Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

[MacQuarrie]

I've been bitching about the infantilization trend for years. Here's what I posted back in 2002:

http://www.monkeyspit.net/rantman/wimps.php

[Spackling Compound]

I've been bitching about the infantilization trend for years. Here's what I posted back in 2002:

http://www.monkeyspit.net/rantman/wimps.php

I think adults are arrested "teens" as well (perpetual juvenalization is what I've coined it).

I am not sure if the concept applies to contrast the sex scene of the 70's but...well....I see your point.

[Spackling Compound]

It might explain why people refer to their house as a crib and are walking around wearing pacifiers!

I think that's more the idea of "90's calcification"...do they also say "WASSSSSSSSSSUP?"

[MacQuarrie]

I think adults are arrested "teens" as well (perpetual juvenalization is what I've coined it).

I am not sure if the concept applies to contrast the sex scene of the 70's but...well....I see your point.

It's really nefarious; we sexualize children and make them "grow up" too fast in some ways, while developmentally retarding them in others, producing a crop of ideal victims.

[dupersuper]

I think adults are arrested "teens" as well (perpetual juvenalization is what I've coined it).

I am not sure if the concept applies to contrast the sex scene of the 70's but...well....I see your point.

I'm 32 and I still read comics... :wink:

And yes; regardless of age, you don't drug and rape people.

[Typo Lad]

It's really nefarious; we sexualize children and make them "grow up" too fast in some ways, while developmentally retarding them in others, producing a crop of ideal victims.
"Some stranger might take my child if I let her trick or treat by hersel!"
"What's she going as?"
"A hooker. I got her the cutest halter top!"

[Arvandor]

It's really nefarious; we sexualize children and make them "grow up" too fast in some ways, while developmentally retarding them in others, producing a crop of ideal victims.

They dress a certain way, so they must be asking for it? That what you're saying?

[Corrina]

The NY Times this morning had an update on Polanski's status.

One, he is ill with a hernia. Not life-threatening.

Two, you can blame the Swiss for the arrest. It was Swiss authorities who alerted U.S. authorities to Polanski's impending arrival--that got passed over to California, and the paperwork was put together, passed back over to the Swiss, and they arrested him.

So the timing has nothing to do with American authorities at all. Cheer (or blame) the Swiss.

[Spackling Compound]

They dress a certain way, so they must be asking for it? That what you're saying?

No. Not at all even remotely what he said. Typo was having a bit of fun with his remark which can be read that way.

[Typo Lad]

They dress a certain way, so they must be asking for it? That what you're saying?
No, it's saying "we dress them a certain way, fetishize youth, and then are shocked and horrified that mentally ill people take the bait."

I mean, for goodness sake, we wouldn't leave our doors unlocked, right? So we do we practically write "Hey Kid Diddlers- Check Her Raisins Out!" on our kids?

They make bikinis cut briefs for toddlers!

[Arvandor]

No, it's saying "we dress them a certain way, fetishize youth, and then are shocked and horrified that mentally ill people take the bait."

I mean, for goodness sake, we wouldn't leave our doors unlocked, right? So we do we practically write "Hey Kid Diddlers- Check Her Raisins Out!" on our kids?

They make bikinis cut briefs for toddlers!

Sam was 13. At and around that age, there's no stopping them. They sexualize themselves, whether we want them to or not.

We can try to protect them. But if mentally ill scum do take advantage, they must be sent to jail. It is not the fault of society, the parents, or the teen herself. It is the paedophile who's to blame.

[Typo Lad]

Sam was 13. At and around that age, there's no stopping them. They sexualize themselves, whether we want them to or not.

While kids certainly do to an extent, this was very much a case of the mother trying to "tart up" her kid.


We can try to protect them. But if mentally ill scum do take advantage, they must be sent to jail. It is not the fault of society, the parents, or the teen herself. It is the paedophile who's to blame.

I'm not absolving the pedophiles (although technically, that's attraction to children without secondary sexual characteristics - this would be the other thing I can never spell, attraction to children in the early stages of sexual development). However, if we're going to "try to protect them" we need to be consistent about it. Don't encourage children to dress like mini versions of adults, and don't let your child hang out by herself with adult males. It's not the same thing, scale-wise, but it's stupid, at the very least.

[MacQuarrie]

Sam was 13. At and around that age, there's no stopping them. They sexualize themselves, whether we want them to or not.

We can try to protect them. But if mentally ill scum do take advantage, they must be sent to jail. It is not the fault of society, the parents, or the teen herself. It is the paedophile who's to blame.

Certainly the perv is to blame. He is responsible for his own actions. But irresponsible parents are responsible for their own actions as well. The pervert is legally responsible, but parents who dress their children in inappropriate ways while simultaneously avoiding teaching any survival skills are just stupid.

If you leave your stuff out for people to steal, the thief breaks the law, but you have to admit you were a damn fool for providing them the opportunity.

[Spackling Compound]

Certainly the perv is to blame. He is responsible for his own actions. But irresponsible parents are responsible for their own actions as well. The pervert is legally responsible, but parents who dress their children in inappropriate ways while simultaneously avoiding teaching any survival skills are just stupid.

If you leave your stuff out for people to steal, the thief breaks the law, but you have to admit you were a damn fool for providing them the opportunity.

I think the train left the station a looooooooooong time ago on this subject. Dress is not an invitation nor even the same as leaving your wallet on the car seat with the window down.

I've been told over and over, people can dress any way the hell they want to..or even undress..it's not an invitation to sexual advances nor is it a reason to call them "sluts" or "tarts".

[Typo Lad]

When someone dresses themselves, no, it's not.

But there is such a thing as inappropriate dress for a child. Period.

It doesn't excuse the people who are titillated by it, but it also don't excuse the people who profit from it.

[Spackling Compound]

When someone dresses themselves, no, it's not.

But there is such a thing as inappropriate dress for a child. Period.

It doesn't excuse the people who are titillated by it, but it also don't excuse the people who profit from it.

People who profit from it are just that, profiteering. But parents who choose to dress or undress their children in a way they deem fitting for their lifestyle is a choice. It may look bad or stupid or "wrong" but I have tangled enough with parents and those choices to realize: Parents are right, I'm wrong. Once I have a kid, I may have a stake in the argument, I guess.

[Nick Soapdish]

No, it's saying "we dress them a certain way, fetishize youth, and then are shocked and horrified that mentally ill people take the bait."

I mean, for goodness sake, we wouldn't leave our doors unlocked, right? So we do we practically write "Hey Kid Diddlers- Check Her Raisins Out!" on our kids?

They make bikinis cut briefs for toddlers!

I'm not sure if we're talking about exactly the same thing, but a friend of mine preferred the two piece swimsuit for their baby girl because it's easier to change her diapers. She took a few ISR classes (basically teaching them to doggie paddle to the edge and float when they get tired). I don't recall it being especially bikini-like though.

[Typo Lad]

People who profit from it are just that, profiteering. But parents who choose to dress or undress their children in a way they deem fitting for their lifestyle is a choice. It may look bad or stupid or "wrong" but I have tangled enough with parents and those choices to realize: Parents are right, I'm wrong. Once I have a kid, I may have a stake in the argument, I guess.

Except I'm a parent, and I think it's wrong. So one parent says you're right - and it's me of all people.

But you shouldn't be tangling with them. Sadly, the right to be bone-stupid is a natural 9and frequent) right.


I'm not sure if we're talking about exactly the same thing, but a friend of mine preferred the two piece swimsuit for their baby girl because it's easier to change her diapers. She took a few ISR classes (basically teaching them to doggie paddle to the edge and float when they get tired). I don't recall it being especially bikini-like though.

No, no. I mean bikini cut undies. Like, "my first panties".

[Spackling Compound]

Except I'm a parent, and I think it's wrong. So one parent says you're right - and it's me of all people.

But you shouldn't be tangling with them. Sadly, the right to be bone-stupid is a natural 9and frequent) right.


Ha!I don't tangle much at all on that issue anymore.

I learned my lesson when this mother was infuriated that I wouldn't let her 14 year old daughter wear a two piece bikini to wash cars in. She said...it would be good for her "SELF ESTEEM" to have men "compliment" her.

[king mob]

Sam was 13. At and around that age, there's no stopping them. They sexualize themselves, whether we want them to or not.

Kids will sexualise naturally but giving 13 year old kids 'bitch' or 'slut' t-shirts you can buy from Top Shop isn't helping the idea that children are easily sexualised.


We can try to protect them. But if mentally ill scum do take advantage, they must be sent to jail. It is not the fault of society, the parents, or the teen herself. It is the paedophile who's to blame.

It is the fault of a society who doesn't have the restraint to stop sexualising kids. It is the fault of the parent who buys and allows this to sexualise their child and expose them to a culture that they're not emotionally ready for. There's also the fact that the paedophille lurking in every bush is a myth, the real danger to children comes from family and relations.

As said, there's a limit as to what kids should dress like, but we shouldn't be over the top and deny kids the chance to have fun, but 12 year olds dressing like their 19 year olds going clubbing is wrong.

[Typo Lad]

See, and that mother is an idiot. She's teaching her daughter that her body is a commodity.

[Charles RB]

don't let your child hang out by herself with adult males.

I'm not sure how practical this one is - between tutors, club organisers, family friends etc I'd have thought at some point it's going to happen. Relatives, even (family friends and relatives being where the main threat of sexual abuse comes from IIRC).

Which is not to say the victim's mother here wasn't a fucking idiot, she was going far beyond letting a child hang out.

[FeminineMystique]

I think the train left the station a looooooooooong time ago on this subject. Dress is not an invitation nor even the same as leaving your wallet on the car seat with the window down.

I've been told over and over, people can dress any way the hell they want to..or even undress..it's not an invitation to sexual advances nor is it a reason to call them "sluts" or "tarts".

Agreed. It's a pity more people can't get that into their heads

[Charles RB]

Except the argument that MacQuarrie and Typo are pushing is that the parents shouldn't be dressing the kids that way. That's not the same as "slut-shaming" kids, Spack.

[Spackling Compound]

Except the argument that MacQuarrie and Typo are pushing is that the parents shouldn't be dressing the kids that way. That's not the same as "slut-shaming" kids, Spack.

And I believe that parents and kids can be a bit more discerning in clothing choices. And by choice, I mean "opinion". So I 've expressed an opinion.

The "Slut-Shaming" comes from someone already assuming that there is a look that "hookers" or "tarts" have when in this day and age, is not perhaps kind to those who have been hurt by such terms.

[FeminineMystique]

Except the argument that MacQuarrie and Typo are pushing is that the parents shouldn't be dressing the kids that way. That's not the same as "slut-shaming" kids, Spack.

I don't think Spack was arguing that parents should force their kids to dress in a sexualised way, but that if the kids, of their own free will, choose to do so, he doesn't think that it's right to stop them.

Personally I see it as depending on the situation. If their an adult fine, but if their a kid...independence is important. I wore all kinds of crazy stuff when I was fourteen/fifteen (Still do now, though it seems to shock people less. I guess because I'm older). But if the parents are trying to MAKE the kid dress in an overtly sexual way (As in the Polanski case) I think that's absolutely wrong. And I'd worry about what kind of parent would want to do that to their children.

But I think more important than stopping kids dressing in certain ways is educating them on how to stay safe, warning them about the dangers that are out there. I mean here in the UK we still have all the coy "Candy from strangers" nonsense a lot of the time. Given that it's a real and serious issue that specifically affects children, keeping them in the dark about the dangers of sexual predators, apparently to "Protect" them, seems to have the opposite affect.

[MacQuarrie]

Except the argument that MacQuarrie and Typo are pushing is that the parents shouldn't be dressing the kids that way. That's not the same as "slut-shaming" kids, Spack.

That and the plain old common sense that just because you think people shouldn't act a certain way, that doesn't mean they won't.

People shouldn't take provocative dress as an invitation to make sexual advances, but the cold fact is they will. If you ignore or deny that reality, you're going to be annoyed by people acting the way you think they shouldn't. If the target is a child, the parent who let them dress that way, or dressed them that way, has to accept the responsibility for exposing their kid to this situation.

