Delusions of Grammar » Crime

Right and Wrong on Roman

Scott L. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:07:33 +0000

I’ve been formulating my thoughts on the whole Roman Polanski thing. It has been on my mind after all, it does intersect between two of my favourite subjects: film and the law. Hell, if we could somehow work delicious cookies into the mix, we’d have ourselves a trifecta.

I know there area lot of big egos in Hollywood, but I was honestly surprised that Harvey Weinstien had the gall to come out with an argument in Polanski’s favour that basically boiled down to “drugging and raping a 13-year-old, whatevs.”

I mean, talk about jumping headfirst without looking. He says that Polanski has already suffered for his “so-called crime.” (Child rape, Harv. If you’re going to try and convince people that that’s not immoral/illegal, I’d recommend using a stronger argument than just a smug hyphenate. )

Yes, while Roman might have suffered by not being able to pick up his Oscar (probably stings a bit) and having to live in France for 30 years (that one, not so much), I sincerely doubt most legal minds would consider that a sentence. Unless the US has switched from an incarceration model of justice to the less popular “exile to a beautiful and vibrant country” approach. (If that’s the case, I’m driving to the border tonight, knocking off a liquor store and hoping for Italy.)

Harvey doesn’t come out and say it, but everyone who wants the US to drop the case again Roman is doing it for one reason: he’s a good filmmaker. Really. I love his work, I’m not going to deny that. But at the same time, no matter how you and “Marty” Scoreses may wish otherwise, artistic minds are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Society as a right to punish those that harm other people. And to punish those who flee the law to avoid their sentence.

Even if, as a society, we agree that Chinatown was pretty sweet. The artist’s bad deeds should never be excused by the quality of their work.

Now, on the flip side of that, you’ve got Rex Murphy arguing in the Globe and Mail that Polanski’s child-raping ass should be stripped of the term artist. Murphy’s argument is just as misguided (though not as morally-reprehensible.) While the artist’s morals shouldn’t be judged on the quality of his work, it’s also not fair to assume the opposite: quality work can only come from the morally sound.

Murphy argues that the word artist has lost it’s meaning when applied to a “ill-co-ordinated puppet on stilts or the latest pop tart ululating her dream to be the next Madonna.” I don’t disagree with him there, but no objective observer would argue that Polanski falls into those categories. I’m sure that if Rex was asked if Polonski’s films were art BEFORE the crime was committed, there would be no disagreement. But he’s letting his knowledge of Polanski’s horrible, criminal deed colour his perception of the man’s work.

In pointing to “real artists,” Murphy mentions Beethoven and da Vinci. But Beethoven was a man who believed in the monarchist system, where the common person had no voice. And I doubt very strongly that Murphy would agree with da Vinci’s views on race relations, or women’s rights. The modern, sophisticated person would think them outdated, possibly barbaric. But we separate the person, and their flaws, to judge their work on the merits alone.

It’s a clarity that only comes when one looks at things objectively. The Mona Lisa is art. So is The Pianist. The latter was made by a criminal. And he should go to jail.

EDIT: Edited for some HTML errors that kept popping up. Also, my first go around, committed the faux pas of not linking to either Weinstien or Murphy. My bad.

Canada: The Remedial Class

Scott L. — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:56:35 +0000

It pains me that this is a discussion we even need to be having.

Honestly. Out comes another report from another committee that puts forth the ‘controversial’ position that “hey, maybe if the RCMP is accused of doing something wrong, we shouldn’t let the RCMP investigate it.

From the report:

“Can the current process of the RCMP investigating itself legitimately engender confidence in the transparency and integrity of the criminal investigation and its outcome?

“Based on the results of our research and analysis, the informed commission answer is that it cannot.”

Canada, this is Responsible Government 101, and we’re failing it badly.

When a police force is accused of wrongdoing, it should be investigated by an independent body. Not because the RCMP is inherently bad, or it’s members untrustworthy. Because RCMP officers are human beings and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. (Unless Harper has one hell of an election platform up his sleeve.)

Human beings with their own biases and loyalties and preconceptions and all sort of other baggage.This isn’t even an academic question: the RCMP have shown many times that their internal investigation policies, at the very least, suspect.

That’s why we have police forces, courts and the justice system in the first place – because we figured out long ago that is when it comes to criminal misconduct, you need to have an impartial investigator.

That’s the only answer that will be accepted. No partial marks.

Metro News: Criminally Misguided

Scott L. — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:35:35 +0000

A lot of ink has been spilled as of late about the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act

thatcame in to effect in January. Long/short of it: The government can seize property used in a crime, and sell it off. The money is to go into a fund that will be used to compensate victims. The rub: the government can sell things off without having to get one of them fancy convictions.

I’ll repeat that: Alberta can arrest you, accuse you of, say, selling dope out of your car, sell said car…all without having to prove that you were, in fact, breaking the law.

Of course, I expect something like this from the Tories – actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if this idea was brought forward by any of the political parties. It’s just the kind of ill-thought out “let’s look tough on crime” idea that most politicians love. It looks nice in the headlines, and any time someone sane objects to it, you can fire back with the specter of gang violence and complain about the difficulties of getting a drug conviction.

Not to sound like an Angry Internet Libertarian (I proudly fall in with the nanny-state liberals, thank you), but it’s really shameful that this got through without at least some citizen outrage.

No, sorry. That’s not the shameful thing. The shameful thing is, while the Journal and the Sun have at least mentioned the controversy surrounding the idea, Metro is gushing over the Act like a grandma over a grade-schooler’s macaroni art:

“Alberta Justice says it will continue to rip a page from Robin Hood by taking money from gangs in order to compensate victims of crime.“

Thanks, Metro. Good job on the lack of restraint there. Also, the thing about Robin Hood: wasn’t real. Because in the real world, we have a name for a guy with an weapon holding up travellers: armed robbers.

If they redistribute the wealth? Socialist armed robbers.

There’s more:

“But the province’s new Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act allows for the seizure of cash and property used in crime and then compensates victims and communities affected by criminal activity. “

Not exactly – the Act allows for more than just seizure of property used in a crime because you don’t have a crime without a conviction. Legally, it can’t exist. Like an family reunion without the drunk uncle showing up: it’s a necessary condition. You can be accused of a crime without being convicted, but that’s it.

But Metro doesn’t have time to worry about using words correctly. They barely have the time to point out the fact that the Act can sell off stuff without a conviction. In fact, the only mention of it is half a line in a quote from the dude that’s in charge of selling off the seized goods.

Congratulations, Metro News. While others were are still stuck in the “accurate and balanced reporting” rut, you were forging a new path through the wilds of journalism. A lazy, shameful and ill thought-out path.

Fitting, given the subject matter.

Happy New Year, Western Canada

Scott L. — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:47:20 +0000

E.P.S. launches murder investigation minutes before midnight

Three dead at the scene of restaurant shooting

Syncrude worker dies on site

Two Canadians shot in Mexico

Two dead after separate avalanches at B.C.’s Whistler Blackcomb

A great start to 2009.