Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Damien Evans]

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.

And that was on her 17th birthday anyway, not her 18th.

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

Same thing with the Friends episode "The One WIth the Ick Factor" in which Monica's new boyfriend turns out to be 17. Most UK viewers were left puzzled by that one.

 

[Francesca R]

There is the issue of being on this for life also in the US:

http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/About.Aspx

(For the record, I believe that "service" is deeply flawed)

 

[applecorped]

Epic.

...Fail.

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

On the other hand, if people do actually read it, it's clear that a lot of the descriptions being bandied about - including your own - aren't quite how things happened. Vague descriptions that he "drugged her" and even (as seen elsewhere) that he "drugged her drink" don't tally with the girl's own testimony about the less than single quaalude they shared. What is also obvious is that there is no mention of any discussion with Polanski about her age during her entire testimony. I don't think I've ever seen it explicitly proven that he knew exactly how young she was; I don't think it could be disputed that he didn't know she was underage, but did he know she was 13? As Yoink says, a lot of it comes down to "he said/she said," but I think objectively you can see how Polanski might have rationalised it in his own mind by simply avoiding seeking any clarification on that point. It's not an excuse, but I think a lot of how the first acted - at least in the early stages - would have merely reinforced the idea in Polanski's head that everythign was OK. Not wanting to dwell on the detail, but the switch from vaginal to anal intercourse is also dealt with in such a perfunctory manner that I think most people would do a mental double-take.

The bottom line, though, is that Polanski plead guilty to a specific charge, and he should receive an appropriate punishment for it. The danger, though, is that whatever that is is unlikely to the same as what he would have got in 1977.

 

[Marcus]

On the other hand, if people do actually read it, it's clear that a lot of the descriptions being bandied about - including your own - aren't quite how things happened. Vague descriptions that he "drugged her" and even (as seen elsewhere) that he "drugged her drink" don't tally with the girl's own testimony about the less than single quaalude they shared. What is also obvious is that there is no mention of any discussion with Polanski about her age during her entire testimony. I don't think I've ever seen it explicitly proven that he knew exactly how young she was; I don't think it could be disputed that he didn't know she was underage, but did he know she was 13? As Yoink says, a lot of it comes down to "he said/she said," but I think objectively you can see how Polanski might have rationalised it in his own mind by simply avoiding seeking any clarification on that point. It's not an excuse, but I think a lot of how the first acted - at least in the early stages - would have merely reinforced the idea in Polanski's head that everythign was OK. Not wanting to dwell on the detail, but the switch from vaginal to anal intercourse is also dealt with in such a perfunctory manner that I think most people would do a mental double-take.

The bottom line, though, is that Polanski plead guilty to a specific charge, and he should receive an appropriate punishment for it. The danger, though, is that whatever that is is unlikely to the same as what he would have got in 1977.

I agree, it was bad, but not as bad as the bare "he drugged and raped a child" scenario. She certainly looked 16 (or older) and she didn't run screaming when he asked her to climb naked into the hot tub, or attempt to leave when he came on to her. She may have been slightly high, but was not incapacitated. No, it's not her fault, and it doesn't excuse his actions, I'm just saying there is a difference between this event and the images conjured up by "he drugged and raped a child".

 

[Francesca R]

I'm just saying there is a difference between this event and the images conjured up by "he drugged and raped a child".

My reading of it is that he drugged and raped a child.

 

[Information Analyst]

My reading of it is that he drugged and raped a child.

Drugged at least as much as he was, of course. His judgement was clearly screwed to begin with, but that can't have helped.

 

[headscratcher4]

She was a child. She was not legally able to consent to sex or to taking drugs (which I also suspect were illegal and which I am sure she also did not bring to the Party. She is not legally responsible for any of her actions, and I would argue she is not morally responsible for any of it. She could not give concent. Nor did she really have any power over the situation. He was a 40 year old man. It was on his turf. He supplied the booze, the drugs and the hot tub. He knew she was under age. He knew he could take advantage of the situation. He knew....

I wonder if some of his supporters in these even listen to themsleves. Here's Sharon Tate's sister excusing Polansky because he is "brilliant" and it was consensual:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tates-sister-sex-w_n_304042.html

Like Whoopie G., one wonders what they would say if he was on their 13 year old daughter? I'm sure that would be different.

 

[Number Six]

I agree, it was bad, but not as bad as the bare "he drugged and raped a child" scenario. She certainly looked 16 (or older) and she didn't run screaming when he asked her to climb naked into the hot tub, or attempt to leave when he came on to her. She may have been slightly high, but was not incapacitated. No, it's not her fault, and it doesn't excuse his actions, I'm just saying there is a difference between this event and the images conjured up by "he drugged and raped a child".

According to what I read of her account, she did try to leave when he came on to her. She said she was feeling sick and she said she wanted to go home. And she resisted Polanski and said no, until she finally gave up and stopped resisting and just waited for him to finish.

This would all have been ancient history by now had Polanski just served whatever time he had coming.

 

[madurobob]

She was a child. She was not legally able to consent to sex or to taking drugs (which I also suspect were illegal and which I am sure she also did not bring to the Party. She is not legally responsible for any of her actions, and I would argue she is not morally responsible for any of it. She could not give concent. Nor did she really have any power over the situation. He was a 40 year old man. It was on his turf. He supplied the booze, the drugs and the hot tub. He knew she was under age. He knew he could take advantage of the situation. He knew....

IIRC it was champagne and Quaaludes. Bother were legal... as long as you were at least 18 and had a prescription for the 'ludes. From the testimony it sounds like they split a 'lude. That would be enough to relax an average sized man and really relax an average model-sized teen. Add a little champagne to the mix, and that poor girl would be far too relaxed to put up any reasonable resistance.