[MacQuarrie]

A few years ago, Abercrombie & Fitch was peddling a line of sexy thong underwear for six-year-olds. They had suggestive slogans printed on them. They couldn't keep them in stock. Who are the idiots who were buying them?

[MacQuarrie]

I'm not sure how practical this one is - between tutors, club organisers, family friends etc I'd have thought at some point it's going to happen. Relatives, even (family friends and relatives being where the main threat of sexual abuse comes from IIRC).

Which is not to say the victim's mother here wasn't a fucking idiot, she was going far beyond letting a child hang out.
Between archery, Boy Scouts and my time as a church youth leader and Sunday school teacher, I spent a lot of time with kids ranging in age from four to 17. I made damn sure I was never alone with any of them. The parents could have easily made sure of it as well. Not many of them did.

[MacQuarrie]

Agreed. It's a pity more people can't get that into their heads

I agree as well, but as long as they won't get it into their heads, it's a little foolish to not take that fact into account. Especially where kids are concerned.

[Spackling Compound]

A few years ago, Abercrombie & Fitch was peddling a line of sexy thong underwear for six-year-olds. They had suggestive slogans printed on them. They couldn't keep them in stock. Who are the idiots who were buying them?

They also had minors modelling in the nude or semi-nude in their catalog.
Nothing came of it.

[FeminineMystique]

I agree as well, but as long as they won't get it into their heads, it's a little foolish to not take that fact into account. Especially where kids are concerned.

While I know it's not your intention darling, comments like that do have an uneasy subtext of saying that people, be they kids or otherwise, who dress in a certain way are idiots who should have known better if they get harassed or worse for it. And there's no part of that I don't object to.

The guilt and the blame lies solely with the attacker in cases like that.

[Typo Lad]

While I know it's not your intention darling, comments like that do have an uneasy subtext of saying that people, be they kids or otherwise, who dress in a certain way are idiots who should have known better if they get harassed or worse for it. And there's no part of that I don't object to.

The guilt and the blame lies solely with the attacker in cases like that.
Jim and I mean no subtext. Adults may do as they please.

[Michael P]

They also had minors modelling in the nude or semi-nude in their catalog.
Nothing came of it.

Oh, I'm sure somebody came of it.

[FeminineMystique]

Jim and I mean no subtext. Adults may do as they please.

Oh I know darling, like I said I know it's not intentional. Just stating my own personal opinions, for the record, on this whole issue.

And like I said, when it comes to parents FORCING their kids to dress a certain way (Child beauty pageants come to mind. Little Miss Sunshine was NOT far off the mark on how creepy those are) I'm 100% with you that it's just plain wrong. If it's true that the mother of Polanski's victim really was trying to "Pimp out" her daughter then she's just as guilty as Polanski himself in her own way. To do that to ANY child, let alone your own...

Ugh. I have no faith in mankind sometimes:frown:

[Night Swordsman]

Oh I know darling, like I said I know it's not intentional. Just stating my own personal opinions, for the record, on this whole issue.

And like I said, when it comes to parents FORCING their kids to dress a certain way (Child beauty pageants come to mind. Little Miss Sunshine was NOT far off the mark on how creepy those are) I'm 100% with you that it's just plain wrong. If it's true that the mother of Polanski's victim really was trying to "Pimp out" her daughter then she's just as guilty as Polanski himself in her own way. To do that to ANY child, let alone your own...

Ugh. I have no faith in mankind sometimes:frown:

*HUG*
To quote Agent K:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.

I tend to take humanity on a individual basis.

[MacQuarrie]

While I know it's not your intention darling, comments like that do have an uneasy subtext of saying that people, be they kids or otherwise, who dress in a certain way are idiots who should have known better if they get harassed or worse for it. And there's no part of that I don't object to.

The guilt and the blame lies solely with the attacker in cases like that.
The subtext is that other people are often idiots, and if you're going to dress a certain way, you ought to be prepared to handle what other people direct at you. Your clothing does not give them permission to do so, and they are 100% responsible for their actions, but common sense requires that one be aware of one's surroundings and the dangers in them.

Let me draw an analogy....
I used to ride a motorcycle. I was told by a lot of people that motorcycle riding was suicidal, that anyone who did it was an idiot and was asking for injuries or death. But I loved it and I chose to ride. Eventually, I did have an accident, and as expected it was somebody else's fault. I got tagged by a hit & run driver who made a left into me without signaling. The accident and my injuries were 100% his fault. I wasn't "asking for it."

But.

I also avoided many other potential accidents because I accepted at the outset that other people do not respect the rights of motorcyclists, that many of them fail to even see bikers on the road, and that some drivers are openly hostile and aggressive toward bikers, and that no matter whose fault it was, I was the one who would get injured, while the other guy sat safely padded in his car. Because I recognized and accepted the risks inherent in the activity, I was able to do what I loved with a pretty high level of safety for a pretty long time. If I had insisted on asserting my right to ride and refused to accept responsibility for being aware of the dangers posed by other people, I would have been dead a long time ago.

My being aware that other people are likely to kill me does not validate them if they do. It doesn't mean I was asking for it or I was an idiot. They don't get to use it as a defense. But the reality is that on a motorcycle, it doesn't matter whose fault it is or who is to blame; the guy on the bike pays the price. There's a saying among bikers, "there are only two kinds of riders; the ones who have had an accident and the ones that are going to." The ones who recognize this and prepare for it are the ones who get to live. The ones who think it can't happen to them, or that it's the other guy's responsibility to drive safely, are the ones who die.

In the same way, the reality of modern society is that there are creeps out there who will use your clothing as an excuse to bother you. If you accept that as a fact and prepare yourself to deal with it, you can wear what you like and probably never get into a dangerous situation. If, on the other hand, you decide that it's the other person's responsibility to behave himself, you are turning a blind eye to danger.

You have the right to wear whatever you want, wherever you want. Nobody else has the right to say or do anything to you on account of your wardrobe. But the fact is they will. You have to be prepared to respond when they do. They are wrong to do so, but people do wrong things all the time, and we have base our decisions on the facts, not on our ideals.

If an adult or teen wants to accept the risks, I have no problem with it. But to put that on a child is a different thing. Children are not idiots, they are innocent, inexperienced, naive, trusting, and should not be expected to know how to deflect a creepy come-on. If they aren't equipped to handle the risks, they shouldn't be put in the position of having to face them.

[FeminineMystique]

*HUG*
To quote Agent K:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.

I tend to take humanity on a individual basis.

I try to do the same Nightie. It's just some days the world seems so very frustrating.

[Charles RB]

People shouldn't take provocative dress as an invitation to make sexual advances, but the cold fact is they will.

I have to point out the cold fact that a large number of sexual predators will go after their targets whatever is being worn. In the case of predators who target children, as I recall they will view normal child behaviour as a sign that they "want it".

[Night Swordsman]

I try to do the same Nightie. It's just some days the world seems so very frustrating.

It IS. That is why good friends and family are around to make life a bit easier.

*HUG* You got us here.

[Village Idiot]

I used to ride a motorcycle. I was told by a lot of people that motorcycle riding was suicidal, that anyone who did it was an idiot and was asking for injuries or death. But I loved it and I chose to ride. Eventually, I did have an accident, and as expected it was somebody else's fault. I got tagged by a hit & run driver who made a left into me without signaling. The accident and my injuries were 100% his fault. I wasn't "asking for it."

On August 1, I almost hit a motorcycle. Never saw him. I was on the expressway, he was coming onto the expressway. I had passed a car, and was moving back into the right-hand lane while he was on the entrance ramp. Never knew he was there...didn't see him, didn't hear him. I finally saw a movement in my side mirror, which was him moving onto the roadside to avoid me. Scared the crap out of me, because at 70mph, he probably would have died.

[MacQuarrie]

I have to point out the cold fact that a large number of sexual predators will go after their targets whatever is being worn. In the case of predators who target children, as I recall they will view normal child behaviour as a sign that they "want it".

True enough. Sadly.

[MacQuarrie]

On August 1, I almost hit a motorcycle. Never saw him. I was on the expressway, he was coming onto the expressway. I had passed a car, and was moving back into the right-hand lane while he was on the entrance ramp. Never knew he was there...didn't see him, didn't hear him. I finally saw a movement in my side mirror, which was him moving onto the roadside to avoid me. Scared the crap out of me, because at 70mph, he probably would have died.
I always rode by this rule:

"Half the people on the road can't see you, and the ones that can are probably trying to kill you. Ride accordingly."

Clearly this guy was not heeding that rule. Riding a bike is the ultimate in defensive driving. There's an old Chinese saying, "whether the rock hits the vase or the vase hits the rock, either way, it's bad for the vase."

EDIT: In my accident, the guy saw me. He was facing me, sitting at an intersection where he didn't have a stop sign, and as I approached the intersection, he suddenly pulled out in front of me, as if he were playing "chicken" with me. Unfortunately he timed it wrong, and I got hit. Then he took off.

[Charles RB]

The US has formally asked for an extradition. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8321927.stm)

[Reverend Smooth]

I have to point out the cold fact that a large number of sexual predators will go after their targets whatever is being wornThat's true for most of them. However, you will get douches who will treat you like crap because they think you're dressing for them.

My solution to this is to know how to defend yourself, and how to tell someone off without putting yourself in too much harm's way.

But anyone, especially the vulnerable, should know this anyway. Heck, I'd get followed around quite often as a teen if I was wearing normal teen clothes-- in the 1980s and 90s, which wasn't short-shorts and tiny skirts and thongs.

[Typo Lad]

I have to point out the cold fact that a large number of sexual predators will go after their targets whatever is being worn. In the case of predators who target children, as I recall they will view normal child behaviour as a sign that they "want it".
This is true.

But why make it even easier, right?

[Spackling Compound]

This is true.

But why make it even easier, right?

I totally get the point here, I do. But there is also the liberty that everyone has to dress as they want. Perhaps there is a difference between being expressive and provocative.

If someone dresses provocatively, like a woman putting on a nightie to entice her husband to move from the tv set, then an "aroused" response is appropriate to the situation.

To be expressive, say a woman puts on the same nightie because she is possessed of her own sexual energy and feels it responsible to share it, and someone wolf whistles or comes on, then that would be inappropriate to the spirit of the fashion.

A child in a sexually provocative outfit is "asking" for it...or seeking something...the child pageant stuff comes to mind. A child in a sexually liberating and expressive outfit may not be so much. And by sexually liberating means that a child is able to show his/her gender and gender choice without fear of shame or reprisal.

My rule? I don't respond to anything any more. You have green hair, a tattoo of a leopard on your face and eighteen bones in your nose? I say nothing. You show up ass naked to a performance of "Carmen"? I say nothing.

A kid was selling band ads for her high school. She had pink hair. She was 15 or 16. I said nothing. She later asked, "What do you think of my hair?" I said, "I think it's hair."

[Typo Lad]

I totally get the point here, I do. But there is also the liberty that everyone has to dress as they want. Perhaps there is a difference between being expressive and provocative.

Maybe, but here's the thing...



A child in a sexually provocative outfit is "asking" for it...or seeking something...the child pageant stuff comes to mind. A child in a sexually liberating and expressive outfit may not be so much. And by sexually liberating means that a child is able to show his/her gender and gender choice without fear of shame or reprisal.

Child and sexually provocative should not mix. Sorry, but a child - as in a pre-pubescent human, is not a sexual being and should not be treated or displayed as one. No-one is saying they're "asking for it", they're saying it's a subversion of childhood. It's turning children into mini-mes at best, fetish objects at absolute worst. The parents who runs those parents are, in my humble opinion, guilty of criminal neglect.

As a parent, it's your job to keep your kid safe. This doesn't just mean making sure they know to look both ways when they cross the street, etc, it means teaching them appropriate societal behaviors. Pre-pubescence is not a time to discover one's sexual identity; it is a time to discover how the larger world works. Establishing sexual aspects of life- indeed, even stressing gender identity in my opinion - is detrimental.


A kid was selling band ads for her high school. She had pink hair. She was 15 or 16. I said nothing. She later asked, "What do you think of my hair?" I said, "I think it's hair."

Now this, right there, was wise.

[Spackling Compound]

Pre-pubescence is not a time to discover one's sexual identity; it is a time to discover how the larger world works. Establishing sexual aspects of life- indeed, even stressing gender identity in my opinion - is detrimental.

