Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[zooterkin]

Undisputed fact by all parties concerned: Polanski had sex with a 13 year old child.

That's rape by definition, since a 13 year old cannot give consent.

Cannot? You mean under the law as it stands now, and stood then, or is that some sort of absolute statement?

What was the actual age of consent in California in 1977, and how long had it been set at that age?

While I in no way defend Polanski, when it comes to the wider discussion of the age of consent things are not always straightforward. Only 19 years earlier, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. Yes, it caused an outcry at the time, but in at least one state of the US, the law believed a 13 year could give consent.

ETA: What I've not seen discussed much is the plea bargain; this seems to be a feature of the US justice system more than any other I'm aware of. Is my impression justified?

 

[Pardalis]

He not only broke the law by having sex with a minor, he also broke the law by fleeing. What kind of a message would that send if they didn't prosecute him?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What is it was Father Polanski?

 

[Skeptic]

*Yes, I know you were being sarcastic.

I'm just pissed at the Hollywood folks -- usually so horrified by rape, especially rape of children -- jumping to defend this guy, not because he is falsely accused, but because he is Polanski. The idea is, as usual, "the rules don't apply to us".

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm just pissed at

..everyone, it always seems.

 

[rwguinn]

.....
To say, then, "well, there's evidence that he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" is just laughably irrelevant.

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[WildCat]

Cannot? You mean under the law as it stands now, and stood then, or is that some sort of absolute statement?

What was the actual age of consent in California in 1977, and how long had it been set at that age?

Completely irrelevant. It was statutory rape when it occurred, and still is.

While I in no way defend Polanski, when it comes to the wider discussion of the age of consent things are not always straightforward. Only 19 years earlier, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. Yes, it caused an outcry at the time, but in at least one state of the US, the law believed a 13 year could give consent.

Hey, since opening a brothel is A-OK in parts of Nevada I'll open one here!

ETA: What I've not seen discussed much is the plea bargain; this seems to be a feature of the US justice system more than any other I'm aware of. Is my impression justified?

No idea. I'm pretty sure the UK has a similar procedure.

 

[zooterkin]

Completely irrelevant. It was statutory rape when it occurred, and still is.

Ok, so you meant "cannot" as defined by the law pertaining at the time. Thanks.

 

[oldhat]

I'm just pissed at

..everyone, it always seems.

Epic.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Who would've thunk that Whoopi Goldberg is a rape-apologist?

NSFW - graphic testimony

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/29/views-whoopi-goldberg-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape

Polanski was convicted of unlawful sex with a minor, but only because he struck a plea bargain in exchange for the dismissal of charges of rape, sodomy, molestation, and giving drugs to a minor.

 

[Walter Wayne]

What was the actual age of consent in California in 1977, and how long had it been set at that age?

From http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/

Some news sources have reported that at the time of Polanski's crime, the age of consent was either 14 or 16. This is incorrect. California's first penal code in 1850 proscribed sex with girls under the age of 10. The age of consent was raised to 14 in 1889, to 16 in 1897, and finally to 18 in 1913, where it has remained since that time.

Walt

 

[Rolfe]

I remember being completely baffled why the big deal about Buffy sleeping with Angel but not till after midnight on the eve of her birthday. Never occurred to me the age of consent was so high in California.

It's 16 here.

Rolfe.

 

[JWideman]

In case you're still not in possession of the facts, here's the victims testimony from 1977:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html

To summarize, he drugged her and then raped her repeatedly, with the girl protesting the entire time. The girl he knew was 13. That's not just "rape-rape", that's "rape-rape" of a child. Feel free to continue defending this scumbag child rapist, but keep in mind that his status as scumbag child rapist is a matter of court record.

 

[zooterkin]

Who here is defending him?

 

[Segnosaur]

From http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/


Walt

That seems to be a pretty good source of some of the facts that often get overlooked.

I found some of the discussion about the judge's supposed misconduct interesting:

(Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled.

While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties—the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications—discussions where only one side is represented.

To me, this brings up a couple of points:

- Even if the girls in the photo were not actually underage, the fact that he would be 'partying' with younger gals (even if they were 18 or so) does challenge the claim that this was just a 'single' stupid mistake. Yes, 18 is legal, 13 is not, but it does show a dispostion for younger girls. (Not claiming its a legal argument, just talking about patterns here.)

- Ok, the judge and prosecutor were wrong to actually talk without Polanski's lawyers present. (The referred-to article does suggest that it would be normal to bring in a different judge for sentencing in these cases.) But if the judge actually was in enough contact with Polanski's lawyers to warn them he'd be sentenced to jail, wouldn't they have been able to raise their objectons/state their case AT THAT TIME? Couldn't they have said "You plan to sentence my client based on pictures, but we have an explaination for them".

So, the judicial misconduct, while unfortunate (and should be addressed), isn't exactly a situation where Polanski was getting "persecuted".

 

[Freddy]

I remember being completely baffled why the big deal about Buffy sleeping with Angel but not till after midnight on the eve of her birthday. Never occurred to me the age of consent was so high in California.

It's 16 here.

Rolfe.

Still, a five hundred year old having sex with a 16 year old is just gross.

 

[Rolfe]

Aw, he was only about 270, wasn't he?

Rolfe.

 

[Checkmite]

Guys, it's not a matter of the rape having been committed 32 years ago and his just now getting arrested for it. Polanski's in trouble because he was convicted, and skipped the country instead of showing up for his sentence. There's no statute of limitations on felony flight, as far as I'm aware. If he'd just gone in for his sentence he would have been out of prison for a very, very long time already. He still owes time.

And if you think going to jail would've ruined his career, you've obviously never heard of Victor Salva. You should've; after all, Salva directed the smash hit Jeepers Creepers movies. You might've forgotten, though, or perhaps never knew, that he served 15 months of a 3 year jail term for videotaping himself molesting a 12-year-old boy who was playing the lead in one of his movies in the late 80's. When he got out of prison, Francis Ford Coppola of all people gave him some money to get back on his feet until he got a new job - which he did, and he hasn't had trouble since.

 

[Beerina]

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?

Hint: Alcohol and quaaludes do not for consenting make, adult or 13 year old.

 

[Beerina]

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.

This is at the borderline now of that other study that demonstrated that simple consent for 14 and 15 year olds correlated well to whether they viewed the experience as positive or not (to say nothing of "psychological trauma").

It does a tremendous disservice to think that a willing participant (which this was not, keep in mind) is somehow going to be as badly affected as an actual, forceful rape victim would be. The science would not show that. Even if a consenting 13 year old had psychological problems later, it would be completely idiotic to think they'd be of the same magnitude, or even kind, as those suffered by a 13 year old violent rape victim.