Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Information Analyst]

Bottom line: I say he should get four years.

End of story.

Opinion retracted, having now read probation report with RP's account, medical evidence, summary of other witness statements, etc.:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html

 

[Checkmite]

Opinion retracted, having now read probation report with RP's account, medical evidence, summary of other witness statements, etc.:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html

I've now read them and I don't see any material difference between the facts as found and the facts as alleged - except for one part, the part where Ms. Huston referred to the victim as looking "sullen, which I thought was a bit rude". The report indicates that Huston first saw the girl right after Polanski had sex with her. I think looking "sullen" is a pretty good indicator that the victim wasn't particularly liking what just happened.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It might also have something to do with the fact that some people here are trying to make the crime appear less serious than it really is, and someone needs to speak out against that.

I agree completely - as I said earlier, there are plenty of dumb pro-Polanski arguments and some of them did get posted here. Dumb arguments that get posted here deserve what they get.

Also known as "rape".

I'm not going over that semantic argument again. If you prefer to use an emotive misnomer rather than the actual crime under California law he pleaded guilty to I can't stop you.

He's not guilty of fleeing justice ?

I think you may have misread the phrase I actually wrote and which you quoted, "guilty of everything he's been accused of". If you somehow mistook what I wrote for something else, like "guilty of anything he's been accused of", this question would make sense. As it is all I can say is "He's sure as hell guilty of fleeing justice and having sex with a thirteen year old, but I sure as hell can't remember anyone saying he wasn't".

Kevin, honestly I wonder if you're been deceptive, here. Polanski has ADMITTED to having sex with a minor. What ELSE is there to say ?

Without even thinking too hard there's the issue of whether he had "simple consent" (consent in the English sense, not the bush-legal sense) for any part of what happened, and whether anal sex happened as alleged. I am not an expert but the medical evidence here (NSFW) seems partially inconsistent with the alleged events according to the girl.

Polanski's version of events is here (link goes to what I think is the most relevant bit), and contradicts hers. His version is that she asked for a quaalude having had them before, she asked for champagne, she did not object to sex, and he did not climax. (Obviously the forensic finding of semen traces on her undergarments casts doubt on that claim, although she was by her own admission sexually active with her boyfriend so that doesn't prove beyond all doubt that the semen traces came from Polanski).

Those issues are irrelevant to the question of whether he's guilty of having sex with her, but are relevant to Polanski's potential conviction and/or sentencing on other matters.

Especially when the accused pleads guilty, eh ?

That's the second time you failed to parse "guilty of everything he's been accused of".

To Pgwenthold

Personally, I would like to hear what doubt you have that could be considered reasonable? I haven't seen any provided yet. No, Kevin Lowe's argument that her testimony is not reliable because Polanski has not confirmed it is not reasonable reason for doubt at all (the claim boils down to: "the defendent has not admitted guilt, so we can't know for sure that the accuser is telling the truth." (if it happened as she described, there is no question at all that it was rape). If that is the standard, then no defendent could ever be convicted. "How do we know, Mr Lowe, that your house was burglarized by this man? He has never admitted that he did it. Thus, he is acquitted on the grounds that you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt")

So what are the reasons to doubt her description of the events?

This is a straw man.

The point is not merely that Polanski has not corroborated her allegations, it's that there is scarcely any corroboration at all (apart from the forensic evidence which corroborates sex but if anything casts doubt on some other aspects of her statement). A mostly uncorroborated statement is not proof beyond reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.

To Varwoche

This is often true in these situations. There are additional facts that must be considered though -- information that is available to us now, after the fact.

• We know he plead guilty to unlawful sex (aka rape)
• We know it's typical that plea bargains are for lesser charges than the crime(s) committed
• We know he settled a lawsuit with the victim
• Polanski doesn't deny boozing/drugging the girl; he doesn't rebut her at all so far as I know
• Her word gains credence by the fact that she sticks to her story yet she's not trying to profit; not grinding an axe

Would I convict him of greater charges based on this? No. Is it enough to form an operating assumption? I think so.

This post is perfectly reasonable and I will be happy to engage in this conversation with you further if you apologise for your previous posts in which you lied about my views and retract them completely.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not going over that semantic argument again. If you prefer to use an emotive misnomer rather than the actual crime under California law he pleaded guilty to I can't stop you.

The only one arguing semantics here is you. What Polanski pleaded guilty to is legally defined as "statutory rape". That the California statutory rape laws refer to this as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" doesn't make it any less statutory rape.

Here is a list of statutory rape state laws. You'll notice several states actually use the word "rape" in the laws describing what Polanski did. So according to you, determining whether or not he "technically" committed rape is not only a matter of age and consent, but geography as well.

Here is the contact page for the California Attorney General if you have any further questions.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The only one arguing semantics here is you. What Polanski pleaded guilty to is legally defined as "statutory rape".

Don't you have anything better to do? That web site is not a legislative source, it's just some law firm's web site. I challenge you cite the relevant California law defining sex involving a voluntary underage participant to be rape.You're not going to be able to cite such a law, because such a law does not exist and you know it.

That the California statutory rape laws refer to this as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" doesn't make it any less statutory rape.

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, your say-so is not what determines the law.

As I stated earlier, I consider "statutory rape" to be an inflammatory misnomer which mostly serves to get dumb people over-exited. There are (as of 2009) reasonably solid evidence-based reasons to discourage younger teenagers from being sexually active, even if they are engaging in safe sex. People being people, that's also a good reason to make and enforce laws that prohibit adults from having sex with younger teenagers. However that doesn't make consensual, non-distressing sex remotely comparable to rape. Both acts involve sex and both are rightly illegal but that's just about where any similarity ends.

(I say reasonably solid above because while I have not had the time to go over the recent research in real detail to make absolutely sure they've avoided all the usual methodological pitfalls that plague this research area, going by the abstracts they controlled for all the usual suspects and still found a statistically significant correlation between early sexual activity and poor outcomes later in life. The exact causal chain is anyone's guess and the strength of the effect varied greatly between studies, suggesting that local cultural variation or other uncontrolled variables may well play a large part).

So if you're going to point to the very rare jurisdictions where they do call sex with a voluntarily participating underage person "rape" or "sexual assault" I'm happy to say that their abuse of the language is irrational and counterproductive. In this case the California lawmakers got their terms exactly right.

 

[gtc]

As I stated earlier, I consider "statutory rape" to be an inflammatory misnomer which mostly serves to get dumb people over-exited. There are (as of 2009) reasonably solid evidence-based reasons to discourage younger teenagers from being sexually active, even if they are engaging in safe sex. People being people, that's also a good reason to make and enforce laws that prohibit adults from having sex with younger teenagers. However that doesn't make consensual, non-distressing sex remotely comparable to rape. Both acts involve sex and both are rightly illegal but that's just about where any similarity ends.

It wasn't safe-sex and it wasn't non-distressing.

So your claim that consensual, non-distressing sex with a 13 year old girl is not rape is irrelevant.

 

[varwoche]

This post is perfectly reasonable and I will be happy to engage in this conversation with you further if you apologise for your previous posts in which you lied about my views and retract them completely.

Not gonna happen; deal with it.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not going over that semantic argument again. If you prefer to use an emotive misnomer rather than the actual crime under California law he pleaded guilty to I can't stop you.

How is it an emotive misnomer ? Was it rape or not ?

So, instead of "murder" should we use "unlawful termination" ?

I think you may have misread the phrase I actually wrote and which you quoted, "guilty of everything he's been accused of". If you somehow mistook what I wrote for something else, like "guilty of anything he's been accused of", this question would make sense. As it is all I can say is "He's sure as hell guilty of fleeing justice and having sex with a thirteen year old, but I sure as hell can't remember anyone saying he wasn't".

Huh ?

That's the second time you failed to parse "guilty of everything he's been accused of".

Again, huh ?

 

[Checkmite]

Told you so.

 

[Skeptic]

It occurs to me that this paragraph could be about Bill Clinton almost as easily as it could be about Roman Polanski.

Yes. To be fair to Clinton, though, whatever accusations of sexual harassment were against him, even if they were all 100% true, sodomizing 13-year-olds was never one of them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It wasn't safe-sex and it wasn't non-distressing.

So your claim that consensual, non-distressing sex with a 13 year old girl is not rape is irrelevant.

Replying to multiple people individually:

How surprising. You didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, you're repeating the same mistakes and you're either deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting what I said.

Firstly, I didn't say the Polanski case involved safe sex - Polanski and the girl's statements agree that it did not.

Secondly none of us know whether it was non-distressing, since Polanski and the girl's statements disagree on that point and the medical evidence showed no sign of trauma. Back to remedial skeptic training with you.

How is it an emotive misnomer ? Was it rape or not ?

So, instead of "murder" should we use "unlawful termination" ?

Don't be silly. What Polanski pleaded guilty to was unlawful sex, which is just what it says on the label. Having sex with someone who, legally, you're not supposed to. If there is no lack of "simple" consent and no element of force or coercion I feel that using the term "rape" is completely inaccurate and serves only to inflame emotions.

Even if the child is quite young we still have the much more accurate and equally emotive term "child molestation" for that kind of behaviour. There's absolutely no need to co-opt the term used for forcing sex on someone.

Huh ?

Again, huh ?

I'll give you a really simple example of the fundamental logical point here. Or to put it another way, here's your remedial skeptical training.

Kevin: Not everything in this sack is mine.
Belz: Aha! This safety razor is in the sack and has your name on it! You liar!
Kevin: I did not state that nothing in this sack is mine.
Belz: Huh? That's what you just said! Again, huh? "Not everything in this sack is mine" means "Nothing in this sack is mine!", right?

I made two statements using the clause "if Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of". ("If everything in the sack was mine...").

I did not make those statements using the clause "If Polanski is guilty of anything he's accused of". ("If anything in the sack was mine...").

I hope you now understand this distinction.

This kind of "misunderstanding" amazingly always seems to crop up in threads touching on these issues, and I lost tolerance for it a long time ago. Generally speaking I try to use language as precisely as possible. I endeavour to say exactly what I mean, no more and no less. I don't always succeed but I usually do, and when I fail I correct myself.

This does me only a limited amount of good when I'm dealing with people who don't read exactly what I say. People like you, gtc, Checkmite and Varwoche, I'm convinced, read every second or third word, make up the rest, and then post nonsensical replies that don't even relate to the actual points I made. Then you all read every second or third word of each others' posts, see that you're all getting outraged, and collectively assume your outrage must be based on something other than your own misunderstandings.

Told you so.

Not gonna happen; deal with it.

Cases in point.

Here's a challenge for you two and gtc, if you're not the dishonest bottom-feeders I believe your actions show you to be.

Link to the posts by me that you think discredit me, and explain in your own words (1) exactly what I'm saying and (2) why it's bad. Don't link to your own self-serving posts lying about what I said and why it's bad, as Varwoche has already done, link to my actual posts.

I think you're going to find that you can't even make an honest attempt at #1 without realising you're being idiots.

Since you are attempting to defame me by lying about my previous posts I think you have the burden of proof. If you can't do this then either stop defaming me in your posts or get the hell out. Put up or shut up.

The response I expect is "I know what I read, even if I can't find it any more and I only read every third word at the time! How about you post stuff in this thread instead, and we'll read every third word of it and respond to that?". Or possibly a post full of links and then a cop-out like "These posts speak for themselves! I don't need to read more than every third word to know that!". However if you do that, as I fully expect you to, hopefully the readers of this thread will identify you as the liars you are and ignore your contributions.

I repeat: Link to the posts by me that you think discredit me, and explain in your own words (1) exactly what I'm saying and (2) why it's bad.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not going to be your proxy for hijacking the thread, Kevin. I made a post asking several questions. If the answer to them is "no, I do not plan to do that in this thread", then say so and the issue can drop, until such time as the answer self-evidently becomes "yes", if that happens. If it doesn't, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I promise I'll stay quiet about it. In this thread, at least.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not going to be your proxy for hijacking the thread, Kevin. I made a post asking several questions. If the answer to them is "no, I do not plan to do that in this thread", then say so and the issue can drop, until such time as the answer self-evidently becomes "yes", if that happens. If it doesn't, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I promise I'll stay quiet about it. In this thread, at least.

If you don't have the decency to back up your insinuations, either here or in a new thread of your own creation, retract them.

 

[Checkmite]

Which insinuations, in particular?

 

[Pardalis]

So, instead of "murder" should we use "unlawful termination" ?

Or for some, "retirement".

 

[johnny karate]

Don't you have anything better to do? That web site is not a legislative source, it's just some law firm's web site. I challenge you cite the relevant California law defining sex involving a voluntary underage participant to be rape.