Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[headscratcher4]

Thirteen year old girl can not legally consent to sex with an adult. Period. Whatever and however the deal was worked out -- the fact that her mother put her in the situation may have played into it, as well as Polanski's power in Holywood and a rather lax eye toward such crimes at the time -- the bottom line is that she was 13. She could have seduced him and it would still be a crime. But she says it was not consent AND she was 13. It is both statutory rape and just flat out criminal rape.

ETA:BTW I do not think that a thirteen year old...regardless of "experience" ... can seduce an adult. She was a obvious child, he knew she was a child. No confusion. No "she wanted it". No "I didn't know what I was doing..." If this wasn't rape, than why have rape statuets or age of consent statuets at all?

 

[Pardalis]

Hey he is no where near as bad as Issei Sagawa, who in france murdered and ate a college student. After being deported after being found legaly insane, he checked himself out of the mental hospital in Japan.

So in the scale of things, yes a little mistake.

Gibberish.

 

[Cleon]

Thirteen year old girl can not legally consent to sex with an adult. Period. Whatever and however the deal was worked out -- the fact that her mother put her in the situation may have played into it, as well as Polanski's power in Holywood and a rather lax eye toward such crimes at the time -- the bottom line is that she was 13. She could have seduced him and it would still be a crime. But she says it was not consent AND she was 13. It is both statutory rape and just flat out criminal rape.

Yep. Deal, no deal, **** him. (Uh, figuratively speaking.)

Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. That's really all there is to say about it.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Just caught some Polanski-defenders on BBC radio.
Among them the director of Betty Blue.

In case you are all wondering why these people are standing up for him: Its the plea bargain. From that moment on the whole case was framed around a consensual sex with and underage girl as far as all Polanski's friends are concerned.

Consensual sex is what he admitted to. He's wanted for having consensual sex. He himself will play the "little mistake" card of having had consensual sex 32 years ago.

This how it's on record with the courts. And this is how the discussion will be framed by Polanski, his friends and the authorities.

However, the girl's testimony is available on line, so the public reaction will eventually be framed around child rape.

 

[Yoink]

Thirteen year old girl can not legally consent to sex with an adult. Period. Whatever and however the deal was worked out -- the fact that her mother put her in the situation may have played into it, as well as Polanski's power in Holywood and a rather lax eye toward such crimes at the time -- the bottom line is that she was 13. She could have seduced him and it would still be a crime. But she says it was not consent AND she was 13. It is both statutory rape and just flat out criminal rape.

ETA:BTW I do not think that a thirteen year old...regardless of "experience" ... can seduce an adult. She was a obvious child, he knew she was a child. No confusion. No "she wanted it". No "I didn't know what I was doing..." If this wasn't rape, than why have rape statuets or age of consent statuets at all?

Are you arguing that you would make no difference at all in the sentence you would hand down to somebody guilty of consensual sex with a minor and someone guilty of the forcible rape of a minor? I mean, I agree absolutely that a 40 yr old who has sex with a 13 yr old is guily of a crime and deserves to face the consequences of that crime. But I cannot view that crime as being as bad as a 40 yr old physically forcing a 13 yr old to have sex with him. To say "they're all the same thing" seems to me the kind of thinking that leads to stupid zero-tolerance nonsense.

 

[Yoink]

However, the girl's testimony is available on line, so the public reaction will eventually be framed around child rape.

One would hope that in the courts (whatever happens in the court of public opinion) the question will not be simply "what is the testimony" but "what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." There are perfectly plausible scenarios in which the girl's testimony is 100% accurate, and there are perfectly plausible scenarios in which it is not. Frustration with the fact that Polanski thumbed his nose at the US justice system for 30 years shouldn't suddenly remove the burden of proof from the prosecutors.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yep. Deal, no deal, **** him. (Uh, figuratively speaking.)

Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. That's really all there is to say about it.

Lets throw the whole thing out and actualy have a trial.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm guessing she wasn't your 13-year-old daughter/niece, then.

Zing.

according to 13 year old victim, the sex was not consensual.

Polanski's escapades must have been the inspiration for Ira Einhorn to flee to Europe in 1981 to escape prosecution for murdering Holly Maddux.

Must have been? Did he ever say it was? I smell an assumption.

Hey he is no where near as bad as Issei Sagawa, who in france murdered and ate a college student. After being deported after being found legaly insane, he checked himself out of the mental hospital in Japan. So in the scale of things, yes a little mistake.

That doesn't change the 13 year old and non consensual sex deal.

Just caught some Polanski-defenders on BBC radio. Among them the director of Betty Blue.

In case you are all wondering why these people are standing up for him: Its the plea bargain. From that moment on the whole case was framed around a consensual sex with and underage girl as far as all Polanski's friends are concerned.

Overlooking the fact that in CA it is still statutory rape. Go figure, artistes overlooking a fact.

What do the Swiss hope to gain from this decision? Who do they owe a favor to in Washington?

DR

 

[headscratcher4]

I am saying a thirteen year old can not agree to have sex with a 40 year old man. She can't legally (statutory rape), nor do I believe she is possessed of the intelligence, emotional maturity to do so. No matter how you look at it -- consensual for him? -- she was placed in a situation which completely viciated any consent. I'm not arguing the soundness of the plea agreement. That -- with more than thirty years hindsight -- seems particularly vile given the circumstances described. I am arguing that I don't believe a 13 year old can willingly consent to sex with a 40 year old (you may have me rethininking if we're talking about a pair of 13 year olds messing around). He has the power. Period. But it is worse than that -- the "I used bad judgement" approach -- he drugged her and violated her three different ways with her objecting each time. It is about as ugly a crime as you can imagine -- made even worse because her mother was involved.

But, in addition, whatever scummy plea agreement was worked out...what ever soft time he was going to have to do -- he JUMPED bail. He didn't face his crime. I didn't appeal what he thought was going to be the judge renigging on his deal. I just left. So: we've got criminal rape, statutory rape and feloneous flight. He should spend the rest of his life...or a good 10 years of it anyway...in jail.

BTW, this rant doesn't even get into the whole question of equal justice and the people who did time for statutory rape or actual criminal rape who couldn't afford bail, psychiatrists or fancy lawyers and who didn't flee and who ended up doing their time and now have to live in neighborhoods where the neighbors and the cops know they are child predators.

 

[Yoink]

Lets throw the whole thing out and actualy have a trial.

Any actual lawyers out there who know how this works at this point? Can they just pick up the process where it left off--as if Polanski had never got on that plane? Could they bring him back into a courtroom and say "so, Mr. Polanski, we see that you plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, here's your sentence"? Or do they have to start from scratch? Could Polanski force them to start from scratch? Can he say "I renounce my previous plea deal, and I plead "not guilty"?

I can't see the point of having an actual trial, myself, if it can be avoided. If Polanski will stick to his side of the original deal (pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor) that seems to me to be about as much as any trial could possibly hope to attain. To have a full jury trial now would be enormously hard on the victim and would almost certainly end up in exactly the same place. With no toxicology tests from the time, how are you going to prove the quaalude claim--or even the champagne claim? With nothing but "he said/she said" testimony, how do you prove non-consent? What's left but what Polanski already agreed to plead to?

 

[Pardalis]

I wonder if George W. Bush had raped a girl in the seventies if the French would be so quick to stand up in his defense.

 

[WildCat]

What do the Swiss hope to gain from this decision? Who do they owe a favor to in Washington?

DR

Maybe it's guilt over their banking laws protecting tax cheats for decades, which they were recently forced to do away with by the US. And how they got caught keeping money stolen from Jews by Nazis during WWII and only recently reluctantly agreed to give it back.

 

[headscratcher4]

Any actual lawyers out there who know how this works at this point? Can they just pick up the process where it left off--as if Polanski had never got on that plane? Could they bring him back into a courtroom and say "so, Mr. Polanski, we see that you plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, here's your sentence"? Or do they have to start from scratch? Could Polanski force them to start from scratch? Can he say "I renounce my previous plea deal, and I plead "not guilty"?

I can't see the point of having an actual trial, myself, if it can be avoided. If Polanski will stick to his side of the original deal (pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor) that seems to me to be about as much as any trial could possibly hope to attain. To have a full jury trial now would be enormously hard on the victim and would almost certainly end up in exactly the same place. With no toxicology tests from the time, how are you going to prove the quaalude claim--or even the champagne claim? With nothing but "he said/she said" testimony, how do you prove non-consent? What's left but what Polanski already agreed to plead to?

I think...and I could be completely wrong...that as he fled before the deal was complete...i.e. the plea in open court plus the sentence...his actions wipe-out the deal. They can go on full out rape or statutory rape....

 

[WildCat]

Any actual lawyers out there who know how this works at this point? Can they just pick up the process where it left off--as if Polanski had never got on that plane? Could they bring him back into a courtroom and say "so, Mr. Polanski, we see that you plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, here's your sentence"? Or do they have to start from scratch? Could Polanski force them to start from scratch? Can he say "I renounce my previous plea deal, and I plead "not guilty"?

I can't see the point of having an actual trial, myself, if it can be avoided. If Polanski will stick to his side of the original deal (pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor) that seems to me to be about as much as any trial could possibly hope to attain. To have a full jury trial now would be enormously hard on the victim and would almost certainly end up in exactly the same place. With no toxicology tests from the time, how are you going to prove the quaalude claim--or even the champagne claim? With nothing but "he said/she said" testimony, how do you prove non-consent? What's left but what Polanski already agreed to plead to?

Nope, the trial is over. His only recourse at this point would be to appeal the sentence. Unlikely he'd get a new trial after pleading guilty.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, the trial is over. His only recourse at this point would be to appeal the sentence. Unlikely he'd get a new trial after pleading guilty.

Yep only the guilty ever pleade guilty.

