Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Vortigern99]

1. Nothing. Why should we? Should we permit rapists to escape justice if only they can successfully bribe their victims? No. A crime was committed. The state needs justice, even if the victim claims she doesn't.

2. What of it? The crime was rape, the distinction you make is irrelevant to the crime.

3. When he receives his sentence, that can be included as time served. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

4. He was not banished. He fled justice. That was his choice, an illegal choice, and the consequences for that choice are entirely upon his head.

5. That's what the appeals process is for.

6. No, he has not.

1. Okay, those are points to consider. I would opine that a civil settlement, such as the one Polanski paid the victim here, could be considered a form of justice, particularly since it was ordered by a (civil) court of law. You seem to be of the opinion this legally-mandated payout constitutes a "bribe" meant to hush the victim up, but I'm not convinced that's the case, for whatever my opinion is worth.

2. I'm making a distinction because the law makes a distinction, the judicial process makes a distinction, and because most of Polanski's critics are accusing him of pedophilia, which is not legally or medically accurate.

I agree that rape of any person at any age is a heinous crime that merits punishment. That should be obvious. But what clearly isn't obvious, because most people miss or dismiss it, is that the crime of child rape carries a different penalty from rape of a pubescent youth, which carries a different penalty from rape of an adult. That's the only point I'm making here.

3. and 4. I addressed these in an above post.

5. Excellent point. Polanski, rather than fleeing the country, might have instead brought charges of corruption against the judge, had him removed from the bench and replaced with another judge. I cannot excuse Polanski's crime of flight, but I question the point of prosecuting him in the US if he intends never to return here. Let part of his punishment be lifelong exile from the US and all countries with extradition.

6. The victim disagrees with you; she said Polanski had paid for his crime and he should be pardoned. I also feel that the combined effects of monetary restitution, exile from the US whether legally or self-imposed, and 40 days incarceration are and have been sufficiently punitive.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Pardalis]

The victim disagrees with you; she said Polanski had paid for his crime and he should be pardoned.

Samantha Geimer is not a US judge.

 

[Vortigern99]

I realize I haven't replied to everyone but this is a time-consuming process. If anyone is interested in my opinion, I'll continue to reply to your various points over the next few days.

 

[johnny karate]

I just simply fail to see what's to argue here. That Polanski comitted crimes is undeniable. That he has yet to pay his legally-mandated debt to society for those crimes is undeniable. Everything else is empy rhetoric.

 

[The Mutha]

I have to wonder why the authorities in California suddenly decided to get Polanski arrested after all this time. Given the state of finances in the city and state, I wonder if that has anything to do with the timing? Would a protracted trial be a financial windfall for the city of Los Angeles or would they go more bankrupt with all the security that would be required? Was the financial aspect even a factor in the timing? Who knows... But I'm definitely for sending him back to face the sentence. For all anybody knows, the Judge may say that the original plea deal is valid.

 

[Segnosaur]

1. Okay, those are points to consider. I would opine that a civil settlement, such as the one Polanski paid the victim here, could be considered a form of justice, particularly since it was ordered by a (civil) court of law. You seem to be of the opinion this legally-mandated payout constitutes a "bribe" meant to hush the victim up, but I'm not convinced that's the case, for whatever my opinion is worth.

Whether a payment was made voluntarily by the criminal, or whether it was ordered by a civil court is irrlevant.

The fact that a victim is more likely to recieve money from a rich criminal than a poor one (regardless of whether the payment was voluntary) IS the issue. I want the criminal system to be MORE equitable, not less.

2. I'm making a distinction because the law makes a distinction, the judicial process makes a distinction, and because most of Polanski's critics are accusing him of pedophilia, which is not legally or medically accurate.

Ok, first of all...last time I checked, the legal system doesn't make a disction based on 'pre' or 'post-pubescence'... it is based on chronological age only, not on biology.

Secondly, while there ARE definitions of pedophilia which restrict it to only pre-pubescent children, that is not a universal definition. It IS common in our language to applie to the term to sex with anyone under the age of consent, regardless of whether they have reached puberty.

In fact, wikipedia states:
n law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia. (Yes, I know there are problems with Wikipedia, but in this case they back up their statement with references to a peer reviewed journal.)

I cannot excuse Polanski's crime of flight, but I question the point of prosecuting him in the US if he intends never to return here.

Well, perhaps we don't want to set a prescetent in which we allow criminals to get off 'scott-free' simply by fleeing jurisdiction.

Or perhaps because we really don't know what's in a person's mind... how do YOU know he doesn't intend to return here? Are you a mind-reader?

Let part of his punishment be lifelong exile from the US and all countries with extradition.

Hey, I'd have no problem making that part of his punishment. Problem is, that seems to be all of his punishment. That's the thing I (and many others) find unacceptable.

6. The victim disagrees with you; she said Polanski had paid for his crime and he should be pardoned. I also feel that the combined effects of monetary restitution,
[/quiote]
As I've pointed out before, if you suggest that monitary restitution should be sufficent, then you are giving rich people even more of an advantage when dealing with a legal system (as if they didn't already have enough of an advantage)

...exile from the US whether legally or self-imposed,

During which time he earned millions of dollars, travelled between many countries, and purchased several houses...

and 40 days incarceration are and have been sufficiently punitive.

So, you think 40 days in jail is sufficient for raping a child?

I realize I haven't replied to everyone but this is a time-consuming process.

Certainly understandable that it isn't easy to keep up with the posts here (especially considering you seem to be one of the few people suggesting leniency for him). However, many of the points you've made have already been addressed. So, while you don't exactly have to respond to every post immediately, you might want to at least read all the responses in order to avoid bringing up something that's already been addressed.

 

[LostAngeles]

I have to wonder why the authorities in California suddenly decided to get Polanski arrested after all this time. Given the state of finances in the city and state, I wonder if that has anything to do with the timing? Would a protracted trial be a financial windfall for the city of Los Angeles or would they go more bankrupt with all the security that would be required? Was the financial aspect even a factor in the timing? Who knows... But I'm definitely for sending him back to face the sentence. For all anybody knows, the Judge may say that the original plea deal is valid.

As I understand it, they'd been trying a similar tactic for years now, but he would find out and abort travel plans to that country.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have to wonder why the authorities in California suddenly decided to get Polanski arrested after all this time.

There are a couple of factors at play here...

First of all, the authorities didn't "suddenly" decide to get Polanski. They had made other attempts before. (For example, in 2007 they tried to get him when he made a trip to Israel, but they didn't have enough time to arrange the arrest.) Its just that this time, they knew exactly where he'd be and when. (Not like they would bother following him around minute by minute waiting for him to set foot outside France.)

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...eline-of-US-attempts-to-capture-director.html

Secondly, this might have all been precipitated by Ponanski himself. He had recently tried to get the courts to drop the charges. This might have encouraged the authorities to go after Polanski.

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/full/
Law enforcement sources confirm that the strident actions of Polanski’s own lawyers—prompted by Wells’ now-recanted statements in the movie—led to his arrest this weekend.

 

[johnny karate]

I have to wonder why the authorities in California suddenly decided to get Polanski arrested after all this time. Given the state of finances in the city and state, I wonder if that has anything to do with the timing? Would a protracted trial be a financial windfall for the city of Los Angeles or would they go more bankrupt with all the security that would be required? Was the financial aspect even a factor in the timing? Who knows... But I'm definitely for sending him back to face the sentence. For all anybody knows, the Judge may say that the original plea deal is valid.

It's highly unlikely there will be a trial. Polanski has already plead guilty to previous charges, and I doubt he'll go to court for any new charges that arise from his illegal flight.

As far as "Why now?" I've seen it posited that the very film that sought to exonerate Polanski may have aroused the wrath of the State of California Prosecutor's office. It's one thing to live abroad in Europe as a fugitive of American justice, it's another thing to flaunt it.

Not that I care why a child rapist is finally being brought to justice, but if it turns out that apologist documentary played a role, I would find that irony most enjoyable.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It may not even have been a case of "wrath being aroused" or Roman Polanski "flaunting it".

It may have been that the case had been dormant for more than 30 years and the film reminded the DA's office that Roman Polanski was still alive, that the case still had not been done with and that the DA still had the power to do something.

It would be ironic, though, as at the time it was released, the movie was thought to possibly have the case dismissed.

 

[Ladewig]

That should be obvious. But what clearly isn't obvious, because most people miss or dismiss it, is that the crime of child rape carries a different penalty from rape of a pubescent youth,

Are you referring to California law in 1977 or California law today? In either case would you provide a citation?

 

[Ladewig]

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.

I disagree that it would be completely idiotic. The differences between a 13-year-old and a 44-year-old are so great that the type of consent that an adult sex partner could give do not apply here. I believe it is possible that some 13-year-olds, after giving "consent" could suffer problems as severe as those of a 13-year-old who didn't "consent."

Furthermore, even if it could be shown that it is impossible for a 13-year-old who gave consent to ever suffer psychological problems of the same magnitude, I would still argue in favor of current laws which do not make this distinction because having this distinction would encourage 44-year-olds to apply even more pressure or coercion on 13-year-olds in an effort to circumvent the law.

