And Kevin's attacks on the victim's credibility are just the sort of thing that police and prosecutors try to avoid by allowing rapists to plead down.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...
- Thread starter DropGems
- Start date
And Kevin's attacks on the victim's credibility are just the sort of thing that police and prosecutors try to avoid by allowing rapists to plead down.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No, it is not. By law, a 13 year old girl cannot give consent to have sex with a 43 year old man.
thinkingman
Student
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 35
Judge the Movie, Not the Man By Samantha Geimer February 23, 2003 I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me. It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy....We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.
Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23
Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim By Steve Lopez September 30, 2009
The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column
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
court transcripts
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23
Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim By Steve Lopez September 30, 2009
The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column
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
court transcripts
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,595
Polanski is certainly guilty of statutory rape and evading justice anyway, but whether or not the girl's testimony is true makes the difference on several other potential charges like aggravated rape as well--don't know if any of them have a statute of limitations in California, though.
Huh? "Compensated" sounds a lot like bought off. Fair enough, but what are the facts?
He knew her age, 13. He drugged her. He raped her while she repeatedly said "No". Check the transcripts, it's all there. He admitted guilt, and fled when it appeared he wasn't going to get a deal to his liking. Contrary to what legal expert Whoopie says, it was actually "rape-rape". Did you hear that, Debra Wingnut and Woody "keep it in the family" Allen. Your friend is a rapist.
So, what should the punishment be for a midget who rapes a 13 year old girl, admits guilt, and goes on the run for 30+ years? Whatever the original sentence was likely to be, plus significantly more time for evading justice. That's not punitive because of his fame, it's just the same justice you or I would deserve.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
My wording was imprecise, and I should have learned from experience that people are eager to leap on that kind of imprecision. Mea culpa.
Roman Polanksi pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. He did not plead guilty to forcible sex with a minor.
I'm not sure precisely what point you are trying to make, given that I'm obviously aware of the fact that Polanski pleaded guilty to the offence of "just" having sex with her (your term) because I stated that in my last post.
Can you cite where I sliced, spun or distorted anything? Otherwise I'm writing you off as a troll.
The fact that he hasn't denied it isn't proof it's true. (Sorry, I just felt like stating the bleeding obvious).
As to whether we can divine the reason he was allowed to cop a plea all those years ago, I tend to think we can't. However "he said, she said" rape cases are terribly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt even today and I tend to suspect that the only way these cases get convictions most of the time is if the juries don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt.
I realise this is the politics forum where putting words into other people's mouths is more or less the norm, but this isn't a Palestine thread so please behave yourself.
In the same sense that I think there might be fossils on Mars, sure, I think she might have had consensual sex and then lied about it. Can you cite any source either for Polanski confirming her story, or for any hard evidence confirming her story? Without such confirmation all we have is her word and Polanski's plea to a lesser charge.
While there were and are sound reasons for "rape shield" laws that limit the defence's ability to cross-examine rape complainants, and overall I support those laws, that doesn't mean that all rape complainants are honest or that it's not legitimate skepticism to ask questions about their narrative. Especially if one part of that narrative, as presented, seems incompatible with the facts of life as I understand them.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Purely legally this is half-right and half-wrong.
Having sex with a 13 year old girl in which she is a voluntary participant is a crime.
Having sex with a 13 year old girl in which she is an involuntary participant is a much more serious crime.
Whether the underage person involved participated voluntarily or not determines what specific crime the adult is charged with and thus has a major influence on what sentence the adult is likely to receive.
(Before anyone is tempted to leap in with some nonsense like "But it's not voluntary! It can't be voluntary because they can't consent!", think about the fact that the law is very clear about this issue. Whether the underage participant was forced to have sex or had sex voluntarily is enormously important legally. If you don't like that fact go lobby to have the laws changed).
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Right here:
He plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Also know as statutory rape. You trying to pretend that the sex he had with a 13 year-old girl is not rape if it was consensual is the spinning and distorting to which I was referring.
Edited by LibraryLady:
Edited for attacking the arguer
Please attack the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LibraryLady
Last edited by a moderator:
Same thing. Go read a law book.
This is a concept that Kevin_Lowe, who has a history on this forum defending sexual abuse of children by adults, continuously fails to grasp.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
As it says in that link, "very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes". Legally speaking, sex involving the voluntary participation of an underage person is only a subset of "rape" in a handful of jurisdictions and my view is that even in those cases the legal term is an inflammatory misnomer. Everywhere else it's something like "unlawful sexual intercourse", the crime Polanski pleaded guilty to.
As such, it's a cold, hard legal fact that sex with a willingly participating thirteen year old in California is not rape in the legal sense. It's unlawful sexual intercourse. (Of course if she was not a willing participant, as is likely but not proven beyond reasonable doubt, it would be rape).
Since I made it perfectly clear that sex with the girl in question was illegal, regardless of whether she participated voluntarily, you're pursuing a purely semantic argument based on a popular misnomer ("statutory rape") that has no basis in Californian law. The spin and distortion here is your insistence on using an emotive misnomer rather than the technically correct terms.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
Thank you. I wasn't sure how to say that, but you managed it quite well.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I told Varwoche what I thought of him by PM at the time he made that post, but since I'd bowed out of that thread I didn't allow myself to be lured back in. However since he's now linking to it as evidence that I'm "defending sexual abuse of children by adults" I feel obliged to respond to his offensive, deceptive and defamatory postings.
