US Judicial System
Noblesse Oblige or Rank Has It’s Privileges?
Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 | Hollywood, US Judicial System | 3 Comments
When the term Noblesse Oblige was first explained to me, the person explaining it gave me the impression that it meant rank has it’s privileges. It bothered me that this didn’t seem to be an accurate translation. While I am no fan of the French language I sought to tranlate it even if I had to deal with the language.
I realized that there is a world of difference between the two. Noblesse oblige implies that nobility demands that you do certain things: like help the poor or feed the hungry; the other implies that the rich get special favors cause they are rich.
This last month the newspapers have been talking about the arrest of Roman Polanski. He was convicted of a crime with an underage girl. Rather than face the punishment, he chose to leave the country. Since that time, he became a fuguitve and recently was captured.
Some of the Hollywood community have been saying that the fact that he has spent 30 years in exile is punishment enough for what he did. I believe that this is wrong. Polanski is considered a very good director and Hollywood seems to be making allowances for him because of that. I have to ask, if he were a cameraman or a key grip, would the Hollywood community still be coming to his defense?
A lot of people in Hollywood feel that because they are artistic, they deserve some special treatment because they are more emotionally involved or because they produce artisitic works. This is creating a class of people that feel superior to the common man. And, in truth, we all are “the common man.” I have a garbage man who collects my garbage every week and the fact that he does it every week and that I haven’t had any problems with him means that hs is doing a good job. If I found out that he was also a child molester, would that give him any special privileges?
I might feel differently if Roman Polanski had sex with a girl who he thought was 18 and later found her to be under age. This was not the case. Roman Polanski drugged the girl, plied her with alcohol, and sodomized her. I think the majority of people would agree that this constitutes rape. He purposely did these things and he should pay the penalty. Art shouldn’t be a “get out of jail free card.”
Sins of Omission
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 | US Judicial System | No Comments
Last week when I was finishing my blog I got a comment on a previous blog. It was the one entitled Suicide Jury and it dealt with the Louise Woodward case. ordinarily I wouldn’t reply but it bothered me that the comment implied that I hadn’t checked my facts.
In most cases when I start to write my blog I open at least two windows; one to write the blog and the other to check the facts. As far as I can determine factually the blog is correct (to those of you who would be interested in researching it further Google Louise Woodward or click these links to get you started.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-440819/Louise-Woodward-wants-baby-own.html
I didn’t include the fact that one of the doctors has since re-examined his testimony and concluded that with todays science there might be room for reasonable doubt. This to me was not a sin of omission because it didn’t change the fact that she was tried , convicted and subsequently released for time served.
What offended me about the verdict has more to do with what I believed than what was done. I believed that a jury has the final decision and I was willing to accept that. Sometimes it punished the innocent and rewarded the guilty but I felt that it was fair because you had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. One only has to mention O.J. to realize that the jury system makes mistakes but nothing is perfect.
Anyway as a public service I offer this link for those of you who don’t want to serve on a jury. This guy got excused
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0430091jury1.html
Suicide Jury
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009 | US Judicial System | 2 Comments
One of my favorite films is Suicide Kings. If you are not familiar with the film go rent or buy it. One of the parts I love about it is when Christopher Walken talks about who knows the truth.
He talks about the fact that when it comes to the truth about what’s happening you never go wrong by listening to “the street”. Perhaps we should listen to “the street” when it comes to our jury system.
I am no big fan of the jury system since the infamous “Nanny Case” where Louise Woodward shook a baby to death, was convicted of murder and subsequently released for time served. Before that case I proudly served on juries and felt that it was my duty to do so. After these jurors listened to the case, deliberated, and found her guilty, the judge overturned their decision. Was it because the Jury wasn’t a peer group? Was it because of our kiss ass policy towards the British? (She is British.) Or was it because the Jury had not suffered enough separation from their family and jobs and life?.
Anyway I think we should have some cases like the Bernie Madoff case decided by the “street”. He is now going to plead guilty so he does not have to reveal where his money is. So the end result is he is going to jail for about 100 years ( with probably 99 off for good behavior) and when he gets out he has 50 billion waiting for him. This doesn’t seem like the true justice he should be receiving.What he should be getting is “Street Justice”.