Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[headscratcher4]

Where did I say that it meant that she gave consent? And wasn't that exactly the charge to which he did plead guilty?


That was rather my point, though I clearly didn't make it well. He was tried in the 1970s,when the things I mentioned would have been used by the defence, not today.

Sorry if I over-stated or stated poorly...I was actually, I think, in agreement with you.

 

[slingblade]

Money. Fame. Pity. Take your pick.

 

[Information Analyst]

Not only that, one of the 'issues' with his case surrounds pictures taken of Polanski "partying" with what appear to be undearge girls while he was in Europe. Granted, it is impossible to determine someone's age simply from photos, and its quite possible that the girls were over 18; however, their appearance suggests that he had a thing for younger girls.

Define "partying." Define "underage" in relation to the country the picture was actually taken in (Germany, IIRC). I can't see how it would be legal to use as "evidence" someone doing something in another country that was not illegal there.

 

[zooterkin]

Sorry if I over-stated or stated poorly...I was actually, I think, in agreement with you.

Ok, fair enough. I think possibly I'm not stating some of my assumptions; i.e. if the girl's testimony is accurate (and I say 'if' because I don't know), then he clearly is guilty of the 6 charges laid against him. Conversly, he pleaded guilty to one of them, but that in itself doesn't prove he did it; admitting guilt if he thought he'd only have to serve a couple of months in prison may not have bothered him (one of the objections I have to the plea bargain system is that it may encourage false confessions, but that's different topic). I think it's important to be clear on the details, and not make statements which aren't true (that's not aimed at you, by the way, but a general comment). Some of the details are troubling, for example the mother's role, but examining those doesn't mean we're excusing Polanski's actions.

Money. Fame. Pity. Take your pick.

Also, different, less enlightened, ways of doing things. It's a bit like a time-capsule of the late 70's has just been opened.

 

[FrankChurch]

The girl forgave him. I don't know what to think. Let God inact justice.

 

[let`s talk]

Keep in mind, this response is a backlash to an attempt to clear him. No one in the world all of a sudden decided it's time to go after Roman Polanski. His _supporters_ brought it up, so don't blame those responding for making it a story.

No, I was just trying to be cynical. If he were an average guy and escaped from the US 32 years ago, no local attorney/prosecutor would move a finger now.
Even if the victim were crying for delayed justice.

 

[tyr_13]

The girl forgave him. I don't know what to think. Let God inact justice.

Oh yes because God's been very fair in his inactment of justices in the past. The Pharaoh pisses off some guy with some rules on rocks and the first born of every house is murdered. A perv drugs and rapes a thirteen year old girl, then flees from punishment, and he gets thirty years of parties and praise in France, with loads of money and a directing career to boot!

That's very fair. Oh I know! God had the Manson's kill Tate to punish Polanski for what he was going to do in the future!

Time God, on Fox's new Monday night lineup.

 

[varwoche]

He doesn't interest me. He's a child rapist. I'm not giving him any more attention than this. I don't know why anyone, aside from the law, would.

I can think of a couple reasons:

• Public opinion can influence how laws are enforced
• Exposing apologists for child rape for what they are (light of day as disinfectant)

 

[applecorped]

No, I was just trying to be cynical. If he were an average guy and escaped from the US 32 years ago, no local attorney/prosecutor would move a finger now.
Even if the victim were crying for delayed justice.

Ira einhorn? 18 years on the run (he fled to France as well).

 

[applecorped]

Just to piss his defenders off completely: send him to Gitmo!

No, he needs to be in Gen Pop with all the other rapists.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

It may or may not be the case. But my point is that it COULD be, which is why we should never settle for civil settlements alone for serious crimes such as this. We should not have to (and in fact cannot really) evaluate whether or not such a settlement constitutes a bribe.

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.

Most people here are talking about rape.

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.

That last sentence makes no sense to me. Should we let any criminal get away with their crimes if they simply choose to flee and never return? Furthermore, he's not being prosecuted for rape, he was already convicted of that. He's going to be (hopefully) sentenced for it. He might be prosecuted for fleeing, but that too is right and proper. A successful flight from justice should never justify itself.