 

[thinkingman]

saw these online about the case

Dominic Lawson: Let's not forget what Polanski did - The film director has been treated with extraordinary indulgence Tuesday, 29 September 2009 A man who drugged and sodomised a 13-year old girl would not usually receive the uncritical support of the political and literary establishments....There, the 44-year-old Polanski plied her with the drug Quaalude mixed in glasses of champagne. Then, after insisting that she join him in the Jacuzzi, Polanski said: "Let's go in the other room". From this point on, the testimony is harrowing, so skip the next few paragraphs if you are of a squeamish disposition.
"Q. What did you do when he said, 'Let's go into the other room'?
A. I was going 'No, I think I better go home', because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.... He sat down beside me and asked if I was OK. I said 'No'.
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes 'Well, you'll be better'. And I go, 'No I won't. I have to go home. He said 'I'll take you home soon'.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness... I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination... I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go."
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' and I went, 'No' and he goes 'When did you have your period?' and I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure'... He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember'. And I told him I didn't.... and right after I said I was not on the pill... and he goes... and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really, because...
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ets-not-forget-what-polanski-did-1794717.html




France appeals to Hillary Clinton on behalf of Roman Polanski From Times Online September 28, 2009 Polanski was accused of the rape in 1977 after photographing the teenager during a modelling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude sedative pill at Jack Nicholson's house. Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation. Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence, but the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain. Aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time and require his voluntary deportation, Polanski fled to France where he has lived for the past three decades.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6852265.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6852265.ece

The Smoking Gun Archive - polanski
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Reminder Roman Polanski raped a child - Broadsheet - Salon_com
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

Whitewashing Roman Polanski
More than 30 years after he raped a 13-year-old girl, the fugitive director hoped a skewed documentary would reopen his case. Thankfully, a judge said no dice.
By Bill Wyman
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index1.html

 

[applecorped]

Charles Manson announced today that he thinks Polanski has suffered enough and should go free.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm still not clear about what happened originally legally. Polanski was arrested. Apparently he arranged a plea agreement with the prosecutor (not the judge - judges don't create plea agreements, prosecutors do. Prosecutors chose which charges to bring). Was it ever accepted by the court? Every plea agreement has to be approved by the court.

My interpretation of this is that the opinion was that the judge was not going to accept the deal made by the parties, which included the sentancing. From what I read, it seems to me that the judge thought the proposed penalty was too light for that type of crime, and was going to impose something more reasonable. If that is the case, the judge was ahead of his time, recognizing the seriousness of this type of crime at a time when it was far more often brushed away with a blame-the-victim mentality.

Ironically, Polanski probably faced a better chance had he gone to trial back then, when things like the victim's admission that she took her own clothes off to get in the hot tub would be more likely viewed as implicit consent. Nowadays, in the no-means-no era, however, he would be in a lot more challenging trial, given that he admitted to knowingly having sex with an underage person. Even if he gets up on the stand and denies her version, how far will you be willing to accept the testimony of an admitted statutory rapist? Yes, it is his-word-vs-hers, but 1) he is an admitted statutory rapist, and 2) her testimony was made at a time before the modern perspective on consent was popular. She wasn't saying she said no because she knew that "no-means-no" is the way to demonstrate rape, and she has no motivation to invent it.

I can believe at the time, they would have had a hard time getting a rape conviction. However, I don't think they would have any problem getting a rape conviction today. Even if she were of age, they still could probably get a rape conviction (see Mike Tyson).

I don't think many people today would be all too sympathetic to claims of anal rape.

 

[Pardalis]

A new low, now Samatha's hot tub pictures have been released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/polanski_pictures/8284139.stm

 

[Ladewig]

deleted by poster

 

[Algebra34]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-ap-us-roman-polanski-tates-sister,0,162688.story

NEW YORK (AP) — Debra Tate, the sister of Roman Polanski's second wife, actress Sharon Tate, says Polanski is brilliant and a "good guy" and she doesn't think her former brother-in-law can get a fair trial in the United States.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/06/susan_atkins_considered_f.php

Debra Tate, wants Atkins to stay locked up. From the Riverside Press-Enterprise:
"She showed no compassion. She told my sister as she slit her throat that she didn't (care) for her or her unborn baby," Tate said.

Two different crimes of course and one much more severe than the other. But shouldn't Polanski pay for his crime also?

 

[WildCat]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-ap-us-roman-polanski-tates-sister,0,162688.story

NEW YORK (AP) — Debra Tate, the sister of Roman Polanski's second wife, actress Sharon Tate, says Polanski is brilliant and a "good guy" and she doesn't think her former brother-in-law can get a fair trial in the United States.

Someone should let her know the trial happened more than 30 years ago...

 

[Eddie Dane]

A new low, now Samatha's hot tub pictures have been released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/polanski_pictures/8284139.stm

Awesome!

I had no idea she was this talented, musically.