 

[Yoink]

I am saying a thirteen year old can not agree to have sex with a 40 year old man.

Somebody's disputing that?

She can't legally (statutory rape), nor do I believe she is possessed of the intelligence, emotional maturity to do so. No matter how you look at it -- consensual for him? -- she was placed in a situation which completely viciated any consent. I'm not arguing the soundness of the plea agreement. That -- with more than thirty years hindsight -- seems particularly vile given the circumstances described. I am arguing that I don't believe a 13 year old can willingly consent to sex with a 40 year old (you may have me rethininking if we're talking about a pair of 13 year olds messing around). He has the power. Period. But it is worse than that -- the "I used bad judgement" approach -- he drugged her and violated her three different ways with her objecting each time. It is about as ugly a crime as you can imagine -- made even worse because her mother was involved.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all agree that statutory rape is a crime. The question is whether it is as grave a crime as forcible rape of a minor. That is, even if we agree (as we all do) that a minor cannot legally consent to sex (and that an adult is consequently breaking the law to act upon that consent), can we not also hold that it is an even worse offense for an adult to force him or herself upon a minor in the face of his or her explicit refusal of consent. To me that seems obviously to be the case.

But, in addition, whatever scummy plea agreement was worked out...what ever soft time he was going to have to do -- he JUMPED bail. He didn't face his crime. I didn't appeal what he thought was going to be the judge renigging on his deal. I just left. So: we've got criminal rape, statutory rape and feloneous flight. He should spend the rest of his life...or a good 10 years of it anyway...in jail.

I've no idea what the legal penalties for statutory rape were in the mid-70s, do you? I also have no idea what the legal penalties for "felonious flight" (if that is the appropriate term in this case) were. Do you?

I'm not sure why you list both "criminal rape" and "statutory rape." Either you think they're identical charges or you don't. If you think they're identical, why list both? If you don't think they're identical, then surely you agree with me that it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the first. In which case, you agree with my point; that by getting him to plead to statutory rape they were getting all they could have got from a court trial.

ETA: I did some Googling and found a bunch of newspaper articles that say that the maximum sentence at the time of Polanski's trial was 50 years, but that "typical" sentences at the time ranged from 16 months to three years.

 

[Yoink]

Yep only the guilty ever pleade guilty.

I don't see the relevance of this claim (nobody disputes that Polanski is, in fact, guilty of unlawful sexual relations with a minor)--but it's spectacularly untrue. A staggeringly high proportion of people freed by the Innocence Project (freed because they were proven innocent)entered guilty pleas. When your lawyer tells you: "look, if you stick with the innocent plea, you'll get the death sentence, but if you plead guilty we can make it life without parole" there aren't many who choose to die for the sake of principle.

 

[headscratcher4]

I'm not sure why you list both "criminal rape" and "statutory rape." Either you think they're identical charges or you don't. If you think they're identical, why list both? If you don't think they're identical, then surely you agree with me that it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the first. In which case, you agree with my point; that by getting him to plead to statutory rape they were getting all they could have got from a court trial.

You're right...I was making a distinction without merit. They're both criminal. The difference is that statutory rape may invovle "consent" from someone not statutorilly endowed with the ability to give consent.

And, as a further confession of ignorance, I obviously don't know why the prosecutors made the deal they did 30 plus years ago...however, my ranting here is based on the fact that they had him dead to rights on statutory rape and I assume, even in California in the 70s, that it was a multi-year felony. Of course, I could be wrong.

I'm going to try and stop ranting now.

 

[Yoink]

You're right...I was making a distinction without merit. They're both criminal.

Stealing a ten-cent candy from the store counter is "criminal" and so is stealing someone's car, and so is running a Ponzi scheme that defrauds people of billions of dollars of their hard-earned savings. I take it you think that all should be punished in exactly the same way? I mean, they're all "stealing" and they're all "criminal"--so it's absurd to make any distinctions at all, right?

Similarly, an 18 year old who has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend should receive exactly the same penalty as a 40 yr old who drags an eight year old girl into an alley and rapes her. I mean, they're both 'statutory rape' and there's clearly nothing more to be said.

 

[Ladewig]

Stealing a ten-cent candy from the store counter is "criminal" and so is stealing someone's car, and so is running a Ponzi scheme that defrauds people of billions of dollars of their hard-earned savings. I take it you think that all should be punished in exactly the same way? I mean, they're all "stealing" and they're all "criminal"--so it's absurd to make any distinctions at all, right?

Similarly, an 18 year old who has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend should receive exactly the same penalty as a 40 yr old who drags an eight year old girl into an alley and rapes her. I mean, they're both 'statutory rape' and there's clearly nothing more to be said.

I'm not following your hypothetical. If a 40-year-old man asks a 13-year-old girl if she wants to have sex and she says yes, then I believe his punishment should be equal in severity to the punishment given to a 40-year-old man who asked a 13-year-old girl if she wants to have sex and girl says no. Both men need to spend hard time in jail. The 13-year-olds' replies are irrelevant.