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

No. We do not let criminals choose their own sentence.

6. The victim disagrees with you

I don't care. We do not punish criminals only for the victims.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just to piss his defenders off completely: send him to Gitmo!

He'll fit right in with all the other inmates who like to have sex with children.

 

[GreyICE]

So lets see.

The girl was 13 (statutory), he gave her drugs (coercion), and she said no (clear refusal), and he had sex with her.

It's like the trifecta of rape. Toss him in jail. There needs to be a clear message, that this crap don't fly, no matter how much moolah you got, no matter how famous you are.

Fame does not excuse giving a 13 year old drugs, and raping her despite her protests.

 

[Segnosaur]

Not only that, one of the 'issues' with his case surrounds pictures taken of Polanski "partying" with what appear to be undearge girls while he was in Europe. Granted, it is impossible to determine someone's age simply from photos, and its quite possible that the girls were over 18; however, their appearance suggests that he had a thing for younger girls.

Define "partying." Define "underage" in relation to the country the picture was actually taken in (Germany, IIRC). I can't see how it would be legal to use as "evidence" someone doing something in another country that was not illegal there.

First of all, I haven't seen the pictures, only read (very brief) descriptions of them, so it is 3rd hand knowledge (although the sources that I've seen them described in are reputable.) Because of that, I don't know exactly how he was "partying". (That's why I put the word in quotes.) I know they weren't nude pics. They were supposedly taken at Octoberfest (a time of fun and frolic) and he had his arms around a couple of young girls. They could have been totally innocent; however, considering he was involved in a legal process over his rape of an underage girl, wouldn't the SMART thing be to avoid even the appearance of enjoying the company of younger women?

Secondly, I've already admitted that I don't know the girl's age, and as such they aren't things he should be charged over. I brought them up not for their legal arguments, but from a more, well, 'moralistic' argument. Polanski's actions in raping the 13 year old have often been defended as just a "single mistake". However, if he has a history of hanging out with (or even dating, as he did with Nastassja Kinski ) younger women then it should diminish the argument that thos was just a "single mistake".

(I could point out that some countries have enacted laws against "sex tourism", i.e. to prevent people from travelling to countries with lower age-of-consent laws for the purpose of having sex with 'underage' girls. Of course, those laws weren't in force at the time so aren't really relevant to the issue at hand. Just thought it was an interesting fact.)

 

[HeyLeroy]

I suspect, as I think was suggested earlier in this thread, the facts admitted in the girl's testimony may have contributed to the prosecution's willingness to accept a plea-bargain.

Before he became a fugitive, a grand jury indicted Polanski, then 43, on six felonies, including rape and sodomy, for an assault on a 13-year-old girl. Prosecutors agreed to a plea deal because the victim's family did not want to subject her to the trauma of testifying at trial.
linky

Bolding mine.

 

[LostAngeles]

I think it would be naive not to recognise that there was a lot about the girl's behaviour that Polanski took as a green flag, no matter how old he thought she was.

You mean like all the times she said, "no?"

Again, that being the case, why do we have "victim impact statements"?

They exist, but they're not required to be given by the victims.

I read Applebaum's response to those who responded to her. She linked to the Smoking Gun's transcript of the grand jury testimony.

He raped her twice.

Still not seeing where she and Whoopi (and Information Analyst) are ok with this.

Further, I know that with victims of abuse, they can continue that pattern of abuse with others. It's an explanation, not an excuse.

Why are people trying to excuse his raping of a 13 year old girl by reminding us of him losing his family in the Holocaust and the loss of his wife and unborn child at the hands of some lunatics? How the **** does that wash.

 

[zooterkin]

Bolding mine.

Do you have evidence that was the only reason they accepted the deal?

 

[LibraryLady]

Whoopi clarifies.

 

[Pardalis]

Whoopie clarifies.

 

[timhau]

So lets see.

The girl was 13 (statutory), he gave her drugs (coercion), and she said no (clear refusal), and he had sex with her.

It's like the trifecta of rape.

It is, but what he pled guilty to was only the first, statutory rape. That's what he needs to be punished for, and nothing else (except maybe fleeing justice).