devolved into mutually hostile enemy camps. If women are willing to hang 99 innocent men lest one guilty man go free, you are going to have 99 men who aren't going to go along with that.
We don't like being treated as guilty of the crimes committed by someone else any more than you do.
If women are going to keep treating us like enemies, and using phrases like "rape culture", then some men are going to get sick enough of it to start to enthusiastically become enemies.
In dealing with women, very few of them have updated their own expectations of men based on the new realities in which we live. Have a look at -
http://firstwivesworld.com/community/house-bloggers/episode-22-i-see-married-people
"As I walked away all I could think was: What has happened to men? How did we switch roles with them? Wasn’t I the one who should have been concerned about my virtue? My feelings? Stating my need for commitment before consummation? If this had been an isolated incident I’d check it off as a fluke. But it’s not and I can’t. Because this is not the first time a man who seemed like a promising one-night-stander has whimped out."
Read the whole whine. There are a lot of women out there who want to hold onto the power and lack of risk which goes along with keeping men trapped in the "designated initator/perpetrator" role. And, strangely, a man who actually does "think with his big head instead of his little one" is sneered at as "whimping out."
I posted a link in this post -
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/10/chilling-man-has-lost-everything-due-to.html -
about a woman sexually abusing as many as 30 infants, some barely a year old. What would you posit as an "appropriate" punishment for her? Is not abusing a baby actually worse than abusing a teenager who could have at least screamed for help or scratched his face or done something pretty assertive? Even if they are exactly equivalent, isn't abusing 30 babies at least 30 times worse than abusing one girl?
Would you say it was appropriate for this woman to get 30X the punishment that Polanski gets?
If so, and he gets 30 lashes while she gets 900 lashes, then I would agree that "justice" got done all the way around.
But, if you want to let her off the hook, or make excuses for her, then that demonstrates the double standard which some men in the culture are no longer willing to put up with.
Let me point out that I do agree with you all in that female criminals are let off much easier than men, that crimes committed by women aren't condemned as much compared to men, that male victims and female criminals aren't seen as that important of a news report, etc.
Well, that certainly has been a long time coming.
Let me point out that I do agree with you all in that female criminals are let off much easier than men, that crimes committed by women aren't condemned as much compared to men, that male victims and female criminals aren't seen as that important of a news report, etc.
So, perhaps you would be so kind as to point us to where you, or any other woman, has launched into a demand that these criminals be punished with as much zeal as been put into the demands that Polanski PAY for his "crimes."
ZTP,
Why put "unlawful" in quotation marks? Do you not see anything wrong with an adult having sex with a 13 yr old?
Here's a link that I found that contained the actual grand jury testimony:
Polanski The Predator
The grand jury had come up with a number of felony charges against Polanski. ALL were dropped, except for the "unlawful" sex charge. What does that tell you about the strength of the District Attorney's case?
So was that when he took the plea agreement or was it before? Yeah, I'm not too sure about how a few of the judicial processes work.
I admit. Personally, I'm leaning towards Polanski actually raping the girl rather than there being statutory rape. Ultimately, I don't know. Yeah most of the charges were dropped, but he is a famous director.....
Yes, basically I am throwing it back in your face to show how it can be used against women as much as it can be used by women. Maybe being on the receving end of it will make you realize that it isn't a very good way to get anywhere.
Well considering that even though I'm leaning a little towards believing that he did indeed raped a girl (not statutory rape), ultimately I don't know what really happened. So your intentions may have failed.
But, if you want to let her off the hook, or make excuses for her, then that demonstrates the double standard which some men in the culture are no longer willing to put up with.
BUT I WOULDN'T DO THAT! I do agree that her case is much worse than Polanski's, and I know that there's a double standard when it comes to justice. What of it? So I have my own opinions about his case. Does that automatically mean that I'm all for lenient sentences for women in similar situations and in general?
Well, that certainly has been a long time coming.
Ummmm, I've always believed that ("that" being what I said in post Oct 1, 2009 4:30:00 PM)
Here's something I found on this site:
Rage, Roman and Repulsion
It was under the comments section:
Hi Kim,
Due respect, but lawyer here:
There is no jurisdiction in America where a proposed plea deal between a prosecutor and defense counsel is something that controls the judge.
Part of the "advisement" that is on the record in connection with the plea itself is that the prosecutor is agreeing to make a specific sentencing recommendation, and the defendant's acknowledgment that the recommendation is not binding on teh judge. The judge ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS has the right to reject that.
Why? Because of cases like this. Because if the judge decides that influence, power, press, media, politics or some other consideration is keeping the prosecutor from recommending the right punishment that fits the facts to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.
There's more, but anyway....is this true?
Why put "unlawful" in quotation marks? Do you not see anything wrong with an adult having sex with a 13 yr old?
I don't understand the legal concept of Rape-On-Paper. Either a rape occured or it didn't.
Here's a link that I found that contained the actual grand jury testimony:
Polanski The Predator
So. All was thrown out. Except for the charge of "unlawful sex".
So was that when he took the plea agreement or was it before? Yeah, I'm not too sure about how a few of the judicial processes work.
The plea deal was worked out after the grand jury indictments were unsealed.
I admit. Personally, I'm leaning towards Polanski actually raping the girl rather than there being statutory rape. Ultimately, I don't know.
On this case almost every female shares a similar bias. But that could be generalizing...
Yeah most of the charges were dropped, but he is a famous director.....
So. Relevance?
BUT I WOULDN'T DO THAT! I do agree that her case is much worse than Polanski's, and I know that there's a double standard when it comes to justice. What of it?
"What of it?" is that you are certainly here pounding the drum of him needing to be punished, while the silence regarding her is deafening.
Once again, -
So, perhaps you would be so kind as to point us to where you, or any other woman, has launched into a demand that these criminals be punished with as much zeal as been put into the demands that Polanski PAY for his "crimes."
You are sure beating on the fact that some MAN needs to get punished, even in a climate where you have already admitted that women frequently get lesser punishments for the same crime.
If you are so concerned about making the punishment fit the crime, why aren't you over on some blog demanding that this woman get at least 30x what Polanski is getting?
"So I have my own opinions about his case. Does that automatically mean that I'm all for lenient sentences for women in similar situations and in general?"
The fact you want Polanski hauled before the system (I leave out the word justice for obvious reasons), and the fact you argue it here on a site that is dedicated to justice to men, means exactly that.
We don't need to hear you say "I'm for tougher sentences against women offenders" to know that you aren't. If your words were more than argument padding, you'd be doing something about it. You wouldn't be arguing the toss with us. You'd be another small voice amongst the countless millions of women demanding equal penalties.
Oh, what's that? there are no millions? No thousands even?
That's the face of women men are beginning to see. I can name about 10 women who are vocal and ashamed of what you call justice. 10 out of an entire hemisphere.
So if we generalize, the chances of you being one of the few are slimmer than my chances of winning the lottery.
"Well this is just sad. As a black woman, I'm aware of cases in which the actions of the police are either questionable or downright wrong. But you don't see me rooting for actual rapists and other criminals to escape justice."
The Duke case proved beyond all doubt that sex trumps race. So that story doesn't wash.
As for black men running from the law when it was legal to own them, I'll bet nearly every black person alive was rooting for him, law be damned. No way would I try to say that a runaway slave had an obligation to obey the law.
When the law stinks, it should be disobeyed, and with pride.
Just a friendly reminder regarding this very successful thread hijack to be all about Polanski -
This is the news item that started it all off -
OKLAHOMA CITY – A woman was arrested after her 14-year-son told authorities he escaped from a home where he'd been kept for 4 1/2 years, spending most of his time locked in a bedroom closet, police said Monday.
The trolls are diabolically effective, particularly when they work as a tag-team.
As for black men running from the law when it was legal to own them, I'll bet nearly every black person alive was rooting for him, law be damned. No way would I try to say that a runaway slave had an obligation to obey the law.
This is in NO WAY equivalent to blacks supporting a black criminal on the run who raped, murdered, robbed, etc. someone.
The fact you want Polanski hauled before the system (I leave out the word justice for obvious reasons), and the fact you argue it here on a site that is dedicated to justice to men, means exactly that.
