He plead guilty in the first place, so the question of guilt is not relevant in this case. He dodged sentencing, not prosecution
There's such a concept as de minimis non curat lex, that states that the law does not deal with trifles - consequently, a judge can dismiss prosecution if he thinks it's ridiculous that the case is being brought in the first place. As you can see, this is a lot of leeway. However, the principle of stare decisis is a powerful check on that power - there has to be predictability.
No, but the reactions humans have to certain kinds of behavior do physically exist. They are a material consequence of our evolution. Therefore, certain social rules are literally hard-wired into us. There are some things, most prominently incest, that all societies are going to deem wrong and try to counter, because we're wired to always think that is wrong.The thing about justice is, it's really a human construct. It's not real, it's not something that physically exists. There's no universal law like gravity saying that consequences must eventually occur, etc. It's just an idea people have about how things should work. It being an idea and assumption, we can choose to operate upon a different idea. And I think perhaps we should.
It's also unwise to underestimate the power of memes - they're pretty potent.
That's the thing - it's predictable. It's something a people can latch onto in a highly variable world. Most people aren't as OK with uncertainty as N-users are.I don't know, maybe justice is kind of a weird T thing I just don't "get." It seems pointlessly impersonal and petty/exacting, honestly.
The problem there is that A. Teenage girls have very active sex drives and those drives are generally oriented toward older men in their 20s and B. The level of oppression required for this is pretty undesirable. People have a tendency to push the boundaries when they don't like what's going on.There are several possible solutions, but the first one that comes to mind is...
Monitor female children more closely, and make sure they're kept away from males over the age of 17 as much as possible. They shouldn't be allowed to associate closely enough for that to happen in the first place. I don't know why they let them associate so closely, anyway, it just looks like a crime waiting to happen. I know it always creeps me out when I see an older male anywhere near an underage girl.
There are probably better solutions, but I'm not as good at this as I'd like to be...
No, they brought it up because it's their job. The reasons it's their job are the various things we've mentioned previously. Most people haven't even thought of Roman Polanski once in the last year. However, we do have to defend our system of equity almost constantly, as without it, society crumbles.Oh, no, that's where YOU want to end it. That's not where it actually ends. You just have to know that someone brought this up so that they would look good in the eyes of the public for prosecuting a famous person. If it hadn't been for that, I'm sure it never would have come back to trial.