Complaints that she didn't resist enough are BS. She was drugged and a young girl in a stranger's house with a famous director who could hold the key to her future fame. And her mother sent her there for the photo shoot. She really had a lot working against her ability to cry out and run away.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And hey, he had his chance to argue all this in court decades ago. But he decided to flee the country. Whether he'd get off on the rape charge then, or now, is irrelevant--he's attempted to circumvent the entire justice system. That is not permitted. A civilization built on law does not work when people can just defy it. Trials exist exactly so people can fight for their side of things. He chose not to do so.

 

[headscratcher4]

And hey, he had his chance to argue all this in court decades ago. But he decided to flee the country. Whether he'd get off on the rape charge then, or now, is irrelevant--he's attempted to circumvent the entire justice system. That is not permitted. A civilization built on law does not work when people can just defy it. Trials exist exactly so people can fight for their side of things. He chose not to do so.

Exactly!

 

[Brainster]

On the other hand, if people do actually read it, it's clear that a lot of the descriptions being bandied about - including your own - aren't quite how things happened. Vague descriptions that he "drugged her" and even (as seen elsewhere) that he "drugged her drink" don't tally with the girl's own testimony about the less than single quaalude they shared. What is also obvious is that there is no mention of any discussion with Polanski about her age during her entire testimony. I don't think I've ever seen it explicitly proven that he knew exactly how young she was; I don't think it could be disputed that he didn't know she was underage, but did he know she was 13?

Polanski acknowledged that he knew she was 13 in open court.

Mr Gunson: Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?

(Pause in the proceedings while a discussion off the recrod ensued at the counsel table between the defendant and his counsel.)

The Defendant: Yes.

Reading the girl's grand jury testimony, I can understand better why the prosecution was willing to plea bargain. The girl drank the champagne voluntarily, took the quaalude voluntarily (and admitted having taken one before), and also said she'd had sexual intercourse before Polanski raped her. That is definitely the kind of case that ensures that her behavior would be an issue in the trial.

 

[HeyLeroy]

And hey, he had his chance to argue all this in court decades ago. But he decided to flee the country. Whether he'd get off on the rape charge then, or now, is irrelevant--he's attempted to circumvent the entire justice system. That is not permitted. A civilization built on law does not work when people can just defy it. Trials exist exactly so people can fight for their side of things. He chose not to do so.

Exactly!

He chose not to argue it; he plead guilty.

 

[dudalb]

She was a child. She was not legally able to consent to sex or to taking drugs (which I also suspect were illegal and which I am sure she also did not bring to the Party. She is not legally responsible for any of her actions, and I would argue she is not morally responsible for any of it. She could not give concent. Nor did she really have any power over the situation. He was a 40 year old man. It was on his turf. He supplied the booze, the drugs and the hot tub. He knew she was under age. He knew he could take advantage of the situation. He knew....

I wonder if some of his supporters in these even listen to themsleves. Here's Sharon Tate's sister excusing Polansky because he is "brilliant" and it was consensual:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tates-sister-sex-w_n_304042.html

Like Whoopie G., one wonders what they would say if he was on their 13 year old daughter? I'm sure that would be different.

I think the LA DA's office should just plea bargan a Suspended Sentect for Polanski and end the whole freaking mess, but his defenders are taking the WORST possible route with the "He Is A Great Artist and Therefore The Rules Should Not Apply" route or the "What He Did Was Not That Bad" route.
And as for the comment from a French Official about "American Puritansim" in the case,if thinking getting a 13 Year old Drunk/High and then having sex with her is wrong make one a Puritan, then I will accept the label.
As for Woody Allen coming out in Polanski's defense...

 

[Ricomise]

As to Polanski's exposure to sentence: as he has been convicted (assuming that the guilty plea hearing in the linked transcript generated a court order), he normally would be subject to the penalty prescribed at the time of the plea (anything else would likely be viewed as an ex-post-facto punishment). This does not mean, however, that he would get the benefit of whatever bargain he made at the time, as he had not been sentenced. A new sentencing hearing would be held, in which a judge would have to determine a sentence, and that very well could be whatever the maximum was at the time.

Further, depending on how the other charges were dismissed, either with or without prejudice, they might be reinstated. (It's almost a certainty that they would have been dismissed without prejudice.) Also, new charges can be filed, as fleeing the jurisdiction while a criminal action is pending is a crime in and of itself. (I believe punishable by a year in prison if the underlying crime is a felony.) Of course, any new and/or reinstated charges would have to be either plead to or tried as the original conviction would not apply to them.

The above are general statements and not legal advice. I am not licensed to practice California law. I make no statement regarding the wisdom or morality of pursuing such a case, or the chances of proving any further charges.

 

[Ziggurat]

And as for the comment from a French Official about "American Puritansim" in the case,if thinking getting a 13 Year old Drunk/High and then having sex with her is wrong make one a Puritan, then I will accept the label.

Apparently such sentiments aren't universal even in France.

 

[WildCat]

I think the LA DA's office should just plea bargan a Suspended Sentect for Polanski and end the whole freaking mess,

No, I see no reason at all to let him get away with his act.

but his defenders are taking the WORST possible route with the "He Is A Great Artist and Therefore The Rules Should Not Apply" route or the "What He Did Was Not That Bad" route.
And as for the comment from a French Official about "American Puritansim" in the case,if thinking getting a 13 Year old Drunk/High and then having sex with her is wrong make one a Puritan, then I will accept the label.
As for Woody Allen coming out in Polanski's defense...

Apparently, there's been a bit of a backlash:

The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".

...Speaking to reporters, French government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job."

 

[Pardalis]

I see Peter Fonda has become senile.