How can you think that??? Do you even realize how ludicrious it sounds? The fact that I point out the seriousness in what Polanski did to that girl and that basically he's a pedophile is a slap in the face to the justice of men?! Are you kidding me?! And this means that I'm all for the judicial double standard?
So. Relevance?
Do I really need to spell it out for you? Just replace director with athlete, actor, singer, etc. But hey, maybe the case just wasn't solid.
We don't need to hear you say "I'm for tougher sentences against women offenders" to know that you aren't. If your words were more than argument padding, you'd be doing something about it. You wouldn't be arguing the toss with us.
What do you want me to do? I agree with you all about there being a double standard and that it needs to stop, but because I happen to disagree with you on some things, that automatically makes me a supporter of such a double standard. Right. I'm arguing with you all because I think you either don't think that Polanski should face up to what he has done, or that you all seem to imply that what he did was no big deal. If I agrue with you, it's because I think you're wrong about something and I have an opinion about it.
You want me to shout out from the rooftops that what the woman did to her own child was horrible, disturbing, and she should be sent away for a long time if not for life? It's obvious that she should be rightfully punished and we all on the same page about that. With Polanski, we're not and I'm a little disturbed that you seem to think that a guy can have sex with/rape a minor, flee, and be left alone because some years past. Should that apply to other crimes as well or just those cases?
If I'm "beating" on anything, it's some of your views about his case and what he did.
Like I said, I didn't know the part about Polanski in the OP wasn't originally on there. But when I saw the comments about the case, I had a differing opinion. So sue me.
"As for black men running from the law when it was legal to own them, I'll bet nearly every black person alive was rooting for him, law be damned. No way would I try to say that a runaway slave had an obligation to obey the law."
This is in NO WAY equivalent to blacks supporting a black criminal on the run who raped, murdered, robbed, etc. someone.
I'm glad you are insisting on the inequality of the two crimes, rather than challenging my more salient point that when people lose confidence in the law, they have difficulty sharing the same enthusiasm for it as those who might appear to be better favored.
We are making progress.
When women who have had sex with minors over 30 years ago are seized crossing foreign borders and hauled before the courts on what are publicly declared as crimes as serious as murder and robbery, I'm sure we would be able to agree on a lot more.
"The fact you want Polanski hauled before the system (I leave out the word justice for obvious reasons), and the fact you argue it here on a site that is dedicated to justice to men, means exactly that."
How can you think that??? Do you even realize how ludicrious it sounds?
There are a million things irrelevant to false rape accusation that could be brought up here - all of which detract from this site's purpose - yet it's Polanski in particular that you want to talk about.
Ludicrous is a good choice of words.
What you are doing is emphasizing the seriousness of one crime, investing a great deal of emotional and intellectual resources into defending your position with regard to it - even capitalizing the word 'rape' so that we don't miss it - and remaining virtually unmoved by anything else posted here. A site that has nothing to do with rape, sex with minors, or any other such thing that attracts your passion.
What's more, you seem to be angering yourself that we don't choose to express ourselves in the words you want to hear.
The word 'controlling' comes to mind.
So sue me.
Better to just ignore you. Your Jihad in pursuit of your pound of flesh is transparently deranged. If it were the true seriousness of a crime which concerned you, you would be putting time and effort into a case going on now which is at least 30x worse.
The fact that you refuse to reveals your true agenda. You are a perfect example of why women have lost so much credibility on this issue and will continue to lose it.
Your lame rear guard actions to continue to confuse the issue are failing and will fail.
Sucks to finally be losing after having things your way for so long, doesn't it?
Do I really need to spell it out for you? Just replace director with athlete, actor, singer, etc.
OJ Simpson
But hey, maybe the case just wasn't solid.
Impossible. All men are rapists.
sorry to post that late after this publication... but with Strauss-Kahn affair, I anticipate a new wave of hatred for Polanski, so I have to say this:
to all people who still think he "refused to face charges", who still think he has some "debt to pay", who still do not know the details of this case: please read my research
http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/
I have ploughed through tons of documents (testimonies, transcripts, reports, everything), and they prove beyond any shadow of doubt that:
1. He was totally innocent of rape.
2. The whole case was a classic setup.
3. He fully satisfied his part of the plea bargain.
Thank you.
Post a Comment