I bolded part of your statement. I also agree with you but I am no parent. The way you raise your child is fairly "traditional" and responsible. I can tell by the posts you have put up here.

I also know there are other parents who may do things differently and where culture, race, religion may dictate their child's values, gender identity and sexual freedom may be a priority as well.
When I was a kid, our neighbors from around the blocks kids, a girl and boy, were allowed to go nude in their home and yard..as well as the mother and father...even at age 10 and 11. We were not allowed to visit their home. It was because my mother KNEW we boys would not behave in a way that is respectful to the girl or mother. So we learned that it may be a value to them. And that's their right. But my mother knew we boys were how we were.

[Typo Lad]

In other words, "The rights of your first end with my face".

I'd never tell someone who to dress their child, or how to dress - but that doesn't mean I have to like it. It certainly doesn't mean society should completely absolve the mother in this case because her daughter was raped. yes, it smacks of blaming the victim but it's not the same thing. It's saying "You all but pimped your daughter. The bastard needs to go to jail, but deal G-d lady, you need your ovaries revoked!"

[MacQuarrie]

I totally get the point here, I do. But there is also the liberty that everyone has to dress as they want. Perhaps there is a difference between being expressive and provocative.

If someone dresses provocatively, like a woman putting on a nightie to entice her husband to move from the tv set, then an "aroused" response is appropriate to the situation.

To be expressive, say a woman puts on the same nightie because she is possessed of her own sexual energy and feels it responsible to share it, and someone wolf whistles or comes on, then that would be inappropriate to the spirit of the fashion.
But the fact remains, right or wrong, that it's probably going to happen. She should know how to handle it when it does. As Reverend Smooth said, know how to defend yourself.

I have the right to juggle flaming batons, but if I don't know how to do so, I'm probably going to get hurt.


A child in a sexually provocative outfit is "asking" for it...or seeking something...the child pageant stuff comes to mind. A child in a sexually liberating and expressive outfit may not be so much. And by sexually liberating means that a child is able to show his/her gender and gender choice without fear of shame or reprisal.

My rule? I don't respond to anything any more. You have green hair, a tattoo of a leopard on your face and eighteen bones in your nose? I say nothing. You show up ass naked to a performance of "Carmen"? I say nothing.

A kid was selling band ads for her high school. She had pink hair. She was 15 or 16. I said nothing. She later asked, "What do you think of my hair?" I said, "I think it's hair."
That's pretty much how I handle it. Though if it's my kid, depending on what the fashion in question is, I might ask, "are you doing that because you want to look like an idiot, or because you are an idiot?"

[Spackling Compound]

But the fact remains, right or wrong, that it's probably going to happen. She should know how to handle it when it does. As Reverend Smooth said, know how to defend yourself.

I have the right to juggle flaming batons, but if I don't know how to do so, I'm probably going to get hurt.
Fire by nature burns. People don't have to naturally assume a girl in a halter, high heels and short shorts is sexually available.
Defending oneself is one thing and yes, if you have short shorts, a halter top and 12" heels, you may have to defend yourself ...but it's not supposed to be expected.
Just as if someone chooses to wear Islamic garb, they are not supposed to defend themselves because of their dress. They should be given protections to do so. In a perfect world....



That's pretty much how I handle it. Though if it's my kid, depending on what the fashion in question is, I might ask, "are you doing that because you want to look like an idiot, or because you are an idiot?"
Ha..well, there may be some from the dyed hair community who'd disagree with the charge of idiocy. I prefer "not making eye contact".

[KevinTBrown]

The US has formally asked for an extradition. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8321927.stm)

And it'll be at least another 6 months before he sets foot on American soil. That's how long the appeal process could take.

[Charles RB]

So appealing would mean he stays locked up even longer?

[MacQuarrie]

Fire by nature burns. People don't have to naturally assume a girl in a halter, high heels and short shorts is sexually available.
Defending oneself is one thing and yes, if you have short shorts, a halter top and 12" heels, you may have to defend yourself ...but it's not supposed to be expected.
Just as if someone chooses to wear Islamic garb, they are not supposed to defend themselves because of their dress. They should be given protections to do so. In a perfect world....
Humans by nature do stupid, selfish, thoughtless, rude things, just as surely as fire burns. Pretending they don't is not good policy.

The reason they call it "provocative" clothing is that it's intended to provoke a reaction. Since one can't control or dictate what that reaction might be, it makes sense to be prepared for the worst. It goes with the territory. As you said, "in a perfect world..." Unfortunately, we don't have one.


Ha..well, there may be some from the dyed hair community who'd disagree with the charge of idiocy. I prefer "not making eye contact".
As I said, "if it's my kid."

[KevinTBrown]

So appealing would mean he stays locked up even longer?

Bet you a buck that when he finally gets to America, his attorneys fight to have it as "time served".

[Charles RB]

Of course while they do that he's still in jail.

I'd laugh my head off if his lawyers trying to appeal keep him inside longer than he would otherwise be. That'd be perfect.

[Sabrinaset]

Poor Roman! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34048877/ns/entertainment-celebrities/)


PARIS - The wife and two children of Roman Polanski are bearing the brunt of the director's imprisonment in Switzerland as he awaits a decision on his extradition, his lawyer said in an interview to be published Friday.

Polanski has proposed "very significant" bail money, house arrest and other assurances to find freedom, Herve Temime told the daily Le Figaro. His 76-year-old client "will not accept extradition to the United States," he said.

U.S. authorities want Polanski to face justice in Los Angeles for having sex with a 13-year-old 32 years ago. A Swiss court official said this week that a bail decision was expected in 2 to 3 weeks....

The Polish-French director has offered a second time to remain under house arrest at his chalet in Gstaad with electronic bracelet in an attempt to overturn a Swiss Justice Ministry decision to deny him bail.

"At the demand of Swiss authorities, he is prepared to offer a very significant sum of money for his financial means to back his solemn commitment" not to leave Switzerland, Temime said without naming an amount.

Temime maintained that Polanski had completed his sentence at the time, with 42 days in jail for psychological testing after being accused of raping the girl after plying her with champagne and a Quaalude pill during a 1977 modeling shoot.

Geez ... I don't care how much money he's prepared to offer the authorities, everyone knows there's a 100% chance he's making a run for the border the picosecond he gets a hint of freedom. Said "Freedom Train" no doubt paid for and provided by the Free Polanski crowd in Europe and Hollywood. Maybe Woody Allen himself will drive the getaway car?

And who the hell is Roman to say he will not accept extradition? Dude, that's the courts call, not yours, you justice-dodging rapist.

[Tobias March]

And who the hell is Roman to say he will not accept extradition? Dude, that's the courts call, not yours, you justice-dodging rapist.

QFT. Astonishing celebrity arrogance once again.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Poor Roman! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34048877/ns/entertainment-celebrities/)



Geez ... I don't care how much money he's prepared to offer the authorities, everyone knows there's a 100% chance he's making a run for the border the picosecond he gets a hint of freedom. Said "Freedom Train" no doubt paid for and provided by the Free Polanski crowd in Europe and Hollywood. Maybe Woody Allen himself will drive the getaway car?

And who the hell is Roman to say he will not accept extradition? Dude, that's the courts call, not yours, you justice-dodging rapist.

Heh, I'd bet good money that by not accept extradition (as if it were his choice), he serves more time behind bars than he would have served with his original sentence.

[Charles RB]

And who the hell is Roman to say he will not accept extradition?

Who knew that's how extradition works?

I'm with Thatguy, by drawing this out Polanski's going to be baned up for longer than the original sentence before he even gets to the sentencing. Ha HA.

[FeminineMystique]

Poor Roman! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34048877/ns/entertainment-celebrities/)



Geez ... I don't care how much money he's prepared to offer the authorities, everyone knows there's a 100% chance he's making a run for the border the picosecond he gets a hint of freedom. Said "Freedom Train" no doubt paid for and provided by the Free Polanski crowd in Europe and Hollywood. Maybe Woody Allen himself will drive the getaway car?

And who the hell is Roman to say he will not accept extradition? Dude, that's the courts call, not yours, you justice-dodging rapist.

So very, very true. The arrogance, the ful of himself conceitedness that he thinks he can DECIDE whether or not he gets extradited...it just pisses me off.

Hopefully the authorities will have the sense to make sure the little scumbag stays under their watch until he's safely behind bars for good. :mad:

[dupont2005]

Who knew that's how extradition works?

I'm with Thatguy, by drawing this out Polanski's going to be baned up for longer than the original sentence before he even gets to the sentencing. Ha HA.

i'm sure he would rather be in a holding cell in switzerland than housed in a california state prison

[KevinTBrown]

Crap.

He's going to be allowed to post bail....

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34162794/ns/entertainment-celebrities/).


Granted, it's well in excess of $4 million, and he'll be under house arrest, but do you seriously think he won't try to skip any way...?

[worstblogever]

Crap.

He's going to be allowed to post bail....

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34162794/ns/entertainment-celebrities/).


Granted, it's well in excess of $4 million, and he'll be under house arrest, but do you seriously think he won't try to skip any way...?

Maybe he'll have an OJ chase to the Swiss/French border.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Crap.

He's going to be allowed to post bail....

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34162794/ns/entertainment-celebrities/).


Granted, it's well in excess of $4 million, and he'll be under house arrest, but do you seriously think he won't try to skip any way...?

Its a bet pretty much . Odds are you'll hear someone helped sneak him outta the country and get thrown the book for doing it.

[Lester C.]

This whole drama has played out over the decades, because of a leak that tipped off Polanski way back when. I really hope the person that leaked it suffered for it, because the real victim in this case, the rape victum, has had to put up with the shit that should have been done many, many years ago.

[Sabrinaset]

You're gonna see Roman hiding out in the wine-filled basements of Europe's glitteratti for the rest of his life now. Thanks a f*cking lot, Switzerland!

[FeminineMystique]

You're gonna see Roman hiding out in the wine-filled basements of Europe's glitteratti for the rest of his life now. Thanks a f*cking lot, Switzerland!

Tell me about it. I never thought it was possible to feel this angry but right now I do. I swear to god, I am at primal scream levels of pissed off right now.

WHAT. THE. HELL. So, after this asshole dodged justice last time, what do these idiots do? Give him the chance to do it all over again.

Sure, why not. Not like there's any justice in the world, guess I was stupid to think Polanski would actually pay for his crime.

And now, I need a drink BADLY. :frown: Until I stop feeling depressed at all the stupidity in the world (And, apparently, in Switzerland in particular)

[Charles RB]

Ahem:


Before Wednesday's decision, Polanski offered a bank guarantee that would cause him to sacrifice his family's home in Paris if he flees justice again.


The court said Polanski would be subjected to "constant electronic surveillance" at his chalet and an alarm would be activated if he leaves the premises or takes off the bracelet.

If he does a runner, they'll know - and since he's a flight risk and a famous face, the police will be mobilising once they know.

And if he does a runner, his family lose their home. That means he risks losing the continuing support of his family (cos he's just dicked them) and his glitterati supporters (cos they can't muddy the waters or claim a sinister prosecutor there).

Does he seem like someone who's got the balls to be a fugitive without people who support him?

[FeminineMystique]

Ahem:





If he does a runner, they'll know - and since he's a flight risk and a famous face, the police will be mobilising once they know.

And if he does a runner, his family lose their home. That means he risks losing the continuing support of his family (cos he's just dicked them) and his glitterati supporters (cos they can't muddy the waters or claim a sinister prosecutor there).

Does he seem like someone who's got the balls to be a fugitive without people who support him?

Does he seem like someone whose got the balls to face the music? I know it might seem unlikely when you put it that way darling but I don't have much confidence that he won't try and duck justice again

[Sabrinaset]

Ahem:





If he does a runner, they'll know - and since he's a flight risk and a famous face, the police will be mobilising once they know.

And if he does a runner, his family lose their home. That means he risks losing the continuing support of his family (cos he's just dicked them) and his glitterati supporters (cos they can't muddy the waters or claim a sinister prosecutor there).

Does he seem like someone who's got the balls to be a fugitive without people who support him?

But he dies have supporters who will financially aid him and his family.

The Free Polanski Crowd. And France, who was against his being taken.

[FeminineMystique]

But he dies have supporters who will financially aid him and his family.

The Free Polanski Crowd. And France, who was against his being taken.

I've no doubt they'd find some way to make HIM look like the victim:mad:

[Charles RB]

But he dies have supporters who will financially aid him and his family.

How many, really? How many would actually give up money to help him?


And France

The French government stopped making a fuss months ago. The only way they come into play is if he flees into France, which he can only do by foot while the police and border control will be looking for him.

[mikekerr3]

But he dies have supporters who will financially aid him and his family.

The Free Polanski Crowd. And France, who was against his being taken.

Does France have an extradition treaty with the swiss?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Ahem:





If he does a runner, they'll know - and since he's a flight risk and a famous face, the police will be mobilising once they know.

And if he does a runner, his family lose their home. That means he risks losing the continuing support of his family (cos he's just dicked them) and his glitterati supporters (cos they can't muddy the waters or claim a sinister prosecutor there).

Does he seem like someone who's got the balls to be a fugitive without people who support him?

Polanski is a multi-millionaire. Its not like losing 1 home is gonna cripple him forever. His family will simply move and take their belongings 1st. This will be weeks/months for him to even get an extradition hearing. If it goes that far. The lawyers are in LA trying to get the system to dismiss this now.

So give it weeks/months , and if it does go that far , Polanski will leave the country. He'll forfeit the $4.5 million he gave and the house. Because freedom means more than that drop in a bucket to him.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Does France have an extradition treaty with the swiss?

If it would make them less of an asshole, the answer is probably no.

[FeminineMystique]

Polanski is a multi-millionaire. Its not like losing 1 home is gonna cripple him forever. His family will simply move and take their belongings 1st. This will be weeks/months for him to even get an extradition hearing. If it goes that far. The lawyers are in LA trying to get the system to dismiss this now.

So give it weeks/months , and if it does go that far , Polanski will leave the country. He'll forfeit the $4.5 million he gave and the house. Because freedom means more than that drop in a bucket to him.

Of course he will. Whoever decided to grant him bail REALLY needs to get fired over that one

[Charles RB]

Polanski is a multi-millionaire. Its not like losing 1 home is gonna cripple him forever.

He's spending upwards of $4 million on bail - that's already crippling, and losing a house (meaning his family need to buy another) would be a blow (and make him unpopular with them).

On top of which, one of his lawyer's arguments was that he and his family will be bankrupted if he can't finish his current film. (Comes up on page 30 here) He still can't AFAIK. We'll assume his lawyers were exaggerating, but that still means he's financially in the shit. And where'd he make new money from, to cover that big a hit? Making art films isn't that steady an income.

Unless the infamous, slow-moving old guy with a tracking collar can actually escape the Swiss police, all trying to do will lose him his house arrest, lose him his family house, and give him another crime to be sentenced for, in yet another foreign nation.

...hmmm. You know what, now I hope he does try to flee.


Does France have an extradition treaty with the swiss?

They don't have one with anyone AFAIK.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Of course he will. Whoever decided to grant him bail REALLY needs to get fired over that one

Yeah but I say its a lot due to good lawyers and saying he shouldn't be treated any different than anyone else in that. But he has a lot of wealth and its not like if he runs the country (France isn't it ?) will extradite him. They were on his side for years .

Its not a question "if" he'll run if this gets to the stage they get to extradite him. Its a "when" he'll run.

[KevinTBrown]

It won't really cost him the house. It'll just cost him $4.49 million if -- or rather when -- he flees. I'm sure he's got plenty of other houses across the globe.....

[FeminineMystique]

Yeah but I say its a lot due to good lawyers and saying he shouldn't be treated any different than anyone else in that. But he has a lot of wealth and its not like if he runs the country (France isn't it ?) will extradite him. They were on his side for years .

Its not a question "if" he'll run if this gets to the stage they get to extradite him. Its a "when" he'll run.

Let's just hope it plays out the way RB hopes it will. The thought of Polanski escaping justice again sickens me

[Charles RB]

It won't really cost him the house.

So why does the article you linked to say:


Polanski offered a bank guarantee that would cause him to sacrifice his family's home in Paris if he flees justice again.

? That's outright saying he loses the house.


I'm sure he's got plenty of other houses across the globe.....

Does he actually have "plenty of other houses across the globe"? He's got a chalet in Switzerland, but that's where he'd be fleeing from. And he'd still have to succesfully flee there; the instant he does, he'll set an alarm off and get caught in surveillence, so his first task is to get away really fast and slip past the police in Gstaad.

Then he has to get through the rest of the Canton of Bern, an alpine region, to get into another canton to cross the French border, while being pursued. Unless he has access to a car - and I doubt he's being allowed car keys, or could easily buy one while on the run - that'd be on foot. I doubt that'd go well for him at his age. Unless he thought that through, he could fuck his health up something fierce trying a runner in Bern.

[Charles RB]

We should remember that he escaped justice the first time by running to an airport and hoppin on a plane.

These days, he'd be recognised as trying to flee by security, and no one can get a plane that quickly because of post-9/11 measures.

[KevinTBrown]

Charles, it's his house in FRANCE. The country that loves loves loves him and has harbored him for decades. Do you really think they'll allow him to lose his house? Seriously.

He's on the hook for $4 and half mil., that's it. For him, it's chump change.

He's gone.

[mikekerr3]

Charles, it's his house in FRANCE. The country that loves loves loves him and has harbored him for decades. Do you really think they'll allow him to lose his house? Seriously.

He's on the hook for $4 and half mil., that's it. For him, it's chump change.

He's gone.

The Frenmch will honor a financial lien fron the Swiss The don't love Polanski that much. The repercussions from them repudiating a legal debt are not something to be ignored.

[Adam C]

Does he seem like someone whose got the balls to face the music? I know it might seem unlikely when you put it that way darling but I don't have much confidence that he won't try and duck justice again

Well if he doesn't INTERPOL's notified the border agencies of member states - which includes France, Switzerland, and probably every state that Switzerland shares a border with.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10633582/1/interpol-alerts-member-nations-to-roman-polanskis-continued-fugitive-status.html


LYON, France, Nov. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Following the decision by a Swiss federal court to release Roman Polanski on bail, INTERPOL has issued an alert reminding all 188 member countries that he remains the subject of a valid Red Notice, an international wanted persons notice, issued at the request of US authorities.

The message, sent by INTERPOL's General Secretariat headquarters in Lyon, France, also requests each of its National Central Bureaus (NCBs) to ensure that border control agencies are advised of Polanski's Red Notice status, which is a request for all countries to identify or locate an individual with a view to their arrest and extradition.

"Given Mr. Polanski's history of international travel while defying a judicial order, a $4.5 million bail and an electronic bracelet does not mean that law enforcement should let its global guard down," said INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble.

"Mr. Polanski has given us more than 30 years of proof that he does not feel bound to respect any court decision with which he does not agree."

So not only does he have to cross several cantons, he'll have the border authorities actively sniffing for him.

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah but I say its a lot due to good lawyers and saying he shouldn't be treated any different than anyone else in that. But he has a lot of wealth and its not like if he runs the country (France isn't it ?) will extradite him. They were on his side for years .

Its not a question "if" he'll run if this gets to the stage they get to extradite him. Its a "when" he'll run.

That's it exactly. His enablers in Europe are probably planning the details on how to "kidnap" him back and arrange the big trip back to France with Roman even as we speak. Roman can afford the 4+ mil, and he's home free, living the good life in Paris. I still think Woody Allen will be driving the getaway car.

You really have to wonder what the collective IQ of the Swiss legal bureau is. Maybe 10? I mean, how in the world do you allow bail for a proven long-term flight risk? What the heck were they thinking? Drugs are legal there, right? Maybe that's it.

[FeminineMystique]

That's it exactly. His enablers in Europe are probably planning the details on how to "kidnap" him back and arrange the big trip back to France with Roman even as we speak. Roman can afford the 4+ mil, and he's home free, living the good life in Paris. I still think Woody Allen will be driving the getaway car.

That would almost be enough to make me pity Polanski. I think I'd rather face the death penalty than a car ride with the neurotic, rambling mess that is Woody Allen.


You really have to wonder what the collective IQ of the Swiss legal bureau is. Maybe 10? I mean, how in the world do you allow bail for a proven long-term flight risk? What the heck were they thinking? Drugs are legal there, right? Maybe that's it.

I think even a pothead at Jay and Silent Bob level would know not to bail out Polanski.

And negative ten darling. Negative ten IQ at MOST

[Charles RB]

Charles, it's his house in FRANCE. The country that loves loves loves him and has harbored him for decades. Do you really think they'll allow him to lose his house? Seriously.

Does the French government have a history of stepping in to stop rich bail-jumpers losing houses that they themselves put up as collatoral? That's a new one on me.

And "harboured" because they "love love love him"? They don't extradite citizens. He could be a dustbinman and they wouldn't have extradited him.


He's on the hook for $4 and half mil., that's it. For him, it's chump change.

How much money does he actually have? What is his income? Because I haven't seen that reported. Since his lawyers tried to claim his family were at risk of bankruptcy, I'm assuming it's not a gigantic, secure amount of cash (unless they were willing to outright fib in court and hope the prosecutors didn't check the claim).


He's gone.

On foot. In the Alps. At age 76. With the Swiss police after him, being immediately alerted that he's gone. With border control waiting for him. And everyone knowing what he looks like.

It wouldn't surprise me if he's stupid and arrogant enough to attempt it, but that's not the same as succeeding. He tries and fails, he's fucked. There goes much of his legal defence, there goes his chances of avoiding a proper prison, there goes his bail and house arrest.


His enablers in Europe are probably planning the details on how to "kidnap" him back

So a famous person (presumably living in Switzerland) would drive up to the chalet, which will be under constant surveillance, and bundle Polanski out into a car, then try to reach the French border while the Swiss police actively look for his car and raid his house.

That's all assuming they want to get arrested: that they want to risk a long sentence and jail time for helping an international criminal escape justice. Do you honestly think they'd dare do that? Making noises in the press and signing a petition is one thing, but actually risking themselves?


how in the world do you allow bail for a proven long-term flight risk?

When he offers to put up a huge amount of money as bail and his house, apparently.

[Charles RB]

Well, Polanski's been under house arrest in his chalet for a month now and he doesn't appear to have tried to escape.

Also last month, a California appeals court rejected his appeal to have the case dismissed, though they have said his lawyer's claims of misconduct (in the original trial) need to be investigated. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8425538.stm)

And just yesterday: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8444869.stm)


Film director Roman Polanski has asked a judge in Los Angeles to sentence him in absentia over the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Judge Peter Espinoza said he would consider the request at a hearing scheduled for 22 January.

...

Judge Espinoza said he wanted to see legal briefs to explain why sentencing in absentia would be appropriate.

Prosecutor David Walgren said Polanski should not be able to fight the case "from the comfort of his Swiss chalet in the Alps", and that a fugitive should not "dictate the court's processes".

Polanski faces a sentence of two years on a guilty plea, though his lawyers are expected to request he not serve any additional time.

[FeminineMystique]

Well, Polanski's been under house arrest in his chalet for a month now and he doesn't appear to have tried to escape.

Also last month, a California appeals court rejected his appeal to have the case dismissed, though they have said his lawyer's claims of misconduct (in the original trial) need to be investigated. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8425538.stm)

And just yesterday: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8444869.stm)

Wait...a sentence of two years? That's all he gets for what he did? :frown: :mad:

[Charles RB]

Most of the charges were dropped due to the plea bargain, I don't think they've been reinstated; two years could be all they can give. OTOH, as far as I know they haven't charged him for absconding yet.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Wait...a sentence of two years? That's all he gets for what he did? :frown: :mad:

Unfortunately. He did plead out, after all.

But look at the bright side. After running for so long, two years on him now is gonna be a hell of alot tougher on him now then it would have been on him then.

[Charles RB]

Two years is a lot more of his life too - he hasn't got many years left.

[FeminineMystique]

Unfortunately. He did plead out, after all.

But look at the bright side. After running for so long, two years on him now is gonna be a hell of alot tougher on him now then it would have been on him then.

I guess so. It still doesn't feel like enough for what he did to that poor girl:frown:

[The Cool Thatguy]

I guess so. It still doesn't feel like enough for what he did to that poor girl:frown:

Agreed. But hey! It's something that's dogged him his entire life, is gonna drag him down now and they may even charge him for fleeing.

So even if he's not been in jail, it's still weighed his life down.

[mikekerr3]

Wait...a sentence of two years? That's all he gets for what he did? :frown: :mad:

He copped a please bargain before he ran.

[Venom Melendez]

So two years of house arrest in his mansion?


That's punishment?

[FeminineMystique]

So two years of house arrest in his mansion?


That's punishment?

That's my feeling on this right now. If I was the judge I'd sentence him to spend a year in prison for every year he'd spent on the run, avoiding justice:mad:

[The Cool Thatguy]

He copped a please bargain before he ran.

I wonder if his fleeing would void that plea. I'm too lazy to do the research, so does anyone know off hand?

[Venom Melendez]

That's my feeling on this right now. If I was the judge I'd sentence him to spend a year in prison for every year he'd spent on the run, avoiding justice:mad:

Exactly.


It wouldn't be as bad if he at least was serving the two years in prison(though he deserves more).

[FeminineMystique]

Exactly.


It wouldn't be as bad if he at least was serving the two years in prison(though he deserves more).

It certainly doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me. Not for what he did

[Charles RB]

So two years of house arrest in his mansion?

Where is it said that he'll serve out his sentence under home arrest in Switzerland? Because it doesn't in the article.

And the claim makes very little sense as he's not Swiss, he didn't commit a crime in Switzerland, and he's not being tried in Switzerland. Why'd they want to keep him?

[dupersuper]

Where is it said that he'll serve out his sentence under home arrest in Switzerland? Because it doesn't in the article.

And the claim makes very little sense as he's not Swiss, he didn't commit a crime in Switzerland, and he's not being tried in Switzerland. Why'd they want to keep him?

Trying to bolster their movie industry...?

[Charles RB]

Trying to bolster their movie industry...?

If he was under house arrest? Can't be many films you can make stuck in a chalet.

[worstblogever]

If he was under house arrest? Can't be many films you can make stuck in a chalet.

Peter Jackson directed 3 separate locations of Lord of the Rings from one locale. One, he was hands on, the other two, he was overseeing via video link.

It's possible, just pretty damned unlikely that Polanski will be doing any directing.

[Charles RB]

Probably can't use the prison gym either.

[Lester C.]

I wonder if his fleeing would void that plea. I'm too lazy to do the research, so does anyone know off hand?

Nothing is guaranteed when you plea bargain as that is an offer made by the prosecutors which the judge can rescind and still give you the maximum. That said though it is very rare for judges to do this, as it would clog and break the system if every defendant elected for a full trial rather than pleading out but it happens. It happened with the balloon boy's father as he wasn't suppose to get jail time and it happened with Polanski but he got wind of it and high tailed it out.

[dupersuper]

If he was under house arrest? Can't be many films you can make stuck in a chalet.

If what he is charged with wouldn't have made the joke in poor taste, I would have replied "Their porn movie industry?".

[FeminineMystique]

If what he is charged with wouldn't have made the joke in poor taste, I would have replied "Their porn movie industry?".

Your right, even I think that's in horrible taste

[dupersuper]

Your right, even I think that's in horrible taste

I had it halfway typed before I slapped my forehead and remembered who we were talking about.

[Charles RB]

The extradition case grinds on, but now there's the added complication of actress Charlotte Lewis alleging she was molested by Polanski as a teenager (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/charlotte-lewis-polanski-_n_576800.html). This would be in Paris, after Geimer.


Los Angeles County prosecutors have met with a British actress who claims she was sexually abused by director Roman Polanski in his Paris apartment when she was 16 – years before she appeared in one of his movies.

Charlotte Lewis, 42, said Friday that the filmmaker abused her "in the worst possible way" sometime in the 1980s.

Lewis provided no evidence to support her claims, and her attorney, Gloria Allred, did not permit her to answer questions during a news conference in her office.

However, Allred said the woman provided evidence to a police detective and officials from the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. She refused to provide specifics and also refused to answer questions about whether her client's allegations involved drugs or rape.

"Our detectives did conduct the interview but the department has not begun an investigation," said police spokesman Richard French. He did not know when the interview was conducted.

It was unclear what year the alleged assault took place.

"He took advantage of me and I have lived with the effects of his behavior ever since it occurred," said Lewis, reading from a prepared statement at a news conference in her lawyer's office. "All I want is justice."

Allred said that, to her knowledge, no criminal complaint or lawsuit was made in France over the alleged assault.

The duty officer for the French Justice Ministry said late Friday night that he was not aware whether the British actress had filed a complaint in France about her allegation.

...

Lewis said she came forward because she heard that Polanski was fighting extradition to the United States and "that his legal team is portraying his previous offense against a minor as an isolated instance."

Allred said she doesn't plan any legal action right now, such as a lawsuit, but believes the allegations would be relevant when Polanski is sentenced.

Her client is ready to testify if necessary, she said.

"If the judge believes these claims, it could certainly have an impact on the court's decision," she said.


She's taken a long time to make the claim, but that's not unusual for molestation cases AFAIK - or cases in general where the attacker has more power and status than the victim.

If true... well, how likely is it this was the only time he did it after fleeing abroad? He'd already have shown he was willing to keep it up despite having to flee a country.

[Corrina]

Interesting.

Well, he either really pissed her off enough to claim rape and thus put herself in the news as a rape victim

OR

She saw that coming forward might actually do some good and get the bastard who raped her, so she did.

I believe the latter simply because the earlier rape is already proven. But I have no facts to support that other than that predators like this rarely act only once.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Interesting.

Well, he either really pissed her off enough to claim rape and thus put herself in the news as a rape victim

OR

She saw that coming forward might actually do some good and get the bastard who raped her, so she did.

I believe the latter simply because the earlier rape is already proven. But I have no facts to support that other than that predators like this rarely act only once.

Agreed. Between fleeing and later interviews, I'm inclined to believe he's guilty here. Just that before now, no one really cared enough to bother making it an issue.

[Charles RB]

It's possible she's faking, but not likely since she'd have to willing to take on the stigma of being a sex crime victim, take on people going "she must be faking if she waited this long!", and take on potential career damage because she's standing against Polanski. And why'd she do that if she hadn't really been abused?

[MacQuarrie]

The story I read indicated that she decided to come forward after hearing Polanski's defenders repeatedly claim that the Giemer case was a "one-time" incident. Lewis wanted it on the record that it's a pattern.

Hell, if we throw in 15-year-old Natassia Kinski, it's pretty clear Polanski has a pattern. Okay, so Kinski didn't complain; that doesn't make it okay.

[Charles RB]

Hell, if we throw in 15-year-old Natassia Kinski

I look this up on Wikipedia and find Nastassja Kinski has denied this. Except her denial was (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1999/jul/03/weekend7.weekend3) "There was a flirtation. There could have been a seduction, but there was not. He had respect for me." That's... that's still a bit worrying.

(I also find it's described on wiki as "a romantic relationship". Ick.)

[Alan Lynch]

I look this up on Wikipedia and find Nastassja Kinski has denied this. Except her denial was (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1999/jul/03/weekend7.weekend3) "There was a flirtation. There could have been a seduction, but there was not. He had respect for me." That's... that's still a bit worrying.

(I also find it's described on wiki as "a romantic relationship". Ick.)
Yeah, you don't "flirt" with a 15 year old. It's creepy and I'm inclined to believe that Polanski would've happily went further given the chance.

[KevinTBrown]

And now a huge "fuck you" in the direction of Woody Allen: http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/woody-allen-roman-polanski-has-paid-for-what-he%E2%80%99s-done/?hpt=T2

Not too surprising that one pedophile is protecting another.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Ya know, I wish people would stop saying 'He's been punished enough because he's not been allowed in the United states'.

I love my country, but I fail to see how not being able to visit is some great punishment. I'm certain millions live full lives without ever stepping foot on our soil.

He can't visit his wife's grave, and that's a shame sure, but he had the power to work this out long before now. He's got no one to blame but himself at this point.

[KevinTBrown]

And now an even bigger "FUCK YOU!" to the Swiss: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/roman_polanski. :mad:

[Infra-Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDplfsZxrbg

[SUPERECWFAN1]

And now an even bigger "FUCK YOU!" to the Swiss: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/roman_polanski. :mad:

I'd be more angry that the US Government dropped a ball here. I mean when it takes this :


The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the

Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

And you won't comply...it shows me the US Government wasn't at all serious about this. All it took was that it seems and as ya read the article the Swiss only turn down 5% of the extradition requests.

[carabas]

While I think that, if charges are true, Polanski should spend the rest of his life in jail, or possibly forced to make Transformers films, I don't really see what else the Swiss could have done here. The Americans didn't seem to have much of a case.

[ShaunN]

It looks like the scumbag is getting away with it.

I don't know why the US did not comply with the Swiss request for additional information.

But I'm more interested in the Swiss saying that "national interests" were involved. What "national interests" could be involved in deciding whether or not to extradite a child rapist? I suspect this is the bigger question - who or what put pressure on the Swiss to let Polanski go free? Are his "friends in high places" really that influential?

Either way, this is a real tragedy. A guilty, and thoroughly vile, man walks free once again.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

It looks like the scumbag is getting away with it.

I don't know why the US did not comply with the Swiss request for additional information.

But I'm more interested in the Swiss saying that "national interests" were involved. What "national interests" could be involved in deciding whether or not to extradite a child rapist? I suspect this is the bigger question - who or what put pressure on the Swiss to let Polanski go free? Are his "friends in high places" really that influential?

Either way, this is a real tragedy. A guilty, and thoroughly vile, man walks free once again.

The only interests i can think of is Hollywood and the film industry. Wasn't Polanski picked up at a Swiss Film Festival ? I can see...that the industry likely told the Swiss government they would pull the Festival or hurt it. And hurt the tourism dollars that it brought as well.

Plus how many stars have money in those banks there ? Odds are quite a few. So the industry stars who wanted Polanski freed may have said they would pull millions of dollars from banks there.

Its wrong but the only industry I see putting pressure on the Swiss is Hollywood.

[ShaunN]

The only interests i can think of is Hollywood and the film industry. Wasn't Polanski picked up at a Swiss Film Festival ? I can see...that the industry likely told the Swiss government they would pull the Festival or hurt it. And hurt the tourism dollars that it brought as well.

Plus how many stars have money in those banks there ? Odds are quite a few. So the industry stars who wanted Polanski freed may have said they would pull millions of dollars from banks there.

Its wrong but the only industry I see putting pressure on the Swiss is Hollywood.

Good points. I was thinking more along the lines of political pressure from France, but this does seem to be another possible explanation. I wonder how many Hollywood stars have Swiss bank accounts, however, and why they would need them.

As an aside, I wonder how many of the Hollywood crowd who are worked up about the abuses of the Catholic Church also, somehow, found a way to support Polanski? I"m not saying anyone did, I'm just curious about this. If so much of Hollywood is willing to rally behind Polanski over this, then a lot of Hollywood should be able to forgive and justify the behaviour of Catholic priests. After all, I'm sure there are always 'extenuating circumstances" to be found.

[Cam63]

The Karma bus'll get him.

[rick]

The Karma bus'll get him.


I think that it is safe to say that during his life, the "karma" bus has run over Polanski, backed up and run him over again several times already.

[Cam63]

I know, but it doesn't excuse the shit he did to a 13 year old in '77.

[rick]

I know, but it doesn't excuse the shit he did to a 13 year old in '77.


Just to be clear, I do agree.

But 1977, like it or not, was a very long time ago, and as the law isn't putting much energy into going after him and his victim has long since apparently "forgiven" him, I'm just not so sure what's left to be done other then to roll our eyes and recognize that in an inperfect world things don't always work out like we think they should.

I hate to say it but in some ways this is just a typical bit of L.A. justice really.

If the original judge had acted ethically in the original trial not only would this situation have been settled over 30 years ago, but even if Polanski had run, the district attornies office wouldn't have to hide the truth by letting him go just to protect their office.

[CutterMike]

The only interests i can think of is Hollywood and the film industry. Wasn't Polanski picked up at a Swiss Film Festival ? I can see...that the industry likely told the Swiss government they would pull the Festival or hurt it. And hurt the tourism dollars that it brought as well.

Plus how many stars have money in those banks there ? Odds are quite a few. So the industry stars who wanted Polanski freed may have said they would pull millions of dollars from banks there.

Its wrong but the only industry I see putting pressure on the Swiss is Hollywood.
Considering that there have been frictions between the U.S. and the Swiss on several fronts recently and that no government can last long if they ALWAYS bend over and say "Thank you, may I have another?", maybe they asked the U.S. whether they'd rather have Polanski or almost 4,500 possible tax evaders (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65D1LJ20100617)...

The timing could be coincidental, but is interesting, and MIGHT explain why the U.S. didn't push harder on Polanski.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Considering that there have been frictions between the U.S. and the Swiss on several fronts recently and that no government can last long if they ALWAYS bend over and say "Thank you, may I have another?", maybe they asked the U.S. whether they'd rather have Polanski or almost 4,500 possible tax evaders (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65D1LJ20100617)...

The timing could be coincidental, but is interesting, and MIGHT explain why the U.S. didn't push harder on Polanski.

Yep.... good work here Mike.

The US Government needs money. Busting 4,500 people for hiding millions of dollars could be what made the US decide to "boggle" things . The US can claim some kinda....reason why they never turned over the evidence. But behind closed doors the Swiss could have made the deal.

[Sean Walsh]

I don't know why the US did not comply with the Swiss request for additional information.

Probably too busy with that all-important Arizona lawsuit. Or maybe (I stress maybe) still trying to figure out how to handle the whole 9/11 trial thing so that we don't look mean & disrespectful to the Muslim world.

Someone on the radio this morning said that the current Justice Dept looks like "what happens when junior varsity steps in for varsity." Dropping the ball on an infamous child rape case certainly doesn't help them look better.

[KevinTBrown]

I think that it is safe to say that during his life, the "karma" bus has run over Polanski, backed up and run him over again several times already.

Yeah, like being totally ignored by Hollywood and the Academy Awards.




Oh wait.

[Dreadstar]

After 30 plus years, I find it really hard to give a damn about Polanski, anymore. I don't find what he did any less reprehensible, the luster seems to have faded from my righteous indignation. That said, I'd still have loved to have seen extradition.

But I'm not going to blame the Swiss for the failure of the moment. That's entirely on the U.S. justice system, both 30+ years ago and as recently as this past month or so.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Probably too busy with that all-important Arizona lawsuit. Or maybe (I stress maybe) still trying to figure out how to handle the whole 9/11 trial thing so that we don't look mean & disrespectful to the Muslim world.

Someone on the radio this morning said that the current Justice Dept looks like "what happens when junior varsity steps in for varsity." Dropping the ball on an infamous child rape case certainly doesn't help them look better.

Im gonna go with Mike here on what he posted. There was a backdoor deal and the Justice Department realized...bust 4,500 people hiding millions of dollars away. Or go after a 30 yearold rape case. They picked the persuit of making 4,500 other cases.


Yeah, like being totally ignored by Hollywood and the Academy Awards.




Oh wait.

No... having his wife and unborn son butchered by a group of maniacs. I mean karmas kicked his ass hard. Should he be punished of the rape...yes he should. He should face that punishment. But his life hasn't been roses. I'm sure he wishes he could have Tate and his unborn child back than Oscars.

[Spike-X]

Probably too busy with that all-important Arizona lawsuit. Or maybe (I stress maybe) still trying to figure out how to handle the whole 9/11 trial thing so that we don't look mean & disrespectful to the Muslim world.

Classy as always, troll.

[Iangould]

The most likely reason the Justice Department failed to provide the requesed information is that it supports Polanski's lawyers' claims that their was improper collusion between the Prosecutor and the Judge (that or given the passage of 40-odd years, people have died or records have been lost.)

Polanski's own subsequent admissions prove he was guilty as hell - which is why I wish the authories hadn't tried to cut corners and had nailed the bastard fair and square.

[Iangould]

Considering that there have been frictions between the U.S. and the Swiss on several fronts recently and that no government can last long if they ALWAYS bend over and say "Thank you, may I have another?", maybe they asked the U.S. whether they'd rather have Polanski or almost 4,500 possible tax evaders (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65D1LJ20100617)...

The timing could be coincidental, but is interesting, and MIGHT explain why the U.S. didn't push harder on Polanski.

And why on Earth would the Swiss do such a thing?

[Iangould]

Probably too busy with that all-important Arizona lawsuit. Or maybe (I stress maybe) still trying to figure out how to handle the whole 9/11 trial thing so that we don't look mean & disrespectful to the Muslim world.

Someone on the radio this morning said that the current Justice Dept looks like "what happens when junior varsity steps in for varsity." Dropping the ball on an infamous child rape case certainly doesn't help them look better.

I assume you are unaware that Polanski's arrest occurred in the first place because the Obama Justice Department was the first one that actually put out an international warrant for him.

I guess the preceding administration was too busy writing memoes justifying torture.

[rick]

Yeah, like being totally ignored by Hollywood and the Academy Awards.


Oh wait.

I was thinking more along the lines of having lost most of his family in the holocaust and then having his wife and unborn child murdered.

It does not excuse his actions, but lets not pretend that his entire life has been nothing but happiness and joy shall we.

[rick]

The most likely reason the Justice Department failed to provide the requesed information is that it supports Polanski's lawyers' claims that their was improper collusion between the Prosecutor and the Judge (that or given the passage of 40-odd years, people have died or records have been lost.)

Polanski's own subsequent admissions prove he was guilty as hell - which is why I wish the authories hadn't tried to cut corners and had nailed the bastard fair and square.


It's like I said earlier, typical LA justice system screw-up.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

And why on Earth would the Swiss do such a thing?

Well theres a lot of pressure going on. Games being played here. I suspect from what Mike posted ...this conversation may have happened.

Swiss Government Representive - "We could give you Polanski. But is he really worth a 30+ yearold case ? And the effects to us could hurt us. There are a lot of Hollywood film makers and our tourism economy is dependant on these Festivals and Hollywood names living here. Pressure is on us."

US Justice Department - "So what do you propose we do ? The media has taken hold of this. We need to make this happen now."

Swiss Government - (throws a huge stack of files on desk) "Well maybe this can help us change our directions. Your country is currently persuing offshore bank accounts that thousands are hiding. We hand you the names and transactions of these 4,500+ people. And ...we ...basically say your unable to make something happen ...so we deny extradition."

US Justice Department - (Mans gets up...walks to his boss as they debate this....minutes pass...more time passes.....finally he walks back in) "We have a deal. I hope you can live with yourself as a nation for letting a rapist go.

Swiss - "Yes ...well ...due yo our help your gonna make more current cases and get convictions on those 4,500 names."



Ok that to me is a huge WHAT IF conversation. But I can see if the Swiss did this.

[Iangould]

The Swiss banking industry has Trillions in assets, you really think they're going to shit thmselves in terror at the thought of a few Hollywood celebrities moving their accounts?

[Freak]

A good comment on that matter, I think:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/12/roman-polanski-extradite-swiss-us

[The Cool Thatguy]

A good comment on that matter, I think:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/12/roman-polanski-extradite-swiss-us

...and you'd be in the minority there. A rapist got a slap on the wrist and didn't even face that, and somehow that's a good thing?

[Iangould]

A good comment on that matter, I think:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/12/roman-polanski-extradite-swiss-us

So, as a general rule, do you feel that a month or so in a psych ward undergoing observation is a suitable penalty for drugging and raping a child?

[CutterMike]

The Swiss banking industry has Trillions in assets, you really think they're going to shit thmselves in terror at the thought of a few Hollywood celebrities moving their accounts?

Well, according to the Reuters article that I cited (and others)... yes:

(Reuters) - The Swiss parliament has finally backed a treaty to give the U.S. government details of clients UBS AG helped dodge taxes, ending nearly a year of uncertainty that threatened the Swiss bank's recovery.

The two houses of parliament agreed not to hold a referendum on the treaty after crisis talks on Thursday, so Swiss tax authorities should be able to hand over on time the details of the 4,450 clients, lifting the veil on Switzerland's cherished tradition of banking secrecy.

Berne and Washington cut the deal last August to end a damaging lawsuit against UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank. But UBS' wealthy clients continued to leave in droves as the threat of further legal action loomed if Switzerland failed to deliver on its promises within a year.

(...)

Client cash could stop gushing from UBS by the end of 2010, turnaround specialist Gruebel assured investors last month, as the bank booked its biggest quarterly profit since he took charge.

(...)

Approval of the tax treaty without the uncertainties posed by a popular vote was the best outcome for UBS and Switzerland, said Bob Ray of New York law firm Pryor Cashman.

"Uncertainty in any market is the worst possible scenario," said Ray, a former assistant federal prosecutor.

Parliamentarians' backing of the treaty sent an important signal and prevented the restart of a legal battle that could have damaged the wider Swiss economy, business lobby group economiesuisse said.

"Swiss business thanks parliament for the decision, which is in the interests of the whole nation and its economy," said economiesuisse President Gerold Buehrer.

[Alan Lynch]

A good comment on that matter, I think:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/12/roman-polanski-extradite-swiss-us
Whoa, is that article ever misjudged. It's "prurient" to want someone to pay for the crime of raping a child now? "Moral McCarthyism" indeed. Jesus wept, his films aren't that good.

[Freak]

I actually found it good insofar that it pointed out the problem of the judge trying to milk this pportunity for what it's worth and acting irresponsible and dishonest himself. It also points out that Polanski himself fully admitted everything from the start, and never tried to weasel his way out of it. Meaning, had this whole affair been handled to the letter of the law from the beginning, it would already have been long over, and this wouldn't have to be dragged out yet again so that some OTHER people can try and become famous by playing Robin Hood.

Do I think that justice has been done? Maybe from a karmic point of view (Manson), but definitely not regarding the law. So, no. Do I think that everybody involved got themselves a little bit dirtier? Definitely.

I also want to add something I think is an interesting point: Roman Polanski is rich and famous. Somehow everybody seems to take this as an indication that he got away scott free. I don't know, but the guy has to life with the fear to be thrown into jail for the rest of his life (rightfully so, as the last year showed). He can't travel around freely (imagine he's entering a country that happens to have a treaty with the US regarding the extradiction of criminals). He must know that EVERYBODY that looks at him will almost instantly think of how he slept with a 13 years old girl. He must notice that some parents are more eagerly watching after their children, when he is around. Yes, he has money and his movies are successful, but I can't help but think he's already been judged. Obviously this doesn't read like "Gee, the poor guy, give him a rest!" but more like "You want him in jail? Why? The way it is right now he's got himself life."

[Agent Helix]

You obviously don't know what jail is if you think what Polanski's life has been like since the conviction has been comparable.

[jesse_custer]

Jesus wept, his films aren't that good.

He definitely deserves punishment for his crimes (the judge's bullshit doesn't excuse Polanski's bullshit), but he has made more good films than the average director. Repulsion and Chinatown, for starters, are unique and challenging pieces of work.

Edit: I think I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry about that.

[Freak]

You obviously don't know what jail is if you think what Polanski's life has been like since the conviction has been comparable.
I actually would think prison for a celebrity, no matter the crime, would be easier as "normal" prison. I'm not saying his life is like prison right now, btw. But instead of, what?, five, seven years, most of them in a psychiatric ward or something the like, he got himself the rest of his life lived in fear and shame.

[bfrank]

I actually would think prison for a celebrity, no matter the crime, would be easier as "normal" prison.

lol..........

[Mark_Parnell]

Yikes not Polanski again! The whole ordeal is sad and I lay blame solely on Laurence J. Rittenband whose grandstanding made a mockery out of the entire case. I can live with the fact that Samantha Geimer has moved on in her life and did not support extradition and a new court case but Polanski by all accounts is a repeat offender and while hard time in jail back in the 70's may not have acted as a future deterrent, it would have at the least kept him off the streets for a period of time.

[rick]

You all are going to think I'm a bad person and all, but I just don't have a problem with Polanski being let go by the Swiss.

He did in fact come to the US at the time of the crime and went to trial and it should be pointed out that he served the original sentence he was given, no matter if we think that sentence was terribly lax.

Polanski only fled the country when it became clear that the judge was colluding with the district attorneys office to change the agreement.

Now I don't support fleeing the country, but if the representatives of the legal system are busy suborning justice, all bets are off the table.

Secondly, like it or not, the victim of his crime has spent years trying to get the case closed. And really, the woman is in her 40’s at this point, is capable of making her own choices and the fact that her wishes at this point have been totally ignored really bothers me.

Finally if our justice department was not willing to give the Swiss the information they requested about Polanski’s judge it clearly shows a lack of cooperation from the US, not the Swiss, and I see no reason why the Swiss should feel compelled to assist any further. If the judges action are something that the US is not willing to discuss that’s just not the Swiss governments problem.

In the end, just like OJ, this is simply just another case of the LA court systems letting their veniality and corruption get in the way of a good conviction.

For the record though, nothing I wrote above makes Roman any less a scumbag.

[rick]

Jesus wept, his films aren't that good.

Let it go Jake, it's Chinatown.

[Freak]

lol..........
Yes...uhm...I mean, like, a celebrity bonus. Not by law. Like, getting a solitary cell, and special privileges. Just because they're famous. :P

[Iangould]

Well, according to the Reuters article that I cited (and others)... yes:

Nothing in that article supports your claim that Switzerland wanted to release Polanski because they were afraid extraditing him would result in people withdrawing their funds from Swiss banks..

[Iangould]

I actually would think prison for a celebrity, no matter the crime, would be easier as "normal" prison. I'm not saying his life is like prison right now, btw. But instead of, what?, five, seven years, most of them in a psychiatric ward or something the like, he got himself the rest of his life lived in fear and shame.

First off, under the law as it then stood he was facing a maximum of something like two years.

Second though, back in the 60's there was little or no protection for pedophiles within the prison system. Those would have been a very unpleasant couple of years. Especially when you consider that the Manson family members were in the same prison system.

But, what makes you think that just because he served time, people would accept him when he got out?

[Paul McEnery]

Polanski by all accounts .

By how many accounts again?

[Gordon Smith]

First off, under the law as it then stood he was facing a maximum of something like two years.

Especially when you consider that the Manson family members were in the same prison system.



The California penal system is huge, though, and has been for a long time. Even in the 1960's, there would have been tens of thousands of prisoners in that system. They would have been spread out over literally dozens of facilities of varying levels of security. A guy like Polanski would probably have spent his brief hitch in a medium or even minimum security prison or hospital ward far from the likes of Manson up at San Quentin or Folsom.

[Spike-X]

By how many accounts again?
All of them.

All of the accounts.

[CutterMike]

Nothing in that article supports your claim that Switzerland wanted to release Polanski because they were afraid extraditing him would result in people withdrawing their funds from Swiss banks..
Which is not what I said at all, and I have no idea how you even arrived at that interpretation.

What I was referring to was that, having given the U.S. DoJ what they wanted with the UBS hand-over (against the initial wishes of the right wing in Parliament), in order to avoid what Reuters described as a situation where
Berne and Washington cut the deal last August to end a damaging lawsuit against UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank. But UBS' wealthy clients continued to leave in droves as the threat of further legal action loomed if Switzerland failed to deliver on its promises within a year.the Swiss government nevertheless didn't want to appear to be bending over for EVERY demand that the U.S. made.

Having given up their policy of secrecy to save their biggest bank from losing yet more money, they could have decided that a comparatively small fish like Polanski -- particularly in a case where a big push by the DoJ would make the "dirty laundry" of the L.A. courts even MORE of an embarrassment to the U.S. than it already is -- would be a good safe case in which to turn down the DoJ's demands and show their voters (particularly the ones on the right who apparently wanted a public referendum on the deal) that they aren't the U.S. gov's butt-boys.

Clearer, now?

[Iangould]

Which is not what I said at all, and I have no idea how you even arrived at that interpretation.

I don't know, maybe when you felt obliged to jump in in support of ECW who made exactly that claim.

[Paul McEnery]

Whoa, is that article ever misjudged. It's "prurient" to want someone to pay for the crime of raping a child now? "Moral McCarthyism" indeed. Jesus wept, his films aren't that good.

No, it really isn't.

It's not my place, and it's not your place, to decide whether or not Polanski was sufficiently punished for what he did. That's the place of the law, a law that must be seen to be administered justly. As Poirier, and Sokol, and indeed the judiciary of Switzerland took some pains to point out.

Prurient? Yes, it bloody is. What's going on with Polanski is none of my business, and it's none of your business. But somebody's gone out of their way to turn his whole life into a grubby little peep show for the glutinous masses to jam their tiny little shit-stained eyeballs into. Precious little disgusts me as much as the spineless public getting cheap thrills out of hating people for earning better lives than theirs.

But what disgusts me more is a corrupt political establishment that sucks the shit out of the arses of that spineless public so as to spew it back into their gullets come election season, which is exactly what was happening here.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Precious little disgusts me as much as the spineless public getting cheap thrills out of hating people for earning better lives than theirs.

I think most people dislike Polanski not for his having earned a lot of money, but rather for the fact that he drugged a teenage girl and had sex with her, and apparently then went on to take sexual advantage of other teenagers.

Sometimes it really is okay to be judgmental toward someone. That's called "showing good judgment."

[CutterMike]

I don't know, maybe when you felt obliged to jump in in support of ECW who made exactly that claim.
Okay -- *I* thought that I was suggesting an ALTERNATIVE scenario that didn't require hypothetical pressure from any source except from political forces that were already in place.

[Iangould]

Paul, there's nothing prurient about pissed off that prosecutorial misconduct let a self-confessed and unrepentant pedophile go free.

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, there's nothing prurient about pissed off that prosecutorial misconduct let a self-confessed and unrepentant pedophile go free.

1) Ephebophile.
2) Unrepentant? Where the hell do you get that from?
3) Why on earth shouldn't he have gone free after serving the agreed upon sentence?

Again, actually reading the article often helps with understanding these matters. But again, it should be noted that Polanski voluntarily returned to the US to take his lumps, and only fled because the legal system decided to change its mind and screw him over.

Again, one has nothing to say about Polanski and whether he's been sufficiently punished, or whether he's made right on his offence. That's between him and his accuser.

Your moral outrage, on the other hand -- a moral outrage that has led you to assert elementary errors in fact so that you can indulge it -- has absolutely sweet FA to do with Polankski, and everything to do with you vicariously getting yourself in a froth, presumably because it feels good to do so.

Which is exactly the definition of prurience, I would have thought.

[JeffreyWKramer]

2) Unrepentant? Where the hell do you get that from?


I don't think "unrepentant" is a misstatment at all, given that Polanski apparently continued to engage in such behavior after he relocated to Europe.

[Spike-X]

Your moral outrage, on the other hand -- a moral outrage that has led you to assert elementary errors in fact so that you can indulge it -- has absolutely sweet FA to do with Polankski, and everything to do with you vicariously getting yourself in a froth, presumably because it feels good to do so.


There's only one person I can see getting himself in a froth here, Paul.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't think "unrepentant" is a misstatment at all, given that Polanski apparently continued to engage in such behavior after he relocated to Europe.

And we have that on good authority, do we?

[Paul McEnery]

There's only one person I can see getting himself in a froth here, Paul.

I get pretty sickened by people's willingness - no, desire - to get caught up in the 15 minutes of hate.

[The Cool Thatguy]

No, it really isn't.

It's not my place, and it's not your place, to decide whether or not Polanski was sufficiently punished for what he did. That's the place of the law, a law that must be seen to be administered justly. As Poirier, and Sokol, and indeed the judiciary of Switzerland took some pains to point out.

Prurient? Yes, it bloody is. What's going on with Polanski is none of my business, and it's none of your business. But somebody's gone out of their way to turn his whole life into a grubby little peep show for the glutinous masses to jam their tiny little shit-stained eyeballs into. Precious little disgusts me as much as the spineless public getting cheap thrills out of hating people for earning better lives than theirs.

But what disgusts me more is a corrupt political establishment that sucks the shit out of the arses of that spineless public so as to spew it back into their gullets come election season, which is exactly what was happening here.

Guess you missed the part where he got a slap on the wrist, and still fled before his sentence was complete, huh?


I get pretty sickened by people's willingness - no, desire - to get caught up in the 15 minutes of hate.

Personally, I've got a lifetime of hatred of child rapists. I see no reason why a famous director should be spared inclusion in that loathing, do you?

[JeffreyWKramer]

And we have that on good authority, do we?

He has himself admitted to the facts of the original charge. Other girls he's worked with have made statements suggesting the behavior has continued. Given what he's already admitted, and how little (if anything) anyone has to gain, I'm inclined accept the word of people who claim to have been victimized by an acknowledged victimizer.

[Spike-X]

I get pretty sickened by people's willingness - no, desire - to get caught up in the 15 minutes of hate.
So am I, as a rule, but again, I'm seeing very little 'frothing' going on here, apart from your good self.

I mean, we haven't even had anyone posting their torture porn fantasies about what they'd like to do to him yet.

[Charles RB]

I'd be more angry that the US Government dropped a ball here. I mean when it takes this :

And you won't comply...

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense if you want an extradition (unless, as Ian suggests, LA fucked up at the time). If you request information and it's not provided, it would be irresponsible and unethical - and AFAIK against Swiss law - to extradite. The Swiss did their part, the US dropped the ball. The Swiss come out of this as competent and following the law.

Plus, he was up for a short sentence in the US for the original crime IIRC. Thanks to his being an arrogant whiny snot, he's probably been in jail and house arrest in Switzerland longer than he'd have been in jail if he'd just got it over with. He's not just scum, he's a dumbass too.


It also points out that Polanski himself fully admitted everything from the start, and never tried to weasel his way out of it.

He plea-bargained in court and had the sentence reduced to a lesser one, he ran away to be a fugitive, and he's tried to downplay the event in interviews. When has he not tried to weasel his way out of taking responsibility?


I think most people dislike Polanski not for his having earned a lot of money, but rather for the fact that he drugged a teenage girl and had sex with her, and apparently then went on to take sexual advantage of other teenagers.

Sometimes it really is okay to be judgmental toward someone.

To paraphrase Have I Got News For You (on Jeffrey Archer), when someone's clearly guilty of being a fucking cunt "we can say these things now, isn't it wonderful?". Followed by "he's a tosspot".

And he is, y'know.

[Iangould]

2) Unrepentant? Where the hell do you get that from?

The interviews he's given where he admits that intercourse took place but insist that the girl consented.


3) Why on earth shouldn't he have gone free after serving the agreed upon sentence?

He didn't serve the agreed sentence.

There was a plea bargain supposedly agreed to which would have spared him a custodial sentence.

At the point, the judge who had previously ordered him to undergo a psychiatric assessment as an inmate in mental health facility, agreed to release him pending sentencing.

At that point, he fled the country.

He probably did so because he had some inkling of the improper contact between the Judge and the Prosecutor but the fact remains he didn't "serv[e] the agreed sentence.



Your moral outrage, on the other hand -- a moral outrage that has led you to assert elementary errors in fact so that you can indulge it -- has absolutely sweet FA to do with Polankski, and everything to do with you vicariously getting yourself in a froth, presumably because it feels good to do so.


Feel free to cite those "errors in fact" with quotes from me and with refuting evidence from reliable sources.

[Charles RB]

The interviews he's given where he admits that intercourse took place but insist that the girl consented.


I guess he wants us to forget the whole "drugged" part.

[Typo Lad]

I get pretty sickened by people's willingness - no, desire - to get caught up in the 15 minutes of hate.
You also have a constant trend of not just doubting sex abuse victims, but outright blaming them, so there's that.

[Alan Lynch]

He definitely deserves punishment for his crimes (the judge's bullshit doesn't excuse Polanski's bullshit), but he has made more good films than the average director. Repulsion and Chinatown, for starters, are unique and challenging pieces of work.

Edit: I think I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry about that.
Not a problem. I probably wasn't all that clear anyway.

Prurient? Yes, it bloody is. What's going on with Polanski is none of my business, and it's none of your business. But somebody's gone out of their way to turn his whole life into a grubby little peep show for the glutinous masses to jam their tiny little shit-stained eyeballs into. Precious little disgusts me as much as the spineless public getting cheap thrills out of hating people for earning better lives than theirs.
Meh, I had a response types up but I can't be bothered with it now. No idea why you're getting so wound up about this when nobody else here is - even the people who want him extradited.

[Freak]

He plea-bargained in court and had the sentence reduced to a lesser one, he ran away to be a fugitive, and he's tried to downplay the event in interviews. When has he not tried to weasel his way out of taking responsibility?

Good point. I guess he's a weasel in the long run.

Btw, re. the other cases: I only know of one other case where a woman has hinted at him trying anything with her when she wasn't of age, and that's a starlet that can need any publicity she can get. Is there a list of other victims, somewhere?

[Freak]

But, what makes you think that just because he served time, people would accept him when he got out?

Well, afaik he never again did anything of the like. This might, obviously, be completely wrong. But if it's the case, he wouldn't be a "true" pedophile, ie, someone with a mental predisposition towards girls. So I can see people forgive him when he's repentant. You have to keep in mind, we're not talking about "normal" people here. It is crazy with what kind of shit celebrities, especially of cinematic fame, get away with.

I mean, as is, he's still a convicted pedophile on the run from the law. Still world-renowned movie stars fly out of the country to be in movies directed by him, barely anybody boycotts his movies because of his past. I would think still enough people are still giving him a mean eye, but would they do it after he's been released as "completely rehabilitated"?

[Michael P]

You also have a constant trend of not just doubting sex abuse victims, but outright blaming them, so there's that.

Unless, of course, they're pointing the finger at a Catholic priest.

[Iangould]

Well, afaik he never again did anything of the like.

There are at least two other women who have accused him of assaulting them while they were below the age of consent.

He had an ongoing sexual relationship with Natassia Kinski that started when she was (IIRC) 15.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Thought I'd add the below link just to remind certain people that because a celeb did it, does not make it right or even smart.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18628_the-6-most-misguided-causes-ever-made-famous-by-celebrities.html

[Charles RB]

There are at least two other women who have accused him of assaulting them while they were below the age of consent.

He had an ongoing sexual relationship with Natassia Kinski that started when she was (IIRC) 15.

Why did people want to work with him again? There are other great directors who aren't doing dodgy shit with minors, surely.

[Nick Soapdish]

You all are going to think I'm a bad person and all, but I just don't have a problem with Polanski being let go by the Swiss.


I'm inclined to agree. I suspect that at least part of the reason that the US didn't comply was because of the LA court stuff so he might've gotten out of it on appeal anyway. So I guess I'm ok with just making him sweat it out a few months and then remain in exile in France (and now Switzerland). It's not what he deserves, but probably all that he's going to get.

[Spike-X]

Precious little disgusts me as much as the spineless public getting cheap thrills out of hating people for earning better lives than theirs.

Oh, and for the record, this is complete and utter fucking bollocks.

Nobody here is speaking against Polanski for that reason. They're speaking against him because he is perceived to have more or less gotten away with drugging and raping a thirteen-year-old girl. Which is a disgusting and cowardly act, whether it's Bubba down at the trailer park, or somebody who's good at making fillums.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Oh, and for the record, this is complete and utter fucking bollocks.

Nobody here is speaking against Polanski for that reason. They're speaking against him because he is perceived to have more or less gotten away with drugging and raping a thirteen-year-old girl. Which is a disgusting and cowardly act, whether it's Bubba down at the trailer park, or somebody who's good at making fillums.

Which is basically it in a nutshell. Roman Polanski in 1977 did a bad...horrible thing and the LA court system dropped the ball and then screwed up. Polanski ran off never facing that justice.

I don't hate Polanski. I mean what is he too me ? Just a film maker who did films. I don't like Polanski either. Its middle ground....he's in the news for doing a bad thing then and then now as the Swiss got him.

[rick]

Why did people want to work with him again? There are other great directors who aren't doing dodgy shit with minors, surely.

One thing people tend to forget these days was that back in the '70's while having sex with minors was still considered wrong, it just wasn't consdiered as wrong as it is today.

I'm not excusing the behavior, but you need to keep in mind the context and morals of the times to understand why so many people just were not as upset about it as people are today.

In the '70's most everybody was fucking everybody and most everyone was pretty high while doing it.

Again, not an excuse, because lots of what happened in the '70's was deplorable, but it does help to explain the attitude some people have.

[jesse_custer]

Why did people want to work with him again? There are other great directors who aren't doing dodgy shit with minors, surely.

Polanski isn't the first or last person with dodgy morals that these people worked with.

The following is an overstatement, but it's filmmaking, not Bible drills.

(Look at Alejandro Jodorowsky, for example. He claims that he raped an actress during the filming of El Topo.)

[The Cool Thatguy]

One thing people tend to forget these days was that back in the '70's while having sex with minors was still considered wrong, it just wasn't consdiered as wrong as it is today.

I'm not excusing the behavior, but you need to keep in mind the context and morals of the times to understand why so many people just were not as upset about it as people are today.

In the '70's most everybody was fucking everybody and most everyone was pretty high while doing it.

Again, not an excuse, because lots of what happened in the '70's was deplorable, but it does help to explain the attitude some people have.

Regardless of the age of consent, rape is still rape.

[jesse_custer]

He's talking about why some people have certain attitudes. He's not saying rape isn't rape.

[king mob]

Regardless of the age of consent, rape is still rape.

Essentially this is the point. The girl was raped & not one defense of Polanski, or length of time since the crime gets around this fact.

[The Cool Thatguy]

He's talking about why some people have certain attitudes. He's not saying rape isn't rape.

No, he's trying to slide one past another.

Rape is a terrible crime. Raping a child is even worse. But people try to downplay the first, by pretending the second, that she was a child, isn't exactly true due to her being close to the age of consent. And they blatently ignore how she was unable to give consent at all.

[jesse_custer]

He said fucking minors was and is wrong.

You are clearly attacking a strawman.

[jesse_custer]

Apologies for the double post.

[The Cool Thatguy]

He said fucking minors was and is wrong.

You are clearly attacking a strawman.

No, he's just trying to downplay unimportant elements hoping to do the same with what actually happened.

Really, all things considered, the fact that Roman had sex with a minor is the least of his crimes. He drugged her, for the purpose of raping her. That she was a then minor is pretty small in comparison to that.

[Charles RB]

Here's the extradition treaty between the US and Switzerland. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf)

And basically, the Swiss do require a statement of the punishment, the sentence et al before they can extradite. Both parties can also request more info before extraditing. So it's Washington's fuckup.

[Arvandor]

Here's the extradition treaty between the US and Switzerland. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf)

And basically, the Swiss do require a statement of the punishment, the sentence et al before they can extradite. Both parties can also request more info before extraditing. So it's Washington's fuckup.

Is it? How could they have presented such a description? Nobody seems to know what the sentence or punishment would be.

[Charles RB]

Is it? How could they have presented such a description? Nobody seems to know what the sentence or punishment would be.

It's required by the treaty, the US knew it, and Polanski had been about to get sentenced before he ran off (which is why the Swiss would need to know the sentence). Hence, fuck up.

[Alan Lynch]

No, he's just trying to downplay unimportant elements hoping to do the same with what actually happened.

Really, all things considered, the fact that Roman had sex with a minor is the least of his crimes. He drugged her, for the purpose of raping her. That she was a then minor is pretty small in comparison to that.
Rick isn't trying to downplay what Polanski did, read it again. He's tossing out a possible explanation for why some in The Industry continue to work with Polanski despite everything. Rick's trying to work out why a child rapist continues to get work, not putting his own views forward.

Apologies to Rick if I've put words in your mouth here.

[Spackling Compound]

Rick isn't trying to downplay what Polanski did, read it again. He's tossing out a possible explanation for why some in The Industry continue to work with Polanski despite everything. Rick's trying to work out why a child rapist continues to get work, not putting his own views forward.

Apologies to Rick if I've put words in your mouth here.

I can't believe that folks are seeking the "Industry" to do any more.

There are scads of actors who have done more and gotten away with it and they get work and are sought after.

[Iangould]

Is it? How could they have presented such a description? Nobody seems to know what the sentence or punishment would be.

They aren't required to say what punishment the particular individual will receive if convicted.

They're required to state the possible range of penalties set out in the relevant law.

This is to avoid cases where the penalty in the country seeking extradition is wildly disparate from what applies in the country being asked to extradite.

For example, most western countries wouldn't extradite someone to Saudi Arabia to be flogged or executed for adultery.

[rick]

Regardless of the age of consent, rape is still rape.

Well of course it is, how you would figure I think otherwise is beyond me.

Keep in mind that even though I was pointing out that by the standards of the time, what Polanski did was not considered as serious a crime as it is these days, it was still serius enough that even during the 1970's, a time when sexual rules were quite different, Polanski's crime was still baf enough to have him arrested and tried as a sexual predator.

Again, to be clear, Polanski commited a serious crime, but I do understand why some peple who were around during that era do not take the crime as seriously as other do.

I'm not excusing either the crime or these peoples reaction, I'm just doing my best to explain them.

[rick]

Rick isn't trying to downplay what Polanski did, read it again. He's tossing out a possible explanation for why some in The Industry continue to work with Polanski despite everything. Rick's trying to work out why a child rapist continues to get work, not putting his own views forward.

Apologies to Rick if I've put words in your mouth here.


No problem, you are more or less getting what it exactly right.

[CBikle]

What Polanski did, gives a bad name to child-rapists everywhere.

[dupersuper]

I guess he wants us to forget the whole "drugged" part.

Rapists do tend to avoid that topic...

[rick]

One other thing that I think does need to be pointed out if just for the sake of clairty, Polanski was not convicted of rape. Polanski was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, which while still a very serious crime is not the one that everybody keeps saying he was convicted of.

Now before anyone tells me that I am trying to make Polanski look less guity or whatever, all I am doing is pointing out the reality of what the actual crime he was convicted of was.

If we are going to discuss this situation there is nothing wrong with knowing the actual facts of the crime, motivation and trial.

Being clear about the case itself does not mean that I am holding Polanski in any less contempt than the rest of you.

[Iangould]

I'm not sure he was ever actually convicted of anything, technically, since he fled before the formal allocution.

Plus I'm pretty sure (from memory) that the charge was reduced from rape to unlawful intercourse as part of the plea bargaining process.

[Charles RB]

Plus I'm pretty sure (from memory) that the charge was reduced from rape to unlawful intercourse as part of the plea bargaining process.

It was. By law, he has to be treated and sentenced as someone who only committed unlawful intercourse.

Not being representatives of any judicial systems, we can still call him a drugging rapist so yay for us.

[rick]

Not being representatives of any judicial systems, we can still call him a drugging rapist so yay for us.

Can't argue with that.

[The Cool Thatguy]

One other thing that I think does need to be pointed out if just for the sake of clairty, Polanski was not convicted of rape. Polanski was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, which while still a very serious crime is not the one that everybody keeps saying he was convicted of.

Now before anyone tells me that I am trying to make Polanski look less guity or whatever, all I am doing is pointing out the reality of what the actual crime he was convicted of was.

If we are going to discuss this situation there is nothing wrong with knowing the actual facts of the crime, motivation and trial.

Being clear about the case itself does not mean that I am holding Polanski in any less contempt than the rest of you.

The only reason he was convicted of anything was because his victim was too young for his lawyer to call to the stand and paint her as a whore.

There is no excusing his actions, and the people defending him should know it. Period. They've protested against less.

[rick]

The only reason he was convicted of anything was because his victim was too young for his lawyer to call to the stand and paint her as a whore.

There is no excusing his actions, and the people defending him should know it. Period. They've protested against less.


I'm sorry, I'm not trying to get into a fight with you here, but I am really sort of bothered that you keep taking my attempts to discuss the details of the case as soom kind of defense of Polanski.

I've got three daughters of my own and if you think I am ignoring what Polanski did, you are simply wrong.

Just because I want to talk about the details and am not willing to spend all that time bitching about Polanski getting away with it, doesn't mean I am some kind of Polanski supporter and I would really appreciate it if you keep that in mind.

Thanks