Firstly, in the post linked to by Varwoche is (I surmise deliberately) misstating my actual position and the actual questions I was asking. Read the full thread for the details, but he took it upon himself not only to lie to the AIFS about my position but also to specifically avoid asking about the actual issue we had been discussing earlier in the thread, which was the exact degree of harm known to be caused by voluntary sex involving underage people (whether with other youngsters or with adults).
If I recall correctly the evidence that posters in that thread had unearthed at the time was ambiguous to say the least, but did not show statistically significant levels of long-term psychological harm caused by voluntary and non-distressing early sexual activity involving sexually mature minors. (Since then I've done one or two surveys of the available literature and the current consensus seems to be that there is a reasonable case to be made for long-term psychological harm, since people have finally done a few studies that were properly controlled. The main problem at the time of that thread was that the studies we could find were all poorly controlled).
I can't construct any explanation for Varwoche's behaviour which is consistent with good or honest intentions. Possibly I'm biased but I can't see any basis for his behaviour other than malice.
I am reporting his post and asking the moderators to split his garbage off into AAH where it belongs along with my response to it.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I do not know what history has Kevin Lowe, but he is RIGHT. It is called statutory rape only in a few state, other call it unlawful sex with minor, 3rd degree felony, etc.... And it is a different offense than real rape.
What we are observing here is the inability of people of separating what sort of fact are available, and what is speculated.
1) the girl accused him of rape
2) as far as i can tell there is no medical documentation or anything showing it a way or another. If there was it would be clear cut and the prosecutor would not have choosen this way
3) we are left out of a she-said he-said thus the plea from the prosecutor
4) polanski accepted the plea
5) he fled before sentencing
the rest is unknowable from any of us and is just speculation or over reaction.
There are more murky stuff like whether there was an undue influence of the judge, whether or not the sentence would have been only 48 days etc...
But the bottom line is 1) yes he should now get in prison for the deal he would have been sentenced for 2) yes he should get a sentence for fleeing (isn't there an aggravation when you flee sentencing?). but NO 3) nobody can say anything MORE to this since there are no evidence whatsoever left from that time
the rest is only emotional reaction
ETA And speak of emotional, the age of consent is a very culturally wildly differing point of view, so please stop your "but but sex with anybody around 13 is RAPE even if he/she consent !!!". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png
What we are observing here is the inability of people of separating what sort of fact are available, and what is speculated.
1) the girl accused him of rape
2) as far as i can tell there is no medical documentation or anything showing it a way or another. If there was it would be clear cut and the prosecutor would not have choosen this way
3) we are left out of a she-said he-said thus the plea from the prosecutor
4) polanski accepted the plea
5) he fled before sentencing
the rest is unknowable from any of us and is just speculation or over reaction.
There are more murky stuff like whether there was an undue influence of the judge, whether or not the sentence would have been only 48 days etc...
But the bottom line is 1) yes he should now get in prison for the deal he would have been sentenced for 2) yes he should get a sentence for fleeing (isn't there an aggravation when you flee sentencing?). but NO 3) nobody can say anything MORE to this since there are no evidence whatsoever left from that time
the rest is only emotional reaction
ETA And speak of emotional, the age of consent is a very culturally wildly differing point of view, so please stop your "but but sex with anybody around 13 is RAPE even if he/she consent !!!". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png
Last edited:
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
Aspervius, Kevin, at what age should a person be able to enter into a legal contract? At what age should they be allowed to vote? At what age should they be able to join the military?
Please explain the reasoning for your answers.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I suggest starting a new thread rather than hijacking this one, which is about Roman Polanski.
Your post from that other thread is very relevant to this case. Even if she hadn't been fed drugs and alcohol it looks like the research says that she couldn't have given her informed consent to sexual intercourse.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Legal contract, vote, military , are not comparable with sex (if that is what you want to compare to) those are activities you are allowed to enter when you get the status of legal adult citizen. 18 year old in my country.
Sex (and mariage), drinking age, cigarette are individual/personal activity which can and are legal when the individual is consenting. So I would place them at all the same age, although a different age than you become citizen (so not 18).
Sex is placed at my country at 15, I would tend to place them at 16 when an adult is involved, because i tend to think before 16 most teenager are not able to make a good decision (aka 99 year old person with a consenting 15 would be a no-no, but with a consenting 16 their problem) but more or less free of repercussion when both are under or equal 15 and above or equal 12 because you can't legislate youth (try ANYWAY to forbid two 13 year old to play doctor... good luck with that, if you make it unlawful you only make teenager marked for life for stuff which are basically OK between consenting people).
Now if you ask for my personal taste (and not what i think is legal) when i was young and good looking enough I flirted only with older women (I won the jackpot far more rarely than i wished, but often enough that some on this board would have called those women statutory rapist). Today when I see a daughter/mother pair, the daughter is quasi invisible to me, the hot mama feeling all my eye. So yeah, I am the sort of pervert which are only interrested in 35-45 year old old (big breasted) women. But neither do i see some of the reaction of the poster here as warranted.
Last edited: