Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland

[K-DoG7p7]

http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSLR5896620090927

[worstblogever]

I have no idea how this will turn out. His case was handled in a bizarre enough fashion... 30 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33042460/ns/entertainment-celebrities/

The Old News:

He plied a minor (only 13) with champagne, a quaalude and had oral sex, intercourse, and sodomized her, despite her protests.

Now, somehow, the justice system let him plea bargain to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He served a whopping 42 days where he was undergoing psych evalutions.

Now, based on the case informaiton, that's a really shoddy job by the prosecutor. The judge tried reneging on the plea bargain, which was another bizarre moment in the case... and then Polanski goes to France where he won't be extradited back the the U.S., and he's continued his career as a director.

Since, the victim in the case has outed herself to the public, had a lawsuit settled by Polanski with her, and has even asked for Polanski's dismissal, after all this time, and to put the matter behind her, as well.


And at a film festival in Switzerland (not so neutral now, are we?) they pick the guy up 32 years later, on the United States' outstanding warrant?


I've known about this case for a long time. It's a great tragedy of justice, and it made me sick to my stomach to know this guy's fame and wealth bought him the opportunity to get bail and skip the country, when he was almost given a slap on the wrist for victimizing a girl. And now, even when she wants the matter to be over... now something is being done?

I'm just baffled.

[Corrina]

He should have just served his time at the time and not fled, then this wouldn't dog him all his life.

He's convicted, the facts aren't in dispute, and while he deemed the original sentence as harsh, well, he drugged a thirteen-year-old to have sex with her, I for one am certainly good with him serving time.

If he'd done his time, and done a mea culpa when released, people would likely have moved past it long ago, including Polanski.

It's good that the victim herself let it go, yes, but that doesn't absolve him of the original crime OR running from custody. What, we're supposed to convicted child molesters flee the country to escape jail time because they're good filmmakers and never supposed to follow up?

[K-DoG7p7]

Ohh and kinda related

Susan Atkins died this thursday.
Susan as most know killed Roman's wife and unborn child in 69

[worstblogever]

He should have just served his time at the time and not fled, then this wouldn't dog him all his life.

He's convicted, the facts aren't in dispute, and while he deemed the original sentence as harsh, well, he drugged a thirteen-year-old to have sex with her, I for one am certainly good with him serving time.

If he'd done his time, and done a mea culpa when released, people would likely have moved past it long ago, including Polanski.

It's good that the victim herself let it go, yes, but that doesn't absolve him of the original crime OR running from custody. What, we're supposed to convicted child molesters flee the country to escape jail time because they're good filmmakers and never supposed to follow up?

Yeah, I guess. It's a long time coming, to be sure. He deserved a harsh sentence then, and now... well, while the statute of limitations on rape for California is 10 years... the charges were brought up, and trial completed in absentia within that time. It isn't like this was 32 years past when everything went down.

Still, if this is justice, how did it take three decades? Have authorities been waiting for him to get cocky and leave the confines of France this whole time? Nobody's ever managed to get him into a country that would cooperate with the U.S. prosecutors since the 1970s?



Ohh and kinda related

Susan Atkins died this thursday.
Susan as most know killed Roman's wife and unborn child in 69

Also a bizarre coincidence.

[stealthwise]

What's the statute of limitations on fleeing prosecution and imprisonment? I would definitely say nail him to the wall for that.

[worstblogever]

What's the statute of limitations on fleeing prosecution and imprisonment? I would definitely say nail him to the wall for that.

I don't think there seems to be one, as he was tried, and convicted in absentia. He's considered a fugitive from justice, all this time.

Usually, the only things that don't follow statute of limitations are murder and treason, but apparently escaping incarceration counts towards that, as you're supposed to serve time, period. It has come up (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/07/judge-denies-roman-polans_n_199557.html), and the whole thing seems to hedge on whether or not his rights were violated when he was tried in absentia.

[Charles RB]

He should have just served his time at the time and not fled, then this wouldn't dog him all his life.

I like how the festival directors say they "received this news with great consternation and shock" - he had an outstanding warrant against him for a crime he did commit and did a runner for, you shouldn't really be shocked to know he's finally been nabbed.

Have authorities been waiting for him to get cocky and leave the confines of France this whole time? Nobody's ever managed to get him into a country that would cooperate with the U.S. prosecutors since the 1970s?

Probably.

[wrecksracer]

From what I understand, he had a plea bargain arranged and the judge was going to reneg on the deal. That's why he fled. Apparently the judge was a prima donna who thought he was the star of the trial. It looked like Mr. Polanski was going to get railroaded. Not saying that it's alright to ply a minor with drugs and alcohol to get sex but he settled with her since then. Everybody but the United States government considers the matter closed. It's bad enough that he had his unborn child carved out of his pregnant wife. Let the man go.

[Charles RB]

Let the man go.

Why should the US government let a man go for skipping bail and being a fugitive for child molestation?

[rick]

Polanski really does need to get this behind him, one way or another.

Still I will always be bothered that the victims mother will never face a judge over setting up the “seduction” in the first place.

She was the classic example of an evil stage mother who passed her child off as an 18 year old and then instead of going directly to the police when her daughter was “victimized” instead attempted to blackmail Polanski into giving her daughter film roles instead.

What Polanski did was very, very wrong, and he does need to face the music, whatever that turns out to be, but he was not the only one in the wrong, and this case was never simple black and white.

[rick]

Why should the US government let a man go for skipping bail and being a fugitive for child molestation?

Polanski was not convicted of child molestation.

[Corrina]

From the CNN story:

"The Academy Award-winning director pleaded guilty in 1977 to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, acknowledging he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, but fled the United States before he could be sentenced. U.S. authorities issued a warrant for his arrest in 1978."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html

I read the rest of the story. There was a plea bargain in place but then the judge sent him to jail for 42 for psychological evaluation and said that he was inclined to send Polanski away for another 48 days.

So we're not talking years. We're talking less than two months.

He did have sex with a minor, he did put drugs in her drink, and he did flee the country. Whether other people are culpable is beside the point to those actions.

Now, the CNN story said the DA in the case is willing to talk about mitigating the sentence and getting this resolved but they won't do *anything* until Polanski is no longer a fugitive from justice. And the victim does want this all done with but she said because it keeps getting brought up and she's moved past it and she hates that.

But Polanski's the one who fled, and Polanski's the one standing in the way of it being resolved, nobody else.

[rick]

At '76, I can't help but wonder if Polanski, who spent the first part of his life as a prisoner of the Nazi's will finish his life as a prisoner of the USA.

It makes for a very sad bit of symmetry.

[worstblogever]

At '76, I can't help but wonder if Polanski, who spent the first part of his life as a prisoner of the Nazi's will finish his life as a prisoner of the USA.

It makes for a very sad bit of symmetry.

Makes me kind of understand why the guy was hesitant to go back behind bars. All sorts of ugly memories seeded deep in there.

Still, he did a really horrible thing, he should have gone then. Even if he was railroaded by that judge and given the maximum sentence, he could have appealed, gotten a different judge, and been out in months.

There really isn't a clear path on how to proceed on this case, even my normal legal standards, given the bizarre time frames, motivations of those involved (like the extorting mother of the victim. Seriously, you're trying to parlay your daughter's rape into her fame and fortune? Just... wow.), and other mitigating circumstances.

[Free-Man]

Makes me kind of understand why the guy was hesitant to go back behind bars. All sorts of ugly memories seeded deep in there.

Still, he did a really horrible thing, he should have gone then. Even if he was railroaded by that judge and given the maximum sentence, he could have appealed, gotten a different judge, and been out in months.

There really isn't a clear path on how to proceed on this case, even my normal legal standards, given the bizarre time frames, motivations of those involved (like the extorting mother of the victim. Seriously, you're trying to parlay your daughter's rape into her fame and fortune? Just... wow.), and other mitigating circumstances.

Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if he commited sucide rather than serve out his sentence.

[Corrina]

C'mon.

What mitigating circumstances forced Polanski into drugging a 13-year-old and having sex with her? Somebody put a gun to his head? Blackmail him before the fact?

Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say "well, he thought she was older," then it is STILL rape. He drugged her.

If he went to jail then or he goes back to jail now, he's got no one to blame but himself.

It's like saying because Mike Vick grew up in a culture of dog-fighting and didn't know how to get out that he shouldn't be punished for killing dogs. At least Vick did his time and admits his mistake, and seems to want to make up for it.

[Lester C.]

This seems clear cut. Drugged her, raped her, got the hell out of the country before and the hammer came down. The fact that he made some movies that resonated with a lot of people and lost his wife to murder doesn't mitigate any of that.

[worstblogever]

C'mon.

What mitigating circumstances forced Polanski into drugging a 13-year-old and having sex with her? Somebody put a gun to his head? Blackmail him before the fact?

Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say "well, he thought she was older," then it is STILL rape. He drugged her.

If he went to jail then or he goes back to jail now, he's got no one to blame but himself.

It's like saying because Mike Vick grew up in a culture of dog-fighting and didn't know how to get out that he shouldn't be punished for killing dogs. At least Vick did his time and admits his mistake, and seems to want to make up for it.

Corrina, I'm not excusing the guy, at all. It's a fucked up situation, and I know he deserved serious hard time for it. The mitigating circumstance I was talking about is more about the fact that he was given a plea-bargain to a lesser charge, and he plead guilty, and then the judge reneged on the deal.

The fact that there's already a confession on record to the lesser charge sort of meant he was dead to rights in any sort of trial that would have happened from there. The whole handling of his case was a miscarriage of justice. He's guilty, absolutely, we know that because of that, but it's how that guilt was determined that violates most of his civil rights.

Now, having said that, I'd wonder how the hell a prosecutor and judge agreed to that plea bargain in the first place. And again, I feel the need to say that it was horrible, and he should serve time. But the justice system failed in how to handle this. Miserably.

Legally, I wish there was a "do over" that could make this all simple, and put the rapist in jail. I don't know that there actually is one, though.

[Corrina]

Heck, I don't want to see him do hard time, even.

Just come back and face the courts. The CNN article said he'd done 42 days and would do 48 more originally. Is that correct? Is so, how is that hard time?? That 90 days--three months--for a rape.

If it is correct, I don't feel one little bit bad for the guy, even if the judge reneged on a plea bargain that had no jail time.

[schwamp]

At '76, I can't help but wonder if Polanski, who spent the first part of his life as a prisoner of the Nazi's will finish his life as a prisoner of the USA.

It makes for a very sad bit of symmetry.

Doesn't bother me at all. His Nazi imprisonment makes him a sympathetic victim. His rape of a 13 year old girl makes him a pedophile and a rapist. Fleeing the country before facing conviction makes him a fugitive of justice.
Stale bread and water in a 6 x 6 for the rest of his deserved sentence is OK with me.

[rick]

Makes me kind of understand why the guy was hesitant to go back behind bars. All sorts of ugly memories seeded deep in there.

Still, he did a really horrible thing, he should have gone then. Even if he was railroaded by that judge and given the maximum sentence, he could have appealed, gotten a different judge, and been out in months.

There really isn't a clear path on how to proceed on this case, even my normal legal standards, given the bizarre time frames, motivations of those involved (like the extorting mother of the victim. Seriously, you're trying to parlay your daughter's rape into her fame and fortune? Just... wow.), and other mitigating circumstances.


He absolutely should have done his time, whatever that would have been, back in the '70's, and gotten this situation settled.

And although admittedly there were times in my youth when I too have plied women with liquor and drugs, a 44 year old man getting a young girl high and coxing her into sex is wrong, even if the girl was 18 as Polanski believed.

Still, in all honesty I know that if this were almost anyone else I wouldn’t be a tenth as sympathetic, and yet I can’t help but find myself feeling sorry for Polanski.

I don’t know if it’s the concentration camp stuff, or the Manson killings, or the reality that there was more going on in the case than Polanski messing with a teenager, or just that Polanski directed Chinatown, which I consider to be the greatest movie in film history, but emotionally I find myself siding with Polanski, even if my brain tells me I shouldn’t.

[worstblogever]

Heck, I don't want to see him do hard time, even.

Just come back and face the courts. The CNN article said he'd done 42 days and would do 48 more originally. Is that correct? Is so, how is that hard time?? That 90 days--three months--for a rape.

He fled because he was being told the judge was aware that the plea bargain was met with criticism by the public, so the judge was reneging that deal, and was going to seek out the maximum sentence, instead, which was like 25 years. He wasn't willing to do that.

Which, yeah, tough s***, if that's the time. But the prosecutor and judge had already approved the plea bargain... any trial to give him that huge sentence was a slam dunk.

[worstblogever]

He absolutely should have done his time, whatever that would have been, back in the '70's, and gotten this situation settled.

And although admittedly there were times in my youth when I too have plied women with liquor and drugs, a 44 year old man getting a young girl high and coxing her into sex is wrong, even if the girl was 18 as Polanski believed.

Still, in all honesty I know that if this were almost anyone else I wouldn’t be a tenth as sympathetic, and yet I can’t help but find myself feeling sorry for Polanski.

I don’t know if it’s the concentration camp stuff, or the Manson killings, or the reality that there was more going on in the case than Polanski messing with a teenager, or just that Polanski directed Chinatown, which I consider to be the greatest movie in film history, but emotionally I find myself siding with Polanski, even if my brain tells me I shouldn’t.

When I hear "A guy drugged a 13 year old girl, raped and sodomized her." my first reaction goes well beyond just prison. I have hopes a person that does that would be killed in prison by other inmates.

But with all that other stuff involved, I have no idea what to think.

[rick]

When I hear "A guy drugged a 13 year old girl, raped and sodomized her." my first reaction goes well beyond just prison. I have hopes a person that does that would be killed in prison by other inmates.

But with all that other stuff involved, I have no idea what to think.

Let's be clear though, Polanski was not convicted of drugging and then raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, he was convicted of having consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, whom everyone including the prosecution admit Polanski believed was 18 years old at the time.

I am not defending statutory rape, but the accusations leveled are very different then the crime he pled guilty to.

[worstblogever]

Let's be clear though, Polanski was not convicted of drugging and then raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, he was convicted of having consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, whom everyone including the prosecution admit Polanski believed was 18 years old at the time.

I am not defending statutory rape, but the accusations leveled are very different then the crime he pled guilty to.

Yeah, the whole matter is a total failure of the U.S. criminal justice system.

I'm just wondering, did the state try to have charges pressed against the victim's mother for the attempt at extortion? I mean, in my mind, Polanski should have gone to jail, yes, but the victim's mother not reporting the crime and trying to use her daughter's victimization for financial gain... at the very least CPS could have made a move against her for it, right?

Again, totally fucked up situation, but the 13 year old is a victim. Not just of Polanski raping her, but her mother seemed to be victimizing her in a whole other way.

[schwamp]

He absolutely should have done his time, whatever that would have been, back in the '70's, and gotten this situation settled.

And although admittedly there were times in my youth when I too have plied women with liquor and drugs, a 44 year old man getting a young girl high and coxing her into sex is wrong, even if the girl was 18 as Polanski believed.

Still, in all honesty I know that if this were almost anyone else I wouldn’t be a tenth as sympathetic, and yet I can’t help but find myself feeling sorry for Polanski.

I don’t know if it’s the concentration camp stuff, or the Manson killings, or the reality that there was more going on in the case than Polanski messing with a teenager, or just that Polanski directed Chinatown, which I consider to be the greatest movie in film history, but emotionally I find myself siding with Polanski, even if my brain tells me I shouldn’t.

I totally get that. What he did makes him despicable. But it is not all he is. His work as a director shows him to be capable of beautiful thought and vision. There is a strong dissonance here. It's is difficult to be black and white about the man. However, it seems very black and white with regard to his deserving to face justice for his crimes.

[rick]

However, it seems very black and white with regard to his deserving to face justice for his crimes.

I do agree with that.

The girl regardless of the soap opera elements of the case was clearly a victim and what Polanski did, even if she had been of age was truly reprehensible .

[worstblogever]

I do agree with that.

The girl regardless of the soap opera elements of the case was clearly a victim and what Polanski did, even if she had been of age was truly reprehensible .

So, cut all the other stuff out and it goes like this:

Date rape. Still a crime. Even in the swingin' 70s, when they rarely prosecuted it, regrettably.


Yeah, sorry Roman. All things aside, that still is pretty heinous.

[jerrymcl89]

They really should be able to work something out where he does some token jail time (I realize token jail time is the kind other people do, but still, he ought to do some for fleeing the country).

[Christopher Cross Is God]

C'mon.

What mitigating circumstances forced Polanski into drugging a 13-year-old and having sex with her? Somebody put a gun to his head? Blackmail him before the fact?

Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say "well, he thought she was older," then it is STILL rape. He drugged her.

If he went to jail then or he goes back to jail now, he's got no one to blame but himself.


The whole situation debunks the myth that someone won't go for underaged girls, or commit an outright act of rape, because they can get attractive women (Polanski has been with some very attractive women. In particular, Sharon Tate).............Of course, everyone's different, and there may be rapists who commit the act because they can't attain certain types of women.



It's like saying because Mike Vick grew up in a culture of dog-fighting and didn't know how to get out that he shouldn't be punished for killing dogs. At least Vick did his time and admits his mistake, and seems to want to make up for it.


Do you really think he feels remorse over dog-fighting? If he hadn't been caught, he'd still be doing it........I see his signs of remorse as more of a public relations move than anything else.

Although, and I don't think this is the case, but it's possible he may feel guilty after reading & hearing many outcries from dog-lovers. He may not have previously looked at the whole thing from that perspective.



Let's be clear though, Polanski was not convicted of drugging and then raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, he was convicted of having consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, whom everyone including the prosecution admit Polanski believed was 18 years old at the time.

I am not defending statutory rape, but the accusations leveled are very different then the crime he pled guilty to.


Yeah........Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but sodomy doesn't necessarily mean he had anal intercourse with her. It's a general term meant to describe any sexual act which is deemed "abnormal" or against the law.

When someone's accused of sodomy, it can imply a lot more than what actually happened.

[Corrina]

It's a judgment call about Vick but I saw him in a recent interview where he was clearly upset telling a story about how his daughter asked to get a family dog and he had to explain to her exactly why he's not allowed to have dogs.

I don't know if remorse is it but I'm fairly sure that he's not going to harm dogs again.

[sweetdreams]

I know wiki isn't reliable, but I remembered the interview with the girl not too long ago.

Sex crime conviction
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now known as Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[24]

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her,[25][26][27] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[28] In the 2003 interview, Geimer says she resisted. "I said no several times, and then, well, gave up on that."[29]

[edit] Charges and guilty plea
Polanski was initially charged[30] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[31]

Following the plea agreement, according to the aforementioned documentary, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens. An extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government can request that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[32]

Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home in absentia. The United States can still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski has avoided visits to countries that are likely to extradite him (such as the UK) and mostly travels and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.

In a 2003 interview,[33] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".

In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[34]

In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski's attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney's office about prosecutor David Wells' role in coaching judge Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton are seeking review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.[35]

In December 2008, Polanski's lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing says that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.[36]

In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski will not appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.[37][38]

That same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family

-Wiki

[Red Jack]

Rather than face the LEGAL ramifications of his actions as determined by the country he CHOSE to live in and BECOME RICH, Polanski fled the jurisdiction. Nobody cares what he claims he believed about the girl's age. That is not an element of that form of rape as many unhappy men will tell you. Actual age of the players is all that matters. And, of course, it must be so otherwise 30 year old guy could bed down any 13 year old girl and subsequently claim he "believed" she was 21.

In fact Polanski had a prior history- culturally acceptable or not- of being with underage girls that he KNEW were in their mid and low teens. He likes 'em that way. Regardless of how things are done in the Old Country, in THIS country we have strict rules about that, rules he believed himself to be above. He proved he didn't give a damn about American laws when he skipped the country rather than face a just verdict. Prick.

I believe the law is, even if the ultimate verdict on his case had been an acquittal, the fact that he FLED THE COUNTRY before sitting for it makes him a felon.

I'm glad he got nailed. I hope he's extradited and I hope he serves every single day of his time.

There is no gray area here. You don't get to superimpose your values over that of this nation's law. You don't like how your case is going, you don't get to skip out and then snipe about it from the safety of another country.

He's a selfish, self-centered felon and now, I hope, he will finally pay what he owes.

[FeminineMystique]

I like how the festival directors say they "received this news with great consternation and shock" - he had an outstanding warrant against him for a crime he did commit and did a runner for, you shouldn't really be shocked to know he's finally been nabbed.
.

The "Consternation" part is what makes me laugh in a "Not very funny at all" way. "Oh sure, he's a pedophile and a rapist...but you ARRESTED him!? That could spoil the whole festival!":mad:

[Charles RB]

There does seem to be a big outcry from European artists as if he's not avoiding a fucking rape charge. Which is silly.

I can see why the French government is making noises, they have to since it's one of their citizens being grabbed and that's not covered under French extradition law.

[FeminineMystique]

There does seem to be a big outcry from European artists as if he's not avoiding a fucking rape charge. Which is silly.

I can see why the French government is making noises, they have to since it's one of their citizens being grabbed and that's not covered under French extradition law.

Silly doesn't begin to cover it. Anyone who'd honestly be ANGRY about a rapist being convicted gets nothing but disdain from me. It doesn't matter whether Polanski is good at what he does. The only thing that matters here is what he did to that poor girl

[Charles RB]

Possibly they're misinformed about the case? (I'd hope so anyway)

[ShaunN]

I think that what Polanski did was heinous and inexcusable. The wishes of the victim at this point are immaterial - if raping and sodomizing a child is unacceptable behaviour, then society has an obligation to take a stand. I think that Polanski has gotten away with this for far too long.

When I heard the story, what I found particularly vexing was a Swiss commenter who was saying how ashamed he was to be Swiss and how Polanski's work had fed the enjoyment of millions of people the world over. Uh, so what? Since when does being a gifted artist exempt one from the laws? I find this kind of reasoning to be horrendous and incredibly myopic. An artist who is talented, gifted, affected the lives of millions, etc. , is all well and good. But no matter how good an artist you are, it does not protect you from the obligations of being a decent human being.

[ShaunN]

If Ms. Geimer's original story is true, then Polanski is either very sick or very repulsive. Either way, the technicalities around what the judge may or may not have done are immaterial.

[schwamp]

In fact Polanski had a prior history- culturally acceptable or not- of being with underage girls that he KNEW were in their mid and low teens.

I'd not heard of this before. Do you have a source?

[Evan Waters]

If Ms. Geimer's original story is true, then Polanski is either very sick or very repulsive. Either way, the technicalities around what the judge may or may not have done are immaterial.

Not really. The judge has to act within the law as well.

Not that Polanski shouldn't serve time- I'd go with whatever the deal was going to be plus some years added on for evading arrest or whatever the charge is formally.

[DeadXMan]

Polanski was not convicted of child molestation.

he plead guilty and fled the country on the eve of the sentencing.
Meaning he was convicted.

[Sabrinaset]

Silly doesn't begin to cover it. Anyone who'd honestly be ANGRY about a rapist being convicted gets nothing but disdain from me. It doesn't matter whether Polanski is good at what he does. The only thing that matters here is what he did to that poor girl

I'll go one step further ... it really sickens me that there are people feeling sorry for this guy. I mean, look what we have here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6851581.ece) ...

Samantha Geimer, who was the teenager in question and who has called for the case against Polanski to be dropped after she reached a settlement with the director, recalled in 2003 that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she said in an interview.

I'm sorry, what do we call it when a woman says no ...? I'm sure there's a word for it somewhere. It really pisses me off that there are people who don't consider the guy a scumbucket because he made a few movies.

The guys a freaking rapist, I don't care what he pleaded down to. Case closed.

[rick]

he plead guilty and fled the country on the eve of the sentencing.
Meaning he was convicted.


No, you are not correct.

Polanski was convicted of having consenual sex with a minor.

He was not convicted of child molestation.

Different crime.

[NickThompson]

Still, he did a really horrible thing, he should have gone then. Even if he was railroaded by that judge and given the maximum sentence, he could have appealed, gotten a different judge, and been out in months.

It's not like he hasn't had similer chances since either:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8277176.stm
Earlier this year, Judge Peter Espinoza agreed there was misconduct by the judge in the original case, but said Mr Polanski must return to the US to apply for dismissal.

Mr Polanski's lawyers said he would not return to the US because he would be immediately arrested as a fugitive.

[DeadXMan]

No, you are not correct.

Polanski was convicted of having consenual sex with a minor.

He was not convicted of child molestation.

Different crime.


Ummm since when is giving someone a rolfy considered conseneual?

[worstblogever]

Ummm since when is giving someone a rolfy considered conseneual?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D1ZZyTOG7tQ/SoqY8X4AAvI/AAAAAAAAFNQ/fvogKeab0qM/s400/Rowlf+the+Dog.jpg

???

[DeadXMan]

what? The god damn thing is freaky.

anyway he sliped her a fucking Mickey.

[Alan Lynch]

I really hope he does time, both for the crime itself and fleeing the country. I honestly don't care if the original judge railroaded him - guy drugged a girl and raped her. And I've never understood how he gets a free ride for that for making a couple of decent films.

Now I've never seen it, but didn't he appear in Rush Hour 3 in a cameo that makes light of all of this? At least that's what a friend told me after he saw the film.

[worstblogever]

I really hope he does time, both for the crime itself and fleeing the country. I honestly don't care if the original judge railroaded him - guy drugged a girl and raped her. And I've never understood how he gets a free ride for that for making a couple of decent films.

Now I've never seen it, but didn't he appear in Rush Hour 3 in a cameo that makes light of all of this? At least that's what a friend told me after he saw the film.

I don't seem to recall a scene where he gave Jackie Chan half a quaalude and sodomized him. Or Chris Tucker, for that matter.

EDIT: Nevermind... he "searches" them upon their arrival at the airport. No drugging involved, but definitely some cavity searching.

[Alan Lynch]

I don't seem to recall a scene where he gave Jackie Chan half a quaalude and sodomized him. Or Chris Tucker, for that matter.
Not even in the out-takes? No, he plays a baggage handler or something and I assumed they'd hint at some sort of sexual deviancy like the whole thing was a big laugh. But again, haven't seen it.

[worstblogever]

Not even in the out-takes? No, he plays a baggage handler or something and I assumed they'd hint at some sort of sexual deviancy like the whole thing was a big laugh. But again, haven't seen it.

A sadistic cop that they meet at customs. See above post for more details.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Two points worth making clear. Not saying others in the thread don't know these, just want them out there for members who might be confused by some of the legal issues:

Minors cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse with an adult so the charge he pleaded guilty to was not "consensual sex with a minor." The willingness of the minor is not a factor, although she's always maintained that she said no. That's why it was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," often referred to by the less legalese term statutory rape. This was a felony conviction, also, because Polanski was so much older than the girl.

Though there might have been other misconduct, the judge wasn't doing anything wrong simply by "reneging" on the plea deal. Judges are in no way bound by plea deals, those are simply prosecution recommendations.

[Charles RB]

I thought they had to follow plea bargain deals?

Ummm since when is giving someone a rolfy considered conseneual?

Possibly it was going to be hard to prove that, so he was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense so they could convict him of something.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I thought they had to follow plea bargain deals?


Nope, they aren't bound by them and I've read they even made Polanski aware of this fact. While covering trials as a reporter I've seen judges tell people who are about to be sentenced that although they usually take the plea deal into account, they do not have to go along with its recommendations.

[Sean Walsh]

I thought they had to follow plea bargain deals?

Not really. While plea bargains (which work different from state to state) have to be ok'd by the court, the judge can void/renege the deal if (a) they don't think it's appropriate, or (b) they don't feel the defendant is living up to their end of the deal.

[Evan Waters]

It depends on whether it's a binding or non-binding plea agreement.

If it's a binding one, the judge can only renege in order to force a trial- he can't say "I accept that you're guilty, but you have to serve this sentence instead."

[Tobias March]

Good.

10 characters.

[rick]

Ummm since when is giving someone a rolfy considered conseneual?


It isn't, but then again that's never what Polanski was accused of..

[rick]

Minors cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse with an adult so the charge he pleaded guilty to was not "consensual sex with a minor." The willingness of the minor is not a factor, although she's always maintained that she said no. That's why it was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," often referred to by the less legalese term statutory rape. This was a felony conviction, also, because Polanski was so much older than the girl.


You are right I should not have written that he was convicted of haivng "consenual" sex with a minor when he was actually convicted of having sex with a minor.

I used that term though because at the time of the case the Prosecution used the "consenual" nature of the encounter, as well as the fact that both the girl and her mother lied to Polanski about the girls age, as a reason to offer Polanski the light deal they offered him in the original plea bargin.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I used that term though because at the time of the case the Prosecution used the "consenual" nature of the encounter, as well as the fact that both the girl and her mother lied to Polanski about the girls age, as a reason to offer Polanski the light deal they offered him in the original plea bargin.


Why would the girl & her mother lie about her age? Was there a certain age-range the magazine was going for in the photoshoot?

[FeminineMystique]

I'll go one step further ... it really sickens me that there are people feeling sorry for this guy. I mean, look what we have here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6851581.ece) ...



I'm sorry, what do we call it when a woman says no ...? I'm sure there's a word for it somewhere. It really pisses me off that there are people who don't consider the guy a scumbucket because he made a few movies.

The guys a freaking rapist, I don't care what he pleaded down to. Case closed.

I wish I hadn't clicked that link darling, I now feel sick to my stomach. Their actually trying to make POLANSKI out to be the victim here? And worse, people want to start some diplomatic pissing match over Polanski being extradited? Oh yes, bringing a child molester to justice. Clearly, this is the most EVIL thing the US has ever done and they can't be allowed to get away with it:rolleyes:

That article makes me honestly just shake my head in shame that there are people who seem to think "Sure, he's a rapist. But he's made some GREAT movies, how dare they arrest him?"

I don't seem to recall a scene where he gave Jackie Chan half a quaalude and sodomized him. Or Chris Tucker, for that matter.

EDIT: Nevermind... he "searches" them upon their arrival at the airport. No drugging involved, but definitely some cavity searching.

I'm suddenly very glad I never went to see that movie:mad:

And WBE, please. Normally I get a good laugh out of your posts, but there's nothing funny about what Polanski did. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened, it doesn't change that it's not something to joke about

[Charles RB]

people want to start some diplomatic pissing match over Polanski being extradited?

The French government doesn't extradite citizens to the US; they're obliged to complain if one of their citizens is nabbed abroad.

Which isn't nice, but it's a different level of nasty from non-govt reactions.

[Corrina]

It isn't, but then again that's never what Polanski was accused of..

So we're completely not believing the victim, then?

[FeminineMystique]

The French government doesn't extradite citizens to the US; they're obliged to complain if one of their citizens is nabbed abroad.

Which isn't nice, but it's a different level of nasty from non-govt reactions.

I have to wonder if they'd be bothered if it was just some random guy and not a famous film maker who got caught.

[rick]

Why would the girl & her mother lie about her age? Was there a certain age-range the magazine was going for in the photoshoot?


Depends on who you ask actually.

Angelica Huston who was in the house at the time this all happened, said that it was very clear that the girl and her mother were looking to casting couch the girl into a movie carrier.

And that certainly that seems to be a view the prosecution took into account at the time.

[Evan Waters]

I have to wonder if they'd be bothered if it was just some random guy and not a famous film maker who got caught.

The French government, probably. Everyone else, no.

[FeminineMystique]

Depends on who you ask actually.

Angelica Huston who was in the house at the time this all happened, said that it was very clear that the girl and her mother were looking to casting couch the girl into a movie carrier.

And that certainly that seems to be a view the prosecution took into account at the time.

Even in the VERY unlikely event that Polanski didn't know she was underage, at the end of the day she said no. That's all that matters

The French government, probably. Everyone else, no.

I guess I have a more cynical view of the French government

[rick]

So we're completely not believing the victim, then?

I've been following this case for 30 years now and I do believe that Polanski did get her drunk and got her to consent to have sex with him, which even if she was 18, would have been pretty creepy considering that Polanski was as old then as I am now.

But the prosecution seemed to believe that there was something to the claim that both the mother and daughter had mislead Polanski about the girls age, as well as the accusation that there was an attempt by the girls mother to get Polanski to put the girl into films using the encounter as a wedge and then only going to the police after Polanski refused, that certainly makes me have some doubts about her version of events.

I guess after all this time, my view is that what Polanski did was pretty disgusting and more than a bit creepy, but I also do not believe that he intentionally broke the law.

He shouldn’t have fled the country, but at the same time after seeing the California justice system at work as intricately as Polanski had just a few years earlier, I can understand why he would not want to put his fate in the hands of a judge who was looking for some good press.

[rick]

Even in the VERY unlikely event that Polanski didn't know she was underage, at the end of the day she said no. That's all that matters



Except she even says that she eventually "gave in".

[NickThompson]

I have to wonder if they'd be bothered if it was just some random guy and not a famous film maker who got caught.
Yes probably, since France has a non-extradition stance with the US. They wouldn't be happy if the US tried to get around this reguardless of who is involved.

[Evan Waters]

I guess I have a more cynical view of the French government

Well, the cynicism goes both ways. Either they're showing favoritism to a celebrity, or they're showing favoritism to someone because of blind nationalism.

[FeminineMystique]

I've been following this case for 30 years now and I do believe that Polanski did get her drunk and got her to consent to have sex with him, which even if she was 18, would have been pretty creepy considering that Polanski was as old then as I am now.

But the prosecution seemed to believe that there was something to the claim that both the mother and daughter had mislead Polanski about the girls age, as well as the accusation that there was an attempt by the girls mother to get Polanski to put the girl into films using the encounter as a wedge and then only going to the police after Polanski refused, that certainly makes me have some doubts about her version of events.

I guess after all this time, my view is that what Polanski did was pretty disgusting and more than a bit creepy, but I also do not believe that he intentionally broke the law.

He shouldn’t have fled the country, but at the same time after seeing the California justice system at work as intricately as Polanski had just a few years earlier, I can understand why he would not want to put his fate in the hands of a judge who was looking for some good press.

Um, getting someone so drunk that you can have sex with them when normally they wouldn't agree to it isn't "A little creepy" it's rape. It's what's called a CRIME last time I checked.

[rick]

Um, getting someone so drunk that you can have sex with them when normally they wouldn't agree to it isn't "A little creepy" it's rape. It's what's called a CRIME last time I checked.

Not in 1977.

[FeminineMystique]

Except she even says that she eventually "gave in".

:mad:

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

So because eventually she stopped trying to resist the man raping her, it's HER fault it happened?

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Um, getting someone so drunk that you can have sex with them when normally they wouldn't agree to it isn't "A little creepy" it's rape. It's what's called a CRIME last time I checked.

I'm not speaking for myself, as I've never done such, but some men consider that foreplay.

[rick]

:mad:

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

So because eventually she stopped trying to resist the man raping her, it's HER fault it happened?


I'm sorry but I don't see where I have said anything of the kind, and it certainly is not what I am infering.

I'm just pointing out that at the time if she had been of age what Polanski did would have been wrong, but not against the law.

[FeminineMystique]

I'm sorry but I don't see where I have said anything of the kind, and it certainly is not what I am infering.

I'm just pointing out that at the time if she had been of age what Polanski did would have been wrong, but not against the law.

That's how I read the post, if it's not what you meant I apologise.

But no, it would not have been legal. It became a crime the minute she told him no and he didn't stop.

And pretending what he did is in any way defensible is ridiculous.

[NickThompson]

Well, the cynicism goes both ways. Either they're showing favoritism to a celebrity, or they're showing favoritism to someone because of blind nationalism.
Well there is the third option, they can't have a non-extradition policy if they let extraditions happen.

[king mob]

There does seem to be a big outcry from European artists as if he's not avoiding a fucking rape charge. Which is silly.



I've just read the above comment as Channel 4 News showed a clip of Debra Winger essentilly saying 'yes, we know he's a paedophile but he's an artist!!'

Personally, there's a lot about this that isn't as clear as it was after reading much about the case today. One thing is certain in that he raped a 13 year old, (which is obviously going to light most people's blue touchpaper) but I have a horrible feeling that this was in some way normal behaviour (the whole casting couch/underage sex thing) for not just Polanski, but around Hollywood at the time.

I will have to watch Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, and see what's said there.

[rick]

That's how I read the post, if it's not what you meant I apologise.

But no, it would not have been legal. It became a crime the minute she told him no and he didn't stop.

And pretending what he did is in any way defensible is ridiculous.


I'm really not defending Polanski's actions, I've got 3 daughters in their 20's and am not likely to feel too much sympathy to anyone my age trying to get in their pants. Let alone when they were 13.

And regardless of the legality, the extra Hollywood trappings and international chase, Polanski had sex with a 13 year old, and even if he thought she was 18 that does not excuse the act.

But, I would be a liar if I said that I totally believed the girls story.

In rape cases of course our trust and sympathy should be with the victim, but at the same time, there was serious enough evidence throwing doubt on her version of events that the prosecution did plea bargain Polanski down to a lesser offense, though admittedly still a felony.

And while I would not take Polanski’s word over the girl, I have to admit that Angelica Huston’s version does hold some weight with me.

But to be very clear, I am not excusing Polanski's behavior.

[Evan Waters]

Well there is the third option, they can't have a non-extradition policy if they let extraditions happen.

Well, I'd argue that a non-extradition policy is taking nationalism too far, unless there's a question of capital punishment or major differences in the law violated- a nation's protection of its citizens should never be a license for wrongdoing so long as you can make it to the airport in time.

[schwamp]

Everything would be so nice if it was black and white and fit nicely in a box labeled Bad or OK, wrong or right. This situation will never even approach that territory. In the end, he should face justice, but if he is never extradited and it goes away from the media spotlight again, for the sake of the victim, at least, it wouldn't be the worst resolution possible.

[Evan Waters]

Everything would be so nice if it was black and white and fit nicely in a box labeled Bad or OK, wrong or right. This situation will never even approach that territory. In the end, he should face justice, but if he is never extradited and it goes away from the media spotlight again, for the sake of the victim, at least, it wouldn't be the worst resolution possible.

I'm leaning towards "5 years."

It's not a lot, and not nearly what would be an acceptable minimum for rape. But, pushing for more punishment on the rape charge is going to be hard as Hell- the victim probably won't cooperate with the prosecution (and she really shouldn't be forced to testify either way), there are all sorts of issues with the conduct of the judge, it's thorny and a good attorney- which Polanski can probably afford- will put up a major fight.

So, a less ugly and public solution would be a deal- my idea is, whatever the original sentence was going to be before the judge reneged, plus a few years for evading arrest. 5 sounds good.

[NickThompson]

Well, I'd argue that a non-extradition policy is taking nationalism too far, unless there's a question of capital punishment or major differences in the law violated- a nation's protection of its citizens should never be a license for wrongdoing so long as you can make it to the airport in time.
I agree. I can understand having a limited extradition process, but there has to be limits, even if it's getting a sentence to be reduced to be more in line with how extraditing country views the world.

[FeminineMystique]

Everything would be so nice if it was black and white and fit nicely in a box labeled Bad or OK, wrong or right. This situation will never even approach that territory. In the end, he should face justice, but if he is never extradited and it goes away from the media spotlight again, for the sake of the victim, at least, it wouldn't be the worst resolution possible.

What he did can definitively be labelled wrong. That's black and white. And him being extradited is right, simple as that. There aren't any "Grey areas" in a cowardly pedophile who fled prosecution finally being brought to justice

[rick]

I'm leaning towards "5 years."

It's not a lot, and not nearly what would be an acceptable minimum for rape. But, pushing for more punishment on the rape charge is going to be hard as Hell- the victim probably won't cooperate with the prosecution (and she really shouldn't be forced to testify either way), there are all sorts of issues with the conduct of the judge, it's thorny and a good attorney- which Polanski can probably afford- will put up a major fight.

So, a less ugly and public solution would be a deal- my idea is, whatever the original sentence was going to be before the judge reneged, plus a few years for evading arrest. 5 sounds good.


I'm pretty sure that he is facing at least 5 years just for fleeing, who knows about the main case.

At 76, this is a situtaion where Polanski could easily spend the rest of his life in prison.

[Evan Waters]

I don't know what kind of minimums are in place for fleeing, is the thing (or maximums, for that matter.)

[NickThompson]

I don't know what kind of minimums are in place for fleeing, is the thing (or maximums, for that matter.)
I don't know either, but were I to guess I'd say it depends on what you're running from.

[rick]

I don't know either, but were I to guess I'd say it depends on what you're running from.


He fled on a felony conviction for a sex crime.

Without knowing the actual numbers, it would more or less have to be at least 5 years.

[Ryan Day]

xxxxxxxxxx

[Spackling Compound]

He's not a pedophile. Rapist, yes, but pedophiles don't generally prey on 13 year-olds, particularly if they're dressed & groomed to look older.

I think mention was made that he had a predilection for younger women (girls) anyway.
May, by definition, be ephebophlic rather than pedastry.

The lack of remorse and the means of leaving the US shows however he's not much of a contrite offender. Sort of fits the profile of the criminally abusive.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

At '76, I can't help but wonder if Polanski, who spent the first part of his life as a prisoner of the Nazi's will finish his life as a prisoner of the USA.

It makes for a very sad bit of symmetry.

Let's be clear though, Polanski was not convicted of drugging and then raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, he was convicted of having consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, whom everyone including the prosecution admit Polanski believed was 18 years old at the time.

I am not defending statutory rape, but the accusations leveled are very different then the crime he pled guilty to.


Except she even says that she eventually "gave in".


I'm sorry but I don't see where I have said anything of the kind, and it certainly is not what I am infering.

I'm just pointing out that at the time if she had been of age what Polanski did would have been wrong, but not against the law.

Dude, I am a self-described anti-feminist. I suscribe to the Glenn Sacks newsletter. I believe that TRO's, false allegations of rape, and False allegations of domestic abuse are very often used by women in order to "safeguard thier reputation" as in the recent Hofstra (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/no-criminal-charges-for-student-s-false-rape-accusations-1.1475704) university case; in order to gain a financial outcome as in the recent Kurt Angle (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4240) TRO arrest, and in many cases simply to gain revenge. I believe this happens far, far more often than anyone is willing to admit. I am a committed Fathers rights and Men's rights supporter. I say this to point out that if anything my own political biases would favor giving Mr Polanski the benefit of the doubt if not for a few things.
The facts of the case are that he used alcohol and qualuddes on a 13 year old girl in an attempt to "lower her inhibitions". The facts are that from the very begining the victim has always maintained that she said no multiple times. The facts of the case are that by any reasonable standard he raped a 13 year old girl and has escaped punishment for over 30 years.

Whether her mother attempted to capitalise on his actions or not, whether this scumbag has "suffered exile" or not, whether he had a "sympathetic childhood" or not, he raped a God Da**ed child.

[schwamp]

What he did can definitively be labelled wrong. That's black and white. And him being extradited is right, simple as that. There aren't any "Grey areas" in a cowardly pedophile who fled prosecution finally being brought to justice

That's fine. I'm not all that far from your thinking. What I'm saying is you choose to look at it this way. There is clearly an opposite mentality that prefers to revere him for his artistic accomplishments and downplays his responsibility for what happened. No such thing as only one side to a coin, is all I'm saying.

[FeminineMystique]

That's fine. I'm not all that far from your thinking. What I'm saying is you choose to look at it this way. There is clearly an opposite mentality that prefers to revere him for his artistic accomplishments and downplays his responsibility for what happened. No such thing as only one side to a coin, is all I'm saying.

I'd say anyone who would argue Polanski's actions are excusable because of his film work put the "Mental" in the word "Mentality". If he'd cured cancer it still wouldn't excuse what he did

[schwamp]

I'd say anyone who would argue Polanski's actions are excusable because of his film work put the "Mental" in the word "Mentality". If he'd cured cancer it still wouldn't excuse what he did

No argument there.

[NickThompson]

I'd say anyone who would argue Polanski's actions are excusable because of his film work put the "Mental" in the word "Mentality". If he'd cured cancer it still wouldn't excuse what he did
Well, a cure for cancer might be slightly different, not excusing it but maybe putting precendence over it in people's minds. But for his movie work? That's crazy. Nobody is saying you can't like his stuff, but it doesn't excuse a serious crime.

[FeminineMystique]

Well, a cure for cancer might be slightly different, not excusing it but maybe putting precendence over it in people's minds. But for his movie work? That's crazy. Nobody is saying you can't like his stuff, but it doesn't excuse a serious crime.

I just wish the people complaining about his arrest could see that:frown:

[Tobias March]

I just wish the people complaining about his arrest could see that:frown:

They're deluded.

[FeminineMystique]

They're deluded.

I think a lot of it is also selfishness in a warped way. They don't want a little thing like the LAW to take their precious "Great artist" away from them

[Spackling Compound]

I think a lot of it is also selfishness in a warped way. They don't want a little thing like the LAW to take their precious "Great artist" away from them

My goodness, can't we just get over Michael Jackson and move on...

[Corrina]

Fuck him, fuck ANYONE who defends him, and Fuck anyone who thinks any extenuating circumstances change the fact that he raped a God Da**ed child.

Refrain from calling on people to be fucked, please.

You never know, a child might be in your general statement, eh?

*seriously, dial down the ire. Your sentiments are fine, the tone is a bit over the top.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Refrain from calling on people to be fucked, please.

You never know, a child might be in your general statement, eh?

*seriously, dial down the ire. Your sentiments are fine, the tone is a bit over the top.


Fair enough.

[Charles RB]

I have to wonder if they'd be bothered if it was just some random guy and not a famous film maker who got caught.

They're bound to be more bothered because it's so high profile, but they'd still be making a stink - it just would go unnoticed by most of us and wouldn't be heavily covered.

Except she even says that she eventually "gave in".

Many rape victims have "given in" because they're scared and think it'll be safer & quicker. Unless that would've been considered damning evidence in Polanski's favour back in 1977, I'm not seeing the relevance. (And if it would've been, bloody hellfire)

I have a horrible feeling that this was in some way normal behaviour (the whole casting couch/underage sex thing) for not just Polanski, but around Hollywood at the time.


God I'd hope not.

[Charles RB]

I believe that TRO's, false allegations of rape, and False allegations of domestic abuse are very often used by women in order to "safeguard thier reputation" as in the recent Hofstra (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/no-criminal-charges-for-student-s-false-rape-accusations-1.1475704) university case; in order to gain a financial outcome as in the recent Kurt Angle (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4240) TRO arrest, and in many cases simply to gain revenge. I believe this happens far, far more often than anyone is willing to admit.

You're wrong, by the way - these things do happen but dramatically less than actual rape does, and the amount of crap alleged rape victims go through is not going to make false accusations a mainstream thing. People go "oh she brought it on herself" or "she's lying because Good Ol' Johnny would NEVER do that" all the time.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

You're wrong, by the way - these things do happen but dramatically less than actual rape does, and the amount of crap alleged rape victims go through is not going to make false accusations a mainstream thing. People go "oh she brought it on herself" or "she's lying because Good Ol' Johnny would NEVER do that" all the time.

They also go "of course hes guilty,he a man" all the time. You may think Im wrong, but then, I think you're wrong.

[Evan Waters]

They also go "of course hes guilty,he a man" all the time. You may think Im wrong, but then, I think you're wrong.

Statistically, though, the conviction rate for rape cases is abnormally low.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Statistically, though, the conviction rate for rape cases is abnormally low.
Which, to be fair, could support either contention.
If many rape allegations are false wouldn't that cause staistically lower conviction rate?

[FeminineMystique]

You're wrong, by the way - these things do happen but dramatically less than actual rape does, and the amount of crap alleged rape victims go through is not going to make false accusations a mainstream thing. People go "oh she brought it on herself" or "she's lying because Good Ol' Johnny would NEVER do that" all the time.

Given that Bat is apparently opposed to equal rights for women, to go by his "Anti feminist" remark, I can't say I'm honestly surprised by his comments.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Given that Bat is apparently opposed to equal rights for women, to go by his "Anti feminist" remark, I can't say I'm honestly surprised by his comments.


I'm opposed to legal-feminism, like the kind that leads to nutbag women getting TRO's against david letterman because he was "harrasing her through her TV".
Or leads to women legally stealing a mans house through unproven, or even tried,allegations of abuse, or to men who try and get custody of their children facing a sisyphean struggle.

I never stated what you claimed. And a simple question would have been more than enough to clarify my statement without jumping to an unfounded conclusion, not to mention simple common courtesy.

[Evan Waters]

I'm opposed to legal-feminism, like the kind that leads to nutbag women getting TRO's against david letterman because he was "harrasing her through her TV".

... at what point has anyone lobbied for this, apart from the nutbags themselves?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

... at what point has anyone lobbied for this, apart from the nutbags themselves?
TRO's?
Every single women's rights group for years. Little to no burden of proof? The Same.

[Evan Waters]

TRO's?
Every single women's rights group for years. Little to no burden of proof? The Same.

TROs being available does not mean the courts will grant them to ANYONE. Even if the burden of proof is low, I'm sure it would catch "harassment via TV".

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

TROs being available does not mean the courts will grant them to ANYONE. Even if the burden of proof is low, I'm sure it would catch "harassment via TV".

Not under the legal stautes as written, most of which where written by, or due to pressure from, organised poltical/legal feminism.

[FeminineMystique]

I'm opposed to legal-feminism, like the kind that leads to nutbag women getting TRO's against david letterman because he was "harrasing her through her TV".
Or leads to women legally stealing a mans house through unproven, or even tried,allegations of abuse, or to men who try and get custody of their children facing a sisyphean struggle.

I never stated what you claimed. And a simple question would have been more than enough to clarify my statement without jumping to an unfounded conclusion, not to mention simple common courtesy.

Sorry for misunderstanding your comments. But when you say things like you're "Anti feminist" it is a little inflammatory and misleading.
And I wouldn't call cases like the ones you describe such as vindictive partners or the Letterman thing, don't really meet the definition of feminism, in my personal opinion.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Sorry for misunderstanding your comments. But when you say things like you're "Anti feminist" it is a little inflammatory and misleading.
And I wouldn't call cases like the ones you describe such as vindictive partners or the Letterman thing, don't really meet the definition of feminism, in my personal opinion.
But they are the result of "legal-feminism" are they not? Not to mention a logical outgrowth of the idea that women are so "opressed" that coercive methods (IE the law) must be used to redress specific "gender imbalances" which if I am not mistaken is a pretty core belief of all forms of political feminism.

[FeminineMystique]

But they are the result of "legal-feminism" are they not? Not to mention a logical outgrowth of the idea that women are so "opressed" that coercive methods (IE the law) must be used to redress specific "gender imbalances" which if I am not mistaken is a pretty core belief of all forms of political feminism.

Well you can't deny that women DO face oppression, in the form of sexism, chauvinism etc even today. Things may have gotten better but there ARE still times that yes, the law is needed. Equality in the workplace laws for example.

[Charles RB]

They also go "of course hes guilty,he a man" all the time.

That is done a lot less than blaming or disbelieving the woman.

You are wrong.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Well you can't deny that women DO face oppression, in the form of sexism, chauvinism etc even today.

Actually I can, or at least I dont think the actual level of such justifies laws which are themselves inherantly sexually imbalanced.


Things may have gotten better but there ARE still times that yes, the law is needed. Equality in the workplace laws for example.
What you see as"equity in the workplace laws" I see as "reactive inequality". In application if not in theory.

[FeminineMystique]

Actually I can, or at least I dont think the actual level of such justifies laws which are themselves inherantly sexually imbalanced.


What you see as"equity in the workplace laws" I see as "reactive inequality". In application if not in theory.

Right, I don't want to derail this thread so I'll simply state this clearly: I've faced sexual harassment in the work place in the past. Laws like that are the reason I was able to get it stopped. So please don't try and claim that it no longer happens or that laws against it aren't needed.

Again, I may be misreading you here and I apologise if I am but what you're saying comes across as "Women should just grin and bear it and not try and get justice when they face being treated unequally".

[Charles RB]

Also, re rape and rape accusations - off the top of my head, I can think of three women off the top of my head who've been raped. That's not counting people I don't know but whose accounts I've seen, just people I know. It's only who I immediately think of, so there's a good chance I've forgotten some. It's only people who've said it happened; it's certain I know other rape victims who've just never told me. I've also seen someone attempt rape.

I can't think of a single guy I know who has been falsely accused of rape. Now, there's no social shame to going "someone accused you of something I didn't do!", most of the time you'll get a reaction of "yeah, what a bastard!". I can't think of a time when I heard of this happening to someone via someone I knew. I haven't seen anyone attempt a rape accusation.

They're not on the same scale.

EDIT: Oh, and re "reactive inequality" - if I get sexually harrassed by a woman at work, I can use the same legislation and options they can use as a counterstrike. (I might not be believed, but neither may a woman so meh)

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Right, I don't want to derail this thread so I'll simply state this clearly: I've faced sexual harassment in the work place in the past. Laws like that are the reason I was able to get it stopped. So please don't try and claim that it no longer happens or that laws against it aren't needed.

I didn't say it doesn't ever happen. I also don't know what you consider "sexual harrasment". I do know have seen male friends fired, an/or sued for having bikini calenders in thier offices, despite women having "sexy firefighter" calenders in the same office. This too was considered, "sexual harrassment". Furthermore I would point out that such laws are not the only way of dealing with such incidences.


Again, I may be misreading you here and I apologise if I am but what you're saying comes across as "Women should just grin and bear it and not try and get justice when they face being treated unequally".

I may be misreading you, but I suspect that is intentional on your part.

[FeminineMystique]

I didn't say it doesn't ever happen. I also don't know what you consider "sexual harrasment". I do know have seen male friends fired, an/or sued for having bikini calenders in thier offices, despite women having "sexy firefighter" calenders in the same office. This too was considered, "sexual harrassment". Furthermore I would point out that such laws are not the only way of dealing with such incidences.

I'm talking about actual physical harrassment, since you ask. Yes, some people do go OTT over frivolous things like sexy calendars but that wasn't the case with myself (I'm not going to complain about women in bikini's any time soon) but there are SERIOUS cases where the laws ARE needed.

And as Charles RB pointed out, the laws against unequal treatment apply for men as well. You have just as much right to turn to them in cases of harrassment/inequality as we do.

I may be misreading you, but I suspect that is intentional on your part.

I promise you it's not. But when you say that the laws aren't "Justified" and aren't needed it comes across badly. It's easy to misread things on the net, I know from experience. Like I said, if that's not what you meant, sorry.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I

And as Charles RB pointed out, the laws against unequal treatment apply for men as well. You have just as much right to turn to them in cases of harrassment/inequality as we do.


Perhaps in theory. But I have also had friends who where physically abused by women, in several cases with deadly or potentially deadly weapons, and were then themselves arrested. In practice, when a man with multiple defensive stab wounds, or a skull fracture calls the cops, and is himself arrested there's little of "equal protection" In practice, men who undergo sexual harassment get little, if any legal support or protection. In practice, men whose property is destroyed, vandalised, or stolen, get little or no legal support.



I promise you it's not. But when you say that the laws aren't "Justified" and aren't needed it comes across badly. It's easy to misread things on the net, I know from experience. Like I said, if that's not what you meant, sorry.

Fair enough. But I cant control how my words "come across"that really has more to do with how you choose to interpert them.

[Village Idiot]

I do know have seen male friends fired, an/or sued for having bikini calenders in thier offices, despite women having "sexy firefighter" calenders in the same office.

Perhaps in theory. But I have also had friends who where physically abused by women, in several cases with deadly or potentially deadly weapons, and were then themselves arrested.

Sounds like you have the wrong types of friends.

You are making general statements and trying to imply that this is common occurrence. Having 1 "friend" who was disciplined or 1 "friend" who was physically abused does not prove that the law needs to go away. For every male who is sexually harassed, there must be 100 women who are. The law, like many laws, is there to help protect the weaker persons in a society.

[FeminineMystique]

Perhaps in theory. But I have also had friends who where physically abused by women, in several cases with deadly or potentially deadly weapons, and were then themselves arrested. In practice, when a man with multiple defensive stab wounds, or a skull fracture calls the cops, and is himself arrested there's little of "equal protection" In practice, men who undergo sexual harassment get little, if any legal support or protection. In practice, men whose property is destroyed, vandalised, or stolen, get little or no legal support.


I'm genuinely sorry you're friends have had to go through something like that. No, the laws aren't perfect, I'll admit that. But surely that means they need to be worked on so ALL people, regardless of gender, get equality, rather than saying that laws regarding equality, harrassment, persecution etc aren't needed.

[jesse_custer]

If you haven't seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, do so. It provides needed context to this case, and it doesn't vilify or excuse Polanski.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Sounds like you have the wrong types of friends.

So being abused makes one "the wrong type"?
I
You are making general statements and trying to imply that this is common occurrence.

Its far more common than people admit IMO.


Having 1 "friend" who was disciplined or 1 "friend" who was physically abused does not prove that the law needs to go away. For every male who is sexually harassed, there must be 100 women who are.

I disagree.


The law, like many laws, is there to help protect the weaker persons in a society.
I thought the laws were supposed to protect all equally?

[Christopher Cross Is God]

And while I would not take Polanski’s word over the girl, I have to admit that Angelica Huston’s version does hold some weight with me.

But to be very clear, I am not excusing Polanski's behavior.


Polanski's issue aside............At the very least, the girl's mother should've been tried in court. If Angelica Huston's version is true, the girl's mother essentially tried to pimp/whore her 13yr old daughter out to an adult.......And if they really lied about her age, I would assume that makes it worse.

[Sabrinaset]

Rather than face the LEGAL ramifications of his actions as determined by the country he CHOSE to live in and BECOME RICH, Polanski fled the jurisdiction. Nobody cares what he claims he believed about the girl's age. That is not an element of that form of rape as many unhappy men will tell you. Actual age of the players is all that matters. And, of course, it must be so otherwise 30 year old guy could bed down any 13 year old girl and subsequently claim he "believed" she was 21.

In fact Polanski had a prior history- culturally acceptable or not- of being with underage girls that he KNEW were in their mid and low teens. He likes 'em that way. Regardless of how things are done in the Old Country, in THIS country we have strict rules about that, rules he believed himself to be above. He proved he didn't give a damn about American laws when he skipped the country rather than face a just verdict. Prick.

I believe the law is, even if the ultimate verdict on his case had been an acquittal, the fact that he FLED THE COUNTRY before sitting for it makes him a felon.

I'm glad he got nailed. I hope he's extradited and I hope he serves every single day of his time.

There is no gray area here. You don't get to superimpose your values over that of this nation's law. You don't like how your case is going, you don't get to skip out and then snipe about it from the safety of another country.

He's a selfish, self-centered felon and now, I hope, he will finally pay what he owes.

This recent trend of me agreeing with Red Jack is really starting to worry me! :eek:

[spoon_jenkins]

It's stunning that the French government and some "artists" so enthusiastically advertise their reactionary, anti-human rights credentials. This special consideration given to "artists" is aristocracy vs. commoners - just dressed up in a shiny new outfit.

[Cam63]

You fucked up in '77, Roman.

Deal with it.

[king mob]

If you haven't seen Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, do so. It provides needed context to this case, and it doesn't vilify or excuse Polanski.

From what I understand it makes clear that it's not as clear as a rich famous paedophile raping a 13 year old girl, that in fact, it's a much more horrible mess?

[worstblogever]

And WBE, please. Normally I get a good laugh out of your posts, but there's nothing funny about what Polanski did. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened, it doesn't change that it's not something to joke about

Sorry, didn't mean to make light of what he did to his victim, the intent was to convey my distaste for an ill-conceived casting choice by Brett Ratner. He casts a guy who's an international fugitive for sodomizing a young girl as a sadistic cop who waits at the airport to effectively shove his arm elbow deep in the two stars' bums.

Which, I can't decide if his character voicing complains about "American cops" is meta-commentary, as well.

Last news I heard about this whole affair isn't surprising. Polanski will try to fight extradition.

[ForeverTaskmaster]

The way I see it the arrest was long over due.
The fact that the raped the girl is already bad enough. Who knows how many more he has raped since that time but we don't know anything about? And being a prisoner of nazis doesn't excuse someone from raping someone. I hope he gets his jail time. Payback is a bitch and now he will become one.

[jesse_custer]

From what I understand it makes clear that it's not as clear as a rich famous paedophile raping a 13 year old girl, that in fact, it's a much more horrible mess?

Yeah, Polanski's life in general has been an unfortunate and horrible mess, and the mother of the girl is pretty fucked up.

[Charles RB]

It's stunning that the French government and some "artists" so enthusiastically advertise their reactionary, anti-human rights credentials. This special consideration given to "artists" is aristocracy vs. commoners - just dressed up in a shiny new outfit.

The French government is making a fuss because he's a citizen, and they don't extradite citizens.

[Ryan Day]

xxxxxxxxxx

[sweetdreams]

... he skipped the country rather than face a just verdict. Prick.

I believe the law is, even if the ultimate verdict on his case had been an acquittal, the fact that he FLED THE COUNTRY before sitting for it makes him a felon.

I'm glad he got nailed. I hope he's extradited and I hope he serves every single day of his time.

There is no gray area here. You don't get to superimpose your values over that of this nation's law. You don't like how your case is going, you don't get to skip out and then snipe about it from the safety of another country.

He's a selfish, self-centered felon and now, I hope, he will finally pay what he owes.

I've kind of been thinking about this one and I don't think that it is black and white, or the thread wouldn't have 150 something replies. Just like the spiderman/chameleon rape thread had twice that, I think.

And I think that 'just verdict' is part of the issue. There were 260 plus men exonerated of crimes by DNA recently, some of whom had served 20 plus years as innocent men. The system is nowhere near perfect.

The girl states that she and her mother misled him about her age. That alone should require a new trial.

And what is the point of prison exactly? Is it punitive, an eye for an eye? Is the point that he deserves to be raped? Because if he'd gone into prison at that time as a convicted child molestor... ?
(and a lot of people would leave the country rather than serve a sentence they believed wasn't right)

Also, she doesn't want him to go to prison, so if an eye for an eye were the point then should her opinion have no weight?

Or is prison meant to be preventive? As she also stated there hasn't been a whisper of a similar incident.

I totally believe rape victims aren't treated right (Sarah palin making them pay for their own rape kit, lovely) and am more likely to throw my weight behind the victim from the start except that the facts of this case have admittedly (according to the girl and her family) not been accurate. They lied. They admit to lying. That's a problem.

Also, she was drinking and he likely was also, which goes back to the spiderman thread.

And there is a kind of scary witchhunt feeling when the facts don't seem to be clear that almost makes him seem like a victim which I wouldn't want to do, since he is obviously, as you said, a selfish, sleazy pr*** at the very least, in this situation.

It's difficult to separate the facts from myth here, but it does sound like he raped her. I think he needs a new trial. He might even end up serving more time, but not as a child molester. He needs to serve his time and get on with his life. If Sophia Loren could serve time for tax evasion he's certainly not above serving time for rape.

So Red Jack, even though I disagree with some of what you're saying I agree with the main point that he needs to serve his time. Whew.

[Red Jack]

This recent trend of me agreeing with Red Jack is really starting to worry me! :eek:

You know what Nietzsche said about gazing into the abyss.

Beware. Bewaaaaaaaaaaaaaare!

[Red Jack]

The girl states that she and her mother misled him about her age. That alone should require a new trial.

Not relevant. the wishes of the victim have no legal bearing on the case, nor should they.

And what is the point of prison exactly? Is it punitive, an eye for an eye? Is the point that he deserves to be raped? Because if he'd gone into prison at that time as a convicted child molestor... ?

This isn't a philosophical issue. This is a legal issue. No one's life is at stake here.

(and a lot of people would leave the country rather than serve a sentence they believed wasn't right)

Yes. they are called fugitives from justice and they are felons.

Also, she doesn't want him to go to prison, so if an eye for an eye were the point then should her opinion have no weight?

The victim doesn't matter in this context. This is an issue between the criminal and the STATE. he broke the law and, misled or not, that's it.

Or is prison meant to be preventive? As she also stated there hasn't been a whisper of a similar incident.

So I get one free crack at a hot teenager and, if I never ever do it again, no harm, no foul?

Also, she was drinking and he likely was also, which goes back to the spiderman thread.

So what? She's not on trial. it's not illegal fro her to try to have sex with an adult. It's illegal for the adult to go for it.

And there is a kind of scary witchhunt feeling when the facts don't seem to be clear that almost makes him seem like a victim which I wouldn't want to do, since he is obviously, as you said, a selfish, sleazy pr*** at the very least, in this situation.

Witchhunt? He did both crimes. He admits to both. He just doesn't think he should be punished. A feeling he shares with most felons.

It's difficult to separate the facts from myth here, but it does sound like he raped her. I think he needs a new trial. He might even end up serving more time, but not as a child molester. He needs to serve his time and get on with his life. If Sophia Loren could serve time for tax evasion he's certainly not above serving time for freaking rape.

Before he gets to the original offense, he has to serve time for running out on his trial. I wouldn't even discuss that other stuff until he pays for running away.

So Red Jack, even though I disagree with some of what you're saying I agree with the main point that he needs to serve his time. Whew.

Well. Good. I was worried for a second.

[sweetdreams]

Well. Good. I was worried for a second. -red jack

Too funny. :biggrin:

As to all of the rest though, that's why I think he deserves a new trial first.
If you were accused of any crime and the victim (and her family) admitted that they'd lied. You'd want and would most likely get a new trial right?

[Corrina]

Too funny. :biggrin:

As to all of the rest though, that's why I think he deserves a new trial first.
If you were accused of any crime and the victim (and her family) admitted that they'd lied. You'd want and would most likely get a new trial right?

Well, perhaps you shouldn't have stood before the court and pled guilty then, eh?

No one forced him to plead guilty. He could have entered a plea of "innocent" and asked for a jury trial, as was his right.

He didn't. He took a plea, then ran out when he didn't like the result.

Tough noogies, as they say.

[schwamp]

I've kind of been thinking about this one and I don't think that it is black and white, or the thread wouldn't have 150 something replies.

Agreed.

And I think that 'just verdict' is part of the issue. There were 260 plus men exonerated of crimes by DNA recently, some of whom had served 20 plus years as innocent men. The system is nowhere near perfect.

The girl states that she and her mother misled him about her age. That alone should require a new trial.



Also, she doesn't want him to go to prison, so if an eye for an eye were the point then should her opinion have no weight?

Truth is, her opinion about what he deserves should matter very little. Any DA will tell you they would rather have the support of the victim, but would pursue the case anyway if they had a chance at a prosecution.


They lied. They admit to lying. That's a problem.

This is significant.

Also, she was drinking and he likely was also, which goes back to the spiderman thread.

Careful.
And there is a kind of scary witchhunt feeling when the facts don't seem to be clear that almost makes him seem like a victim which I wouldn't want to do, since he is obviously, as you said, a selfish, sleazy pr*** at the very least, in this situation.


So Red Jack, even though I disagree with some of what you're saying I agree with the main point that he needs to serve his time. Whew.

Great post. Lots of good points.

[FeminineMystique]

This recent trend of me agreeing with Red Jack is really starting to worry me! :eek:

Isn't it the first sign of madness?:biggrin:

Sorry, didn't mean to make light of what he did to his victim, the intent was to convey my distaste for an ill-conceived casting choice by Brett Ratner. He casts a guy who's an international fugitive for sodomizing a young girl as a sadistic cop who waits at the airport to effectively shove his arm elbow deep in the two stars' bums.

Which, I can't decide if his character voicing complains about "American cops" is meta-commentary, as well.

Last news I heard about this whole affair isn't surprising. Polanski will try to fight extradition.

Fair enough honey. Sorry if I came across as over sensitive, but this case just gets every bit of me just on edge with anger and disgust.

[Ryan Day]

xxxxxxxxxx

[Corrina]

He pled guilty on the expectation of a specific sentence due to a deal with the prosecutor. If that sentence wasn't on the table, he probably wouldn't have pled guilty.



So, he didn't do what he was accused of but he pled guilty to it because of the legal system.

I see.

No, not buying.

"Here you have to admit you drugged and raped a thirteen-year-old girl. But you'll do no jail time. Sound good?"

I realize that innocent people can plead guilty in our legal system if they're out of options. But Polanski had access to very good legal counsel and a high public profile. Not to mention that rape cases have a very, very low conviction rate if brought to trial.

So, uh-huh. No one held a gun to Polanski's head and said "hey! If you don't plead guilty, you're going to jail!" He's not a dummy, he had proper legal counsel, and if he was innocent, well then, he shouldn't have pled guilty.

See, in my world, I see the pleading guilty as an admission of, you know, GUILT, rather than some twisted logic of how others railroaded a rich, prominent guy who drugged and raped a thirteen-year-old girl.

[sweetdreams]

Schwamp, thank you =) (yes, probably shouldn't have brought up the drinking).

Corrina,
That's a fair point.

Here's my only issue with 'tough noogies' is that often the punishment for anything (60% of crimes are non violent and drug related right?) in prison includes not just the possibility, but the likelihood of rape. Why would her rape matter and not his? I know that it is ENTIRELY unlikely, but what if he'd been innocent and pled guilty to avoid a molestation charge?
He may go to a cupcake (?) prison and it wouldn't even be an issue, but if it were is what I meant. I still think, new trial, he serves his time.
And I gotta get out the door. =)

[Corrina]

Schwamp, thank you =) (yes, probably shouldn't have brought up the drinking).

Corrina,
That's a fair point.

Here's my only issue with 'tough noogies' is that often the punishment for anything (60% of crimes are non violent and drug related right?) in prison includes not just the possibility, but the likelihood of rape. Why would her rape matter and not his? I know that it is ENTIRELY unlikely, but what if he'd been innocent and pleaded guilty to avoid a molestation charge?
He may go to a cupcake (?) prison and it wouldn't even be an issue, but if it were is what I meant. I still think, new trial, he serves his time.
And I gotta get out the door. =)

What the heck was NON VIOLENT about his actions in drugging and raping another person?

I'm supposed to protect him from the consequences of his own actions?

Your 'what if' is fine but they're speculation and at odds with what he actually did, which was to cop a plea and then run away from the legal system. Yep, I'm going with presumption of guilt here. Presumption of innocence applies only when one has been charged with a crime, not when one has been convicted and admitted to said crime.

And, btw, has he ever issued any kind of public apology to the victim? Just wondering.

[invisiboy]

What the heck was NON VIOLENT about his actions in drugging and raping another person?

I'm supposed to protect him from the consequences of his own actions?

Your 'what if' is fine but they're speculation and at odds with what he actually did, which was to cop a plea and then run away from the legal system. Yep, I'm going with presumption of guilt here. Presumption of innocence applies only when one has been charged with a crime, not when one has been convicted and admitted to said crime.

And, btw, has he ever issued any kind of public apology to the victim? Just wondering.


Correction: He drugging and raped a child. He should pay for his crime.

[king mob]

Yeah, Polanski's life in general has been an unfortunate and horrible mess, and the mother of the girl is pretty fucked up.

I'm having to donwload the documentary as there's not a copy for sale in the UK, so I'm interested in what's said as until the weekend, all I really knew of the case was 'Polanski was a paedophile who raped a 13 year old girl and legged it'.

The reaction has been disturbing though. Ok, those raging in a typical Brass Eye-esque 'let the paedo burn way' is understandable and easily ignorable, but the likes of Whoopi Goldberg saying it wasn't 'rape-rape' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg) is just fucking repulsive as it's excusing what was by all accounts, a violent rape of a young girl. Statements like this do suggest the rich and famous are above the law, which is of course the case as a huge sweeping generalisation.

[Ryan Day]

xxxxxxxxxx

[invisiboy]

Polanski must pay for this crime. People seem to overlook that he was in his forties (43, I think) when he raped that 13-year-old girl. How can anyone, including the French government, think that's okay?

[sweetdreams]

What the heck was NON VIOLENT about his actions in drugging and raping another person?




No, no, no, wait.
I'm NOT at all saying that HIS crime was nonviolent. I'm not saying that at all.

I meant if there were someone who might be innocent pleading guilty to a crime for a lesser charge. (and just pointed out that 60% of prisoners were in for nonviolent drug offenses [and might be raped]). I was just responding to the tough noogies thing.

Sorry, if I got the two separate things all mixed together.

I'm in no way saying rape is nonviolent. I didn't say that did I? God, I hope not.
AND I agree that he should serve on a rape charge (although with a new trial? eek).

It's a touchy subject to begin with and I don't want to offend anyone any more than I probably have (which I'm good at) so I'll leave it. (dang, you probably have to work hard to offend Corrina) Sorry Corrina.

[Charles RB]

the likes of Whoopi Goldberg saying it wasn't 'rape-rape' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg) is just fucking repulsive as it's excusing what was by all accounts, a violent rape of a young girl. Statements like this do suggest the rich and famous are above the law, which is of course the case as a huge sweeping generalisation.

She also said "We're a different kind of society, we see things differently", so she's suggesting something akin to that.

[invisiboy]

I'm having to donwload the documentary as there's not a copy for sale in the UK, so I'm interested in what's said as until the weekend, all I really knew of the case was 'Polanski was a paedophile who raped a 13 year old girl and legged it'.

The reaction has been disturbing though. Ok, those raging in a typical Brass Eye-esque 'let the paedo burn way' is understandable and easily ignorable, but the likes of Whoopi Goldberg saying it wasn't 'rape-rape' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg) is just fucking repulsive as it's excusing what was by all accounts, a violent rape of a young girl. Statements like this do suggest the rich and famous are above the law, which is of course the case as a huge sweeping generalisation.

Whoopi defending him is sick. But I guess this kind of behavior is what gets actors jobs in Hollywood. I wonder how Whoopi would feel about it if it had been daughter who Polanski had raped.

The idea that it wasn't "rape-rape" is sickening. I was raped in college, but it wasn't the horribly violent kind. I wasn't beaten or cut. I got drunk at a party at a close friend's house and fell asleep on her bed. I woke up partially disrobed and I was being anally penetrated by a fellow partygoer, someone I knew and thought was okay. He wasn't going to kill me or hurt me physically, so to some people, it wasn't Whoopi's "rape-rape". But I definitely was raped. Whoopi's comment offends me -- can you tell?

[invisiboy]

She also said "We're a different kind of society, we see things differently", so she's suggesting something akin to that.

I suspect Whoopi was searching for an excuse for Polanski's behavior. As if being of foreign origin/birth entitles him to rape America's children without repercussions.

[king mob]

Has anyone actually disputed Polanski's guilt? (or rather, has anyone who knows what they're talking about disputed it?) It's not about guilt, but about how the legal system works.

If you want to talk about implied meaning, where's the logic in a prosecutor allowing a man who drugged and raped a 13-year-old to plead guilty only to sex with a minor?

The answer, of course, is that the legal system is ugly and messy, even moreso when it comes to sex crimes. No one wanted to take a chance on a trial, so a deal was worked out. Polanski accepts some responsibility, the prosecutor gets a partial win, everyone's happy until the judge says "no, sorry" after talking to someone who wasn't at all involved in the case.

Polanski was playing by the rules, the judge clearly broke the rules (http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/), Polanski ran.

The more I read about the case, and the legal rulings that made Polanski leg it, things look more and more complex and messy. A judge who by all accounts was a terrible judge out to make a name, probably didn't help, as is a seemingly forgiving celebrity culture (then and now) who saw this as not the major incident it actually was. Then there's the mother who essentially pimped up her daughter, she's certainly someone who deserves to shoulder much of the blame of putting her daughter in a situation like this, even if it's something apparently 'normal' in such circles.

Of course the victim herself suffered, but she's finding something she wants past her dragged up by the media, as well as on the inernet on threads and forums like this, to be dissected again and again.

I'm just feeling a bit unpleasant about the whole thing really.

[Charles RB]

I just remembered singers and actors defended Chris Brown after he'd beaten his girlfriend.

What do the rich and famous have to do for other rich and famous people to just go "wow, that guy's a tosser"?

I suspect Whoopi was searching for an excuse for Polanski's behavior. As if being of foreign origin/birth entitles him to rape America's children without repercussions.

She cannot seriously argue Poland and France are strange, alien places where rape is culturally approved.

[king mob]

She also said "We're a different kind of society, we see things differently", so she's suggesting something akin to that.

I'm not sure if she means we're a different society now to the 70's, or that celebrites are a different society to us plebs. Either way it's coming across as shite.

[Guapo Méndez]

Whoopi defending him is sick. But I guess this kind of behavior is what gets actors jobs in Hollywood. I wonder how Whoopi would feel about it if it had been daughter who Polanski had raped.



Are you missing the mentions about the mother passing the girl as 18 and pimping her to Polanski?

He didn't prowl junior highs looking for girls. The mother wanted a movie career for her daughter and didn't mind throwing her at a 44 year old man.

Polanski should have dealt with this years ago, but there is no telling what kind of lumps he was going to get with that judge in that legal system.

[king mob]

I just remembered singers and actors defended Chris Brown after he'd beaten his girlfriend.

What do the rich and famous have to do for other rich and famous people to just go "wow, that guy's a tosser"?

I remember when Gary Glitter and Jonathon King were nicked for rape, and people attempted to defend them for what they'd done in music, rather than raping children. Though that quickly dried up when the scale of their crimes, especially Glitter's, became clear.

The difference with this is that Goldberg, Debra Winger and all those others defending Polanski are defending an admitted act that's on public record. Pointing out the mess of the charges raised against him seems fair enough, but defending his raping a 13 year old is just fucking wrong.

[Charles RB]

I'm not sure if she means we're a different society now to the 70's, or that celebrites are a different society to us plebs.

Possibly both.

I remember when Gary Glitter and Jonathon King were nicked for rape, and people attempted to defend them for what they'd done in music, rather than raping children. Though that quickly dried up when the scale of their crimes, especially Glitter's, became clear.

The difference with this is that Goldberg, Debra Winger and all those others defending Polanski are defending an admitted act that's on public record.

We're in Pat Mills territory here.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The French government is making a fuss because he's a citizen, and they don't extradite citizens.

To this I'd also add that the French are flaming assholes when it comes to who they will extradite. If the person will recieve a harsher sentence in the place requesting extradition than they would have in France, then they won't extradite.

[king mob]

Are you missing the mentions about the mother passing the girl as 18 and pimping her to Polanski?

The thing that's been missed by some, is that Polanski raped the girl regardless of how old he thought she was at the time. The paedophillic aspects are going to set people's teeth on edge, but the mother in the case had huge questions to answer. I don't know if she ever did.

[shrike]

Whoopi Goldberg saying it wasn't 'rape-rape'[/URL] is just fucking repulsive as it's excusing what was by all accounts

Keep it in the context Whoopi (whom I actually DO like) thought it was OK to have her one time partner, Ted Danson, dress up in blackface for an event. She even defended him.

So... ya.

[invisiboy]

Are you missing the mentions about the mother passing the girl as 18 and pimping her to Polanski?

He didn't prowl junior highs looking for girls. The mother wanted a movie career for her daughter and didn't mind throwing her at a 44 year old man.

Polanski should have dealt with this years ago, but there is no telling what kind of lumps he was going to get with that judge in that legal system.

Even if he actually believed the girl was of age, it doesn't amount to much legally. Also, whether he searched schools for a girl or had one delivered to him on a plater, it;'s still rape. I have a close relative who went to prison for two years for having consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl (who lied about her age!) when he was 24 years old. He thought she was of age, she wasn't, and he paid.

Plus, Polanksi was convicted -- and usually that means sticking around for punishment. I imagine if he comes back to the States for his sentence, it'll be something nominal and lame.

[king mob]

To this I'd also add that the French are flaming assholes when it comes to who they will extradite. If the person will recieve a harsher sentence in the place requesting extradition than they would have in France, then they won't extradite.

The French are trying to protect one of their (famous) citizens and doing what one would expect. However, I'd like to know if they'd do the same if it were an ordinary person, not a world famous director.

[Guapo Méndez]

The thing that's been missed by some, is that Polanski raped the girl regardless of how old he thought she was at the time. The paedophillic aspects are going to set people's teeth on edge, but the mother in the case had huge questions to answer. I don't know if she ever did.

Oh, sure. He should have done the time for raping that 18 year old girl.

He did not know she was 13. Rape is inexcusable, no contest, but the mother was looking for an opening and thrust her daughter at him with all her might.

[king mob]

Oh, sure. He should have done the time for raping that 18 year old girl.

He did not know she was 13. Rape is inexcusable, no contest, but the mother was looking for an opening and thrust her daughter at him with all her might.

Very much so. The mother was abusing her daughter in putting her in potentially risky situations, when it was clear that some in Hollywood had a 'thing' for young girls.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The French are trying to protect one of their (famous) citizens and doing what one would expect. However, I'd like to know if they'd do the same if it were an ordinary person, not a world famous director.

They'd raise a fit, yes. They have before, actually

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/einhorn/updates_6.html

[shrike]

Oh, sure. He should have done the time for raping that 18 year old girl.

He did not know she was 13. Rape is inexcusable, no contest, but the mother was looking for an opening and thrust her daughter at him with all her might.

When in doubt, my saying is: ALWAYS CARD AT THE DOOR.

What he did though, regardless of age, deserves some form of punishment. Doesnt matter if 5 or 50 years has passed, it was rape.

[Guapo Méndez]

Even if he actually believed the girl was of age, it doesn't amount to much legally.

Could be. My knowledge of '77 US laws is nonexistant. However I just want to point out how he's been called a pedophile, a child-rapist and the like and how he was told by the girl and the girl's mother that she was 18. Rapist, sure, child-rapist/pedophole, that's been tacked on.

Also, whether he searched schools for a girl or had one delivered to him on a plater, it;'s still rape.

No-one is disputing that.

I have a close relative who went to prison for two years for having consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl (who lied about her age!) when he was 24 years old. He thought she was of age, she wasn't, and he paid.

Oy, tough.
He should have asked for ID.


Plus, Polanksi was convicted -- and usually that means sticking around for punishment. I imagine if he comes back to the States for his sentence, it'll be something nominal and lame.

That he should have done, but the judge was doing some pretty scary things back then.
Well, now he's nabbed. Let's see how it plays out.

[Guapo Méndez]

When in doubt, my saying is: ALWAYS CARD AT THE DOOR.

What he did though, regardless of age, deserves some form of punishment. Doesnt matter if 5 or 50 years has passed, it was rape.

Agreed. Rape is rape. The girl had no business at that casting couch, that mother had no business pimping her daughter and Roman was an utter, gigantic scumbag for forcing himself on her.

[king mob]

They'd raise a fit, yes. They have before, actually

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/einhorn/updates_6.html

Fair enough, it looks like France are being reasonably consistant.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Fair enough, it looks like France are being reasonably consistant.

I'm pretty sure there's another case where a banker defrauded a bunch of people, fled to France and it was the same thing all over again.

So yeah, they're consistantly assholes.

[Charles RB]

Fair enough, it looks like France are being reasonably consistant.

France is very big on saying "France is still important and has a big willy" in politics, let's remember.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Agreed. Rape is rape. The girl had no business at that casting couch, that mother had no business pimping her daughter and Roman was an utter, gigantic scumbag for forcing himself on her.

Agreed. Even if she could somehow pass for 18 at 13, according to the charges he got her drunk and slipped her some drugs. That makes any discussion about the age of consent pretty moot.

[Spackling Compound]

France is very big on saying "France is still important and has a big willy" in politics, let's remember.

No way. The left hates France too?

[jerrymcl89]

Agreed. Even if she could somehow pass for 18 at 13, according to the charges he got her drunk and slipped her some drugs. That makes any discussion about the age of consent pretty moot.

My understanding is that the age of consent at the time was 16, making the passing for being old enough more plausible. But it doesn't change the other circumstances.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Agreed. Even if she could somehow pass for 18 at 13, according to the charges he got her drunk and slipped her some drugs. That makes any discussion about the age of consent pretty moot.

Last I remember, and I think rick already mentioned this.........Getting a girl drunk with the intent for sexual intercourse, in the late 70's, wasn't against the law.

The drugs aspect is likely a different story.

Polanski was sleazy for doing the alcohol/drugs thing, but that was fairly common in Hollywood circles back then........Hell, the alcohol bit was fairly common, in all circles, in the 70's.

[shades of eternity]

A buddy of mine once said that Polanski was already a borderline genius-crazy. I think what happened when the Manson Family descended upon his wife and friends really pushed him over the edge.

However, the fact that he ran away after conviction took away any chance of any sort of sympathy as well as any statute of limitations.

The fact doesn't change that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and then ran away to escape punishment.

This is no different then hunting down nazi war criminals long after their crime, and making a few good movies doesn't change that.

The only reason it hasn't been done sooner is the opportunity hadn't presented itself till now or the people who wanted him extradited simply didn't have the thought or incentive...but that doesn't change the action.

And if he is borderline genius-crazy, then that should be considered part of his punishment is therapy.

[The Cool Thatguy]

No way. The left hates France too?

Who doesn't? With the French, if we say left they'll say right just because. They're a stagnate culture that needs a foil to maintain the lie that they've gone nowhere compared to everyone else in the block, and we're it.

[invisiboy]

No way. The left hates France too?

"The left" ... ? Are you reading into this, or projecting?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Last I remember, and I think rick already mentioned this.........Getting a girl drunk with the intent for sexual intercourse, in the late 70's, wasn't against the law.

The drugs aspect is likely a different story.

Polanski was sleazy for doing the alcohol/drugs thing, but that was fairly common in Hollywood circles back then........Hell, the alcohol bit was fairly common, in all circles, in the 70's.

It wasn't against the law because rape was barely a crime back then.

"She deserved it/was asking for it/your body reacted during the rape, thus implying consent" were all perfectly acceptable defenses to rape accusations. More often than not, the victim went on trial, got dragged through the mud and if she was lucky, he might be convicted.

Hell, I'd be willing to stake good money that had the victim been 5 years older, no charges would have been filed at all. As it stood, he got a slap on the wrist.

Boozing up a woman and then taking advantage of her might not have been illegal then, but it was always immoral. And he ought to go away for the rest of his days.

[FeminineMystique]

It wasn't against the law because rape was barely a crime back then.

"She deserved it/was asking for it/your body reacted during the rape, thus implying consent" were all perfectly acceptable defenses to rape accusations. More often than not, the victim went on trial, got dragged through the mud and if she was lucky, he might be convicted.

Hell, I'd be willing to stake good money that had the victim been 5 years older, no charges would have been filed at all. As it stood, he got a slap on the wrist.

Boozing up a woman and then taking advantage of her might not have been illegal then, but it was always immoral. And he ought to go away for the rest of his days.

Being a child of the nineties my knowledge of the 70s is limited to retrospective programs and films but if that's true it's sad and sickening.

But I would hope drugging a woman into having sex with you was illegal even in the 70s.

[shrike]

But I would hope drugging a woman into having sex with you was illegal even in the 70s.

Illegal? Yes. Prosecuted appropriately? No.

Its along the same lines that you could beat your child senseless 30 years ago in a store without anyone batting an eyelash, but you have to think twice before even getting verbal nowadays.

But hey, I'm a child of the 80's. I just know that from even MY generation things were different.

[Corrina]

It wasn't against the law because rape was barely a crime back then.

"She deserved it/was asking for it/your body reacted during the rape, thus implying consent" were all perfectly acceptable defenses to rape accusations. More often than not, the victim went on trial, got dragged through the mud and if she was lucky, he might be convicted.


Which is all the more reason why Polanski pleading guilty rather than take his chances at trial makes little legal sense unless he was actually guilty.

[mikekerr3]

Being a child of the nineties my knowledge of the 70s is limited to retrospective programs and films but if that's true it's sad and sickening.

But I would hope drugging a woman into having sex with you was illegal even in the 70s.

As a child of the sixties and seventies that idea that it was not rape then is just bullshit

[rick]

..... but the likes of Whoopi Goldberg saying it wasn't 'rape-rape' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg) is just fucking repulsive as it's excusing what was by all accounts, a violent rape of a young girl.

It wasn't a violent rape according to anyones account.

He got her a bit drunk, but did not force her to drink, and then he got her a bit high, but he did not force her to take the quarter of a valium.

And then Polanski pressured her until she consented.

Which is pretty creepy all the way around, but the only thing that actually made it "rape" under the laws in place at the time was that the girl was 6 months under the age of consent in California in 1977.

[rick]

My understanding is that the age of consent at the time was 16, making the passing for being old enough more plausible. But it doesn't change the other circumstances.

In 1977 the age of consent in California was 14.

Scary isn't it?

[FeminineMystique]

It wasn't a violent rape according to anyones account.

He got her a bit drunk, but did not force her to drink, and then he got her a bit high, but he did not force her to take the quarter of a valium.

And then Polanski pressured her until she consented.

Which is pretty creepy all the way around, but the only thing that actually made it "rape" under the laws in place at the time was that the girl was 6 months under the age of consent in California in 1977.

Just because a rape isn't violent doesn't mean it's not a "Real" rape. The feeling of violation is still the same

[The Cool Thatguy]

It wasn't a violent rape according to anyones account.

He got her a bit drunk, but did not force her to drink, and then he got her a bit high, but he did not force her to take the quarter of a valium.

And then Polanski pressured her until she consented.

Which is pretty creepy all the way around, but the only thing that actually made it "rape" under the laws in place at the time was that the girl was 6 months under the age of consent in California in 1977.

Uhh, no. You seem to overlook that an adult pressured a minor to take drugs (and yes, booze counts as drugs in this instance).

Furthermore, how exactly does a 13 year old girl resist pressure from a 40 year old man?

Even assuming she knows what is going on, she is in no position to defend herself. That he groped her until she said yes is no excuse. She only said yes after he began to grope her and said 'yes' after he refused to stop.

When a rape starts, I'm pretty sure that women are encouraged to stop resisting (I think I read that a long time ago). Why? Because you're being attacked by a man already willing to commit violence against. The more you resist, the more violence you risk recieving.

So tell me, please, how a 13 year old girl can physically resist a 40 year old man by her lonesome?

[rick]

Just because a rape isn't violent doesn't mean it's not a "Real" rape. The feeling of violation is still the same



For the record I for one am well aware that a rape doesn't need to be violent to be a rape and am not even slightly trying to say otherwise.

Just because I have my own doubts about some of the legal issues in this particular case does not mean that I am sitting here in front of my computer just waitng for the chance to jump up and yell that a rape victims was "asking for it" and it also doesn't mean that I think that what Polanski did was in any way justified.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

In 1977 the age of consent in California was 14.

Scary isn't it?
No. not really.

Becuase at 14, both boys and girls can give consent.
Whats scary is how many people are defending someone who comitted rape.
Its even sicker than the "Micheal Jackson - Hero" tribute at the MTV awards.
And thats saying a LOT.

[rick]

Uhh, no. You seem to overlook that an adult pressured a minor to take drugs (and yes, booze counts as drugs in this instance).

Furthermore, how exactly does a 13 year old girl resist pressure from a 40 year old man?

Even assuming she knows what is going on, she is in no position to defend herself. That he groped her until she said yes is no excuse. She only said yes after he began to grope her and said 'yes' after he refused to stop.

When a rape starts, I'm pretty sure that women are encouraged to stop resisting (I think I read that a long time ago). Why? Because you're being attacked by a man already willing to commit violence against. The more you resist, the more violence you risk recieving.

So tell me, please, how a 13 year old girl can physically resist a 40 year old man by her lonesome?


A 13 year old girl in most cases can't physically resist a 40 year old man, that would seem to be pretty obvious.

However, nobody, including the victim has ever accused Polanski of using violence in this incident so what’s your point?

[rick]

No. not really.

Becuase at 14, both boys and girls can give consent.
Whats scary is how many people are defending someone who comitted rape.
Its even sicker than the "Micheal Jackson - Hero" tribute at the MTV awards.
And thats saying a LOT.


Either a child is capable of consent or isn't.

Make up your mind.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Either a child is capable of consent or isn't.

Make up your mind.

Where do you see a contradiction in what I have said?

[The Cool Thatguy]

A 13 year old girl in most cases can't physically resist a 40 year old man, that would seem to be pretty obvious.

However, nobody, including the victim has ever accused Polanski of using violence in this incident so what’s your point?

You don't need to use violence to pressure someone to do something against their will.

13 year old girl vs. 40 year old man. Not a hard battle o' wills, there.

[rick]

Where do you see a contradiction in what I have said?


You are saying that children are capable of giving consent, but want to Polanski a man who in fact got consent from a child to go to prison.

Now personally I don't think that anyone under the age of 18, if then, has any ability at all to give well thought out consent to having sex with a man in his 40's, but that seems to be what you are saying.


I could be wrong though.

[rick]

You don't need to use violence to pressure someone to do something against their will.

13 year old girl vs. 40 year old man. Not a hard battle o' wills, there.


I understand that and am not arguing otherwise.

My only point is that Polanski had been lied to about the girls age by both the girl and her mother, and that while his actions were the eptiome of 70's trashy self-indulgence, under the laws in place at the time if she had been the age she was claiming to be, what Polanski did would not have been against the law.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

You are saying that children are capable of giving consent, but want to Polanski a man who in fact got consent from a child to go to prison.

Since when is saying"stop" giving consent rick?


Now personally I don't think that anyone under the age of 18, if then, has any ability at all to give well thought out consent to having sex with a man in his 40's, but that seems to be what you are saying.

At 14, if an attractive women of 40 had wanted to have sex with me, Id have given consent faster than a 1960's liberal could make excuses for a the soviet union. Most kids I grew up with were either having sex at 14, or trying their damndest to.

[schwamp]

In 1977 the age of consent in California was 14.

Scary isn't it?

Wow.......and something else to consider. In America, as recently as 100 years ago, families married off their 13 year old daughters to men Polanskis age, and it was probably more the norm than not, at least for the commoner ( lower middle and down). Sex under the age of 18, 16, or even 13 was more socially acceptable than it is now. Worldwide, it may be interesting to know what the mean is for age of consent. It may very well be that, in spite of the fact that it was a crime, Polanski engaging in a sex act with her was less of a crime in his eyes than in ours. There is always a fair question of intent. Sleezy for doping her, but was his intent really rape?

[KevinTBrown]

Regardless of consent or non-consent of the younger person.... a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old is still statutory rape. Period. There is NO way to work around it. There is NO way you can make it better than what it is. Even if you're a 14 year old boy with a hardon for the MILF next door.

Again, it's statutory rape. Period. End of discussion.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Wow.......and something else to consider. In America, as recently as 100 years ago, families married off their 13 year old daughters to men Polanskis age, and it was probably more the norm than not, at least for the commoner ( lower middle and down). Sex under the age of 18, 16, or even 13 was socially not as unacceptable as it is now. Worldwide, it may be interesting to know what the mean is for age of consent. It may very well be that, in spite of the fact that it was a crime, Polanski engaging in a sex act with her was less of a crime in his eyes than in ours. There is always a fair question of intent. Sleezy for doping her, but was his intent really rape?

Intent doesn't matter with rape. Rape is an absolute liability thing. It is, or it isn't.

[rick]

Since when is saying"stop" giving consent rick?


Does everyone skip the part of her testimony where she says that after saying no several times, she eventually said yes?

Now I grant you that these days, we live in a world where someone can go to jail for pressuring someone into having sex, but in 1977, if someone wasn't holding you against your will or physically forcing you to have sex and you still said yes, it counted as consent.

Of course this whole case with Polanski is one of the reasons why these laws got changed and California raised it's age of consent to 18.




At 14, if an attractive women of 40 had wanted to have sex with me, Id have given consent faster than a 1960's liberal could make excuses for a the soviet union. Most kids I grew up with were either having sex at 14, or trying their damndest to.


Yeah, me to.

But at 46, I know damm well that the times I ended up with older women at that age I was into a situation that was way over my head.

And while I really do not think that Polanski intended to commit a crime, but speaking as a man about the same age Polanski was when all of this happened, I believe that his actions were reprehensible, weak and most of all childish.

Even if the girl had been able to legally consent a man his age has no business having sex, even the consenual kind with someone who hasn't even graduated from High School yet.

[rick]

Regardless of consent or non-consent of the younger person.... a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old is still statutory rape. Period. There is NO way to work around it. There is NO way you can make it better than what it is. Even if you're a 14 year old boy with a hardon for the MILF next door.

Again, it's statutory rape. Period. End of discussion.


And yet the Los Angeles District Attorney decided that the facts behind the Polanski case warranted a lesser felony conviction of having sex with a minor, instead of the more serious statutory rape conviction.

So apparently it wasn’t the end of the discussion.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Does everyone skip the part of her testimony where she says that after saying no several times, she eventually said yes?

She said stop, while he was touching her, she said stop while he was undressing her, she said stop when he began performing cunnilingus on her. Eventually, after realising he wasnt going to stop,and she couldnt make him, she stopped telling him to stop.
She never said "yes" AFAIK








Yeah, me to.

But at 46, I know damm well that the times I ended up with older women at that age I was into a situation that was way over my head.

That was half the fun.

And while I really do not think that Polanski intended to commit a crime,

That where we disagree.

[KevinTBrown]

And yet the Los Angeles District Attorney decided that the facts behind the Polanski case warranted a lesser felony conviction of having sex with a minor, instead of the more serious statutory rape conviction.

So apparently it wasn’t the end of the discussion.

The point remains: It's still a crime, regardless of what he was actually convicted of. Some charges are easier to get convictions. Polanski still belongs in jail.

[rick]

She said stop, while he was touching her, she said stop while he was undressing her, she said stop when he began performing cunnilingus on her. Eventually, after realising he wasnt going to stop,and she couldnt make him, she stopped telling him to stop.
She never said "yes" AFAIK




Only if you take as fact the girls version of events as she told them several years later and not inside of any courtroom.

And like it or not the problem here is that she lied in the first place which does throw her entire version of events into doubt. And when you throw Angelica Huston’s testimony into the mix, the whole story gets a bit more murky.

My own view is that even if the girl was enthusiastically participating, which I am not saying she did, she was still not capable of giving true consent.

But I am also quite certain that regardless of what happened, Polanski had no idea of her actual age, and it was her age that caused Polanski to be where he is today.

[rick]

The point remains: It's still a crime, regardless of what he was actually convicted of. Some charges are easier to get convictions. Polanski still belongs in jail.

I actually agree, but my question is how long does he deserve to go to jail for?

He is 76 and if he gets anything more than 5 or 6 years, we are basicly talking about him spending the rest of his life in prison.

[KevinTBrown]

I actually agree, but my question is how long does he deserve to go to jail for?

He is 76 and if he gets anything more than 5 or 6 years, we are basicly talking about him spending the rest of his life in prison.

Whatever he was going to get then, he should get now. It's that simple. He screwed himself by fleeing. Had he just done the time 30 years ago, being 76 now wouldn't be a big deal.

[mikekerr3]

I actually agree, but my question is how long does he deserve to go to jail for?

He is 76 and if he gets anything more than 5 or 6 years, we are basicly talking about him spending the rest of his life in prison.

He really should of thought about that before he ran, that is a self-inflicted wound and deserves no pity

I think 5 or 6 years should be suitable just for the running then he can serve the time for the rape. If he dies of old age in prison, so what?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Only if you take as fact the girls version of events as she told them several years later and not inside of any courtroom.

SO a grand jury testimoney doesnt count?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html


read it rick. Then ask yourself this. If a your daughter went through this,what would you do?

[Guapo Méndez]

SO a grand jury testimoney doesnt count?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html


read it rick. Then ask yourself this. If a your daughter went through this,what would you do?

In the first place, I don't think Rick would be pimping his daughter to a director to get a movie deal out of it.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Does everyone skip the part of her testimony where she says that after saying no several times, she eventually said yes?

Because it doesn't matter. If the guy ignored her several times, she likely thought it would be better just to go with it than chance resisting and getting hurt.

[mikekerr3]

. If a your daughter went through this,what would you do?

Remember the trial movie with Jackson and McConaughey?:evilsmile:

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Remember the trial movie with Jackson and McConaughey?:evilsmile:

Funny, I was thinking more of what the predator did to his victims in the first movie.:evilsmile:

[Ryan Day]

xxxxxxxxxx

[Evan Waters]

Who doesn't? With the French, if we say left they'll say right just because. They're a stagnate culture that needs a foil to maintain the lie that they've gone nowhere compared to everyone else in the block, and we're it.

I don't hate the French at all. I do recognize that their devotion to a strong national identity and national loyalty can produce issues like the refusal to extradite convicted rapists, but that's an issue of policy- I don't have anything against the country.

[shrike]

I don't hate the French at all. I do recognize that their devotion to a strong national identity and national loyalty can produce issues like the refusal to extradite convicted rapists, but that's an issue of policy- I don't have anything against the country.

Fine, I'm not sharing my FREEDOM FRIES then. Hmph!

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Because it doesn't matter. If the guy ignored her several times, she likely thought it would be better just to go with it than chance resisting and getting hurt.


You're forgetting that the time of the Polanski situation was before "no-means-no" was instilled into US society as part of rape prevention programs and such.

There was still the mentality of, "When a girl says no, she really means yes." ........Nowadays, of course, a guy will usually take no as "no".

Thinking of the case with a present-day viewpoint makes Polanski into more of a villain than he was. He was definitely a sleazeball, but a pedophile? Off this one documented case, I'd say no........A rapist? That's borderline. By today's standards, he would be one, but not by the time-frame this occurred.


I don't hate the French at all. I do recognize that their devotion to a strong national identity and national loyalty can produce issues like the refusal to extradite convicted rapists, but that's an issue of policy- I don't have anything against the country.


Personally, I like the French. I find it hilarious how so many people hate them, and they take it in stride. Some of them almost revel in it........In general, they do have a certain bit of arrogance to them, but I don't consider it offensive. I've found a select few other cultures to be far more offensive in that regard.

[FeminineMystique]

You're forgetting that the time of the Polanski situation was before "no-means-no" was instilled into US society as part of rape prevention programs and such.

There was still the mentality of, "When a girl says no, she really means yes." ........Nowadays, of course, a guy will usually take no as "no".


Rape is rape no matter what the "Mentality" of the time is. Just because Polanski was such a scumbag that he couldn't get it through his thick skull that when a girl says no it means NO doesn't make him a "Borderline" rapist, it makes him a rapist.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Rape is rape no matter what the "Mentality" of the time is. Just because Polanski was such a scumbag that he couldn't get it through his thick skull that when a girl says no it means NO doesn't make him a "Borderline" rapist, it makes him a rapist.


The simple act of saying, "No.", wasn't considered rape back then, so it does matter what the mentality of that time period was in that regard.

[FeminineMystique]

The simple act of saying, "No.", wasn't considered rape back then, so it does matter what the mentality of that time period was in that regard.

The girl he assaulted clearly thought it was rape. Just because sleazy scumbags like Polanski couldn't understand a simple concept like "No means no" doesn't mean what he did wasn't rape.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

The girl he assaulted clearly thought it was rape. Just because sleazy scumbags like Polanski couldn't understand a simple concept like "No means no" doesn't mean what he did wasn't rape.

Agreed.As an aside, when reading that transcript I couldn't help visualizing my little sister on the stand.

[Charles RB]

Personally, I like the French. I find it hilarious how so many people hate them, and they take it in stride.

You have to wonder what the French have actually done that earned them such ire.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

The girl he assaulted clearly thought it was rape. Just because sleazy scumbags like Polanski couldn't understand a simple concept like "No means no" doesn't mean what he did wasn't rape.


Or she was coached by her mom to report it as a rape........I would hope she was telling the truth.

This doesn't deflect the chance of it being a rape, but I do find it odd for a 13yr old girl to recognize a quaalude, to the point of identifying the pill to Polanski and knowingly ingest it.


You have to wonder what the French have actually done that earned them such ire.

Perhaps some of the history in Europe, but then I don't see everyone in coastal Europe harboring hatred for the Swedes pillaging & kidnapping women during the time of the vikings.

[lonewolf23k]

You have to wonder what the French have actually done that earned them such ire.

They're French. And Americans are descended from English.

And English hate the French.

It's that simple, really.

[Charles RB]

They're French. And Americans are descended from English.

And English hate the French.

It's that simple, really.

And it's pretty stupid that we still hate them when the last war we had was over a century ago, and we had two massive wars alongside them.

[FeminineMystique]

Or she was coached by her mom to report it as a rape........I would hope she was telling the truth.

This doesn't deflect the chance of it being a rape, but I do find it odd for a 13yr old girl to recognize a quaalude, to the point of identifying the pill to Polanski and knowingly ingest it.

Yes, it's all the sinister plan of the rape victim and her mother to hurt poor, defenceless Roman Polanski.:rolleyes:

Seriously Chris. NO. Just no.

Agreed.As an aside, when reading that transcript I couldn't help visualizing my little sister on the stand.

I hope you never have to go through ANYTHING like that, Bat.

[Guapo Méndez]

The girl he assaulted clearly thought it was rape. Just because sleazy scumbags like Polanski couldn't understand a simple concept like "No means no" doesn't mean what he did wasn't rape.

Don't forget that mom had planned to get Polanski no matter what. We don't know if the mother gave her the "if he gets randy, you do him" speech.

(again, clearly in the wrong for Polanski to rape her, but the deck was clearly stacked against him)

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Yes, it's all the sinister plan of the rape victim and her mother to hurt poor, defenceless Roman Polanski.:rolleyes:

Seriously Chris. NO. Just no.



It's what Anjelica Huston surmised, and she was there before it happened.

Personally, I don't really care about Polanski, so I'm not trying to vehemently defend him..........I never saw Chinatown or Tess, thought The Pianist was good, but overrated, and thought The Ninth Gate was crap........Not that my opinions on his films matter. Possible appreciation for his work should have no bearing on any crimes he may have committed.

[Charles RB]

the deck was clearly stacked against him)

I don't see how it would've been stacked against him if he hadn't actually raped the girl. Then the mother would be a bit stuffed, really.

The person who actually seems to have had a deck stacked against them is Samantha Geimer, who has her mother pulling shit and Polanski raping her while she was a minor.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I hope you never have to go through ANYTHING like that, Bat.

I hope no one ever has to. But I know many will.

[Guapo Méndez]

I don't see how it would've been stacked against him if he hadn't actually raped the girl. Then the mother would be a bit stuffed, really.

The person who actually seems to have had a deck stacked against them is Samantha Geimer, who has her mother pulling shit and Polanski raping her while she was a minor.

Agreed. He would not be in this pickle of he had kept it in his pants. That's why I'm perfectly fine with him being nabbed and (hopefully) going to face the court.

And yeah, a 13 year old used as a bargaining chip by her mother is so vile is unmentionable.

But what Polanski knew back then was a) she's 18, b) her mother agreed with this and c) SOP within Hollywood. He must have thought it was just another notch in his belt.

You're gonna regret not dealing with this when you had 30+ years of life to live, Roman. Now that you're at the average age of death of most humankind, you're well and truly fucked.

[Charles RB]

c) SOP within Hollywood.

If I was feeling very nasty, I'd suggest that's why a lot of people in the film industry are backing him - hey, it can't be that bad, they did it too.

[Guapo Méndez]

If I was feeling very nasty, I'd suggest that's why a lot of people in the film industry are backing him - hey, it can't be that bad, they did it too.

Hollywood in the 70's?

They snortedit, smoked it, shot it, sucked it and fucked it. So, yeah, they are covering their own asses.

[FeminineMystique]

If I was feeling very nasty, I'd suggest that's why a lot of people in the film industry are backing him - hey, it can't be that bad, they did it too.

I think sadly that's more realism than nastiness:frown:

[Charles RB]

Hollywood in the 70's?

They snortedit, smoked it, shot it, sucked it and fucked it. So, yeah, they are covering their own asses.

Ha, just in the 70s?

[Guapo Méndez]

Ha, just in the 70s?

Indeed.

But back then there were fewer ways to get that information to the public. Today every internet blogger can have the power of a tv network and all it takes is one photo-video and the story can run around the world within the hour.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The simple act of saying, "No.", wasn't considered rape back then, so it does matter what the mentality of that time period was in that regard.

Actually, he lived in an era of 'I'm male, women are considered whores if they are raped, ergo I can do what I want'.

[spoon_jenkins]

I find this part of the petition signed by fellow movie-folk incredibly ridiculous: "The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects,"

In other words, the police shouldn't be allowed to capture a fugitive unless they give them advanced warning of where they'll try to capture. :rolleyes: And fugitives should be allowed to travel to any other country in the world without repercussions. :rolleyes:

Seems like they think their friends or their class are entitled to special privileges.

[rick]

edited for formating errors

[rick]

Yes, it's all the sinister plan of the rape victim and her mother to hurt poor, defenceless Roman Polanski.:rolleyes:

Seriously Chris. NO. Just no.




You don’t seem to actually be paying attention to any part of this conversation that doesn't go along with what are your own preconceived notion of what happened.

[rick]

Ha, just in the 70s?


Ha, just in Hollywood.

Most of us who survived the 70's have a few things we regret having done.

Though hopefully not quite up to Polanski's level.

[rick]

Actually, he lived in an era of 'I'm male, women are considered whores if they are raped, ergo I can do what I want'.


Were you even alive in the 1970's because you really don't know what you are talking about here?

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Were you even alive in the 1970's because you really don't know what you are talking about here?

Maybe he was in Saudi Arabia during the 1970's.

[mikekerr3]

Or she was coached by her mom to report it as a rape........I would hope she was telling the truth.

This doesn't deflect the chance of it being a rape, but I do find it odd for a 13yr old girl to recognize a quaalude, to the point of identifying the pill to Polanski and knowingly ingest it.

In 1977 many 13yr olds could discus the difference between brands