Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Beth H
Recent Activity
-
Beth commented on the article |Victims can also be HARMED by having to face their attackers in court. Like a 13 year old child having to face her rapist and re-live the assault in front of a courtroom full of strange people. I never said plea bargains were always properly applied. I said there are legitimate reasons for them. And not all victims are harmed by them. So don't paint everyone with your brush. And don't blame me for your circumstances.
-
Beth commented on the article |
Shawna, as someone who was raised around the legal system, there are legitimate reasons for the "plea bargain". Sparing the victim the horror of reliving the crime, saving the state untold millions of dollars in prosecutions costs (especially for murder trials), etc.
But, in all of the cases you mentioned above, there should be no BAIL. I believe this would address at least part of your concern regarding lenient sentences. There would be some measure of justifiable detainment, as these are all violent crimes.
Consider what is happening with Polanski today. He is now spending more time in jail being detained by the Swiss than he would have by the State of California for the actual crime had he simply done his time. All because the Swiss denied him BAIL.
-
Beth commented on the article |
ADDENDUM:
I did some further research and found that he wasn't just picking up 16 year old girls. Some were 17,18 and 19. Basically they were high school aged girls at local boarding schools.
Although, seeing as he was apparently 45-55 at the time (couldn't seem to get an exact age), I'm not really sure that was much better. Everything I've been able to find on this man indicates a clear prediliction for very young girls. Polanski willingly admits this prediliction, which, in and of itself, is disturbing as he doesn't seem to recognize the inherent illegality, social impropriety, and immorality associated with it.
-
Beth commented on the article |
Mr. McHugh,
I've been following this story and I was reading over the discussions you and I have been having this month and I found it interesting. That no matter the differences we or any other Americans may have with each other, we are implacably united by our children. For some, it's that profound and natural instinct that we are born with, that constant whisper in our psyche that tells us to protect our young. For many, it's not just a violation of nature, but a violation of God. Either way, Roman Polanski has divided our nation in a way that exposes the truly depraved and united it in a way that exposes what is truly important.
And while, we will quickly go back to arguing the finer points of the economy, the war and health care, after the debate is over, we can settle back in the comfort of knowing that because of Roman Polanski, we will forever be brothers in arms.
So, Mr. McHugh, I disagree with you on health care, but in the final analysis, Roman Polanski and his unscrupulous cohorts are the enemy. You, on the other hand, are my brother.
-
Beth commented on the article |
Mr. McHugh,
I apologize for the length of that last comment. I didn't realize it was that long until it posted.
Beth
-
Beth commented on the article |
Mr. McHugh,
With great respect, health care is not a right. It's not even an issue that specifically effects women. It's an issue that effects everyone. But it's an ISSUE, not a RIGHT. So putting it on a women's rights site is misleading and makes me think this site is more about some political agenda than fighting for women around the world. And even if the author believed it was a women's rights issue, she never made that case. Instead, she bashed a political party (which is absurd because the other party could easily pass whatever they wanted). Why doesn't bash Americans who don't want this. It would at least be honest.
And getting back to honesty, health care isn't a woman's right. It's a commodity. Like food, clothes, televisions, etc. You may not like the way that sounds, but I'm an analyst. I can't base my opinions on how things sound. I must base them on facts and truth (which is why I don't comment on something, until I have researched it ad nauseum) If you want to make health care a right, as it is in some countries, then you surely have to make food a right. You have to make clothing a right. You must make televisions a right. Or cars or football tickets or any number of things.
We have the natural right to life (protection of our own life and our family's), liberty (freedom), and the pursuit of happiness (pursuit individual prosperity, including property). We aren't given these rights by the Constitution or the Declaration. We own these rights by virtue of our birth (or God, if you're the spiritual type). The constitution only protects our rights from the government and others. If we had a right to health care, then we would have had that right long before health care even existed (which is impossible). Cavemen had the natural right to their lives, their freedom and their prosperity. They didn't have the right to doctors.
Once you start turning commodities into rights, even the most socially important ones, you turn all commodities into rights. Period. I am not a liberal or a conservative. I would be welcome in NEITHER party (believe me on that one). I am a constitutionalist and I simply can't understand why everyone else in this country isn't. It's the law. Aren't we all supposed to uphold and obey the law? Imposing a government run public option, is unconstitutional. That means it's against the law.
Do I want everyone to have access to health care? Of course I do. Do I want that commodity implemented at the expense of our Constitution? Never. Mr. McHugh, I do want the system reformed. But I want it done legally (and it absolutely can be). I want our government to stop breaking the law and start upholding it. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Beth
PS: And no, I don't believe that abortion should be a mandatory benefit on private insurance. It's an elective procedure. Like a face lift. However, I would think that insurance companies would cover it in their own financial self-interest. Birth and prenatal care is FAR more expensive than abortion. But they have their own analysts and underwriters who I'm sure have told them this, so I tend to think it's a position based on social acceptability. Basically it's a PR decision.
-
Beth commented on the article |
In the interest of truth, I must volunteer that I was wrong about Polanski picking up 16 year old girls and taking them back to his home for sex when he lived in France. That's not correct.
It was Switzerland.
My apologies for the error.
-
Beth commented on the article |
First, what does this have to do with women's rights? I mean there are women in the middle east who are being murdered and you are posting about the health care bill?
Second, let me explain the 77% that everyone keeps throwing out. As a professional research analyst, I can tell you the poll question that ellicited the 77% was poorly written and I am pretty sure it was done on purpose.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
The question is stated as such: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance" 58% said it was extremely important and 19% said it was quite important. This in no way translates to 77% support for a public option. In fact, based on the question, one could just as easily (and just as erroneously) conclude that 77% support private health care plans (which I suspect is closer to the truth-although not by much). This question was specifically designed to inflate numbers. Not to mention, the other questions are softballs intended to legitimize the public option.
When you look at one of the other questions you find that 46% believe the health care plan will limit their access to doctors and 42% believe it will cover everyone. These numbers are pretty much dead on with other national surveys and support the contention that American do not want the public option. They want private insurance. If you are going to post poll numbers to support some ideological drivel atleast do your research.
You people are as bad as the Republicans.
Oh, and it was this sort of injection of social policy into the market that caused the collapse of our economy. And I wouldn't bother debating me on that one. The facts are on my side because I base my opinions on them, not propaganda.
-
Beth commented on the article |
Don't worry. She can't "drop" the charges. According to court records, Polanski already pleaded guilty to the lessor crime of illegal sexual intercourse with a....basically, statuatory rape.
The prosecutor agreed to recommend probation to the judge so that the victim would not have to testify. As part of his plea-arrangement, he spent time in the psychiatric area of a prison while being evaluated to determine if he was a pedophile.
When he fled, he was still awaiting sentencing. Here in the States, determination of guilt and sentencing are two different court processes.
Anyway, Polanski's lawyers told him that the judge was not going to honor the plea-agreement and he ran. (People are saying that the judge illegally renigged on the agreement. That is patently untrue and they know it. It is well within the judge's right to refuse to honor a plea agreement or even change his mind if the agreement does not serve the interest of justice. Which it clearly did not.)
-
Beth commented on the article |
Oh Marcella, don't stop there. Why don't you tell her about the time he told a reporter that he just couldn't bring himself to believe he had done anything wrong, when disgussing the rape case.
And that "beautiful flower" who was his one true love...oh yeah, he admitted to cheating on her during their marriage (I can't remember how many times).
Oh then there is the Kinski matter. He began dating Natasha Kinski when she was 15. But I'm sure she looked more like 15 1/2.
And we can't forget about his reputation for illicitly picking up 16 year old girls fromt their boarding schools and driving them to his home for sex when he lived in France.
Oh yeah, the rape was just a one-time thing and he's not a danger to society and we should all just let the lawyers work it out. I could never understand why people post opinions on topics they have no knowledge of.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits