SNAP knows how to be popular: Molest Children Like Roman Polanski

Really, I do sympathize with SNAP, the SNAPpily-acronymned child sexual assault group based out of L.A. (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). But, really, c'mon, Roman Polanski fighting extradition encourages child predation? According to SNAP, in one of the poorest arguments this side of Glenn Beck's pie-hole, 

"What matters most...is that a A) child predator is kept away from kids and B) that criminals learn they can't simply hire smart lawyers, C) make themselves popular, D) flee the country and E) get off scot-free." alphabet mine...and Sesame Street, natch.

Wow. Where to start. Hmmmm, how about the fact that Roman Polanski isn't a member of the clergy. Stay on topic SNAP: I know that his name has the word "Roman" in it, and Rome is where the Pontificus Maximus resides, but even so, to conflate the Academy Award-winning director with Nosferatu's doppleganger seems a bit harsh to all parties involved. Besides, Polanski is, suprisingly, from Poland.

As you were, Catamites. 

Next up, in the gristmill of fail, is the actual argument itself:

A) "What matters most...is that a child predator is kept away from kids." This seems to be a pretty sound proposition. But SNAP seems to think that only in America can Polanski be kept away from children. As if the French opened their borders (and their children) to any perv who wants to go kiddy-shopping. What do they think France is? Thailand?

Garry Glitter's ears (among other things) popped up upon the mention of Thailand.

B) [and] that criminals learn that they can't hire smart lawyers... Because, as we all know, criminals are only entitled to stupid lawyers, ones who can't figure out that, hey, if their client is in another country, let's fight extradition. My copy of the Constitution, particularly the 7th Amendment, doesn't read that way...

I want my lawyer, dammit.

C)  [and] make themselves popular...Because, as we all know, right up there with Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers and Twilight, child predators' true immunity for their actions can only come through childrens' approval and popularity of such fare as A Knife in the Water, the heart-warming story of a dysfunctional couple who picks up a hitchhiker, meances her with a knife, and she topples overboard, drowning  in a forsaken European bog. How about the feminist manifesto, Repulsion, the tale of a young 60's lass who degenerates into maddening hallucinations and malevolent daydreams of increasingly violent rape fantasies? What about the all-time best children's story ever? Rosemary's Baby, which can best be described as a chick flick where mom-to-be has a wee bit of a hangup with bad boys?

Roman knows that little kids like babies, and what better way to seduce them than with this tearjerker?

 "D) flee the country and E) get off scot-free". This relates to B above. And I am disturbed by the French, and the efete apologists of this serial mysognist and predator. But, if there were a just universe, Polanski will not get off "scot-free", as he has already pleaded guilty to the act. Moreover, the fact that he did flee the country should vitiate any plea deal. However, if SNAP wants to raise hell, they should do so with the responsible entities, the court and prosecutors in L.A., who let a heinous rape go unpunished for over 35 years. 

So, SNAP, here's my final piece of advice, and some free legal eduction: Making terrible arguments, apropos of nothing and connected to nothing, only minimizes the viciousness of the crime, makes your consciousness raising mission impotent, makes you look like camera-hogging pub hounds, and serves to undermine the appropriate role of the court and laiety: The Constitution, in all its warts and wrinkles, is not there for your protection or to vindicate your rights and greivances. Rather, in the criminal system, it is to protect the right of the accused and the condemned. Mr. Polanski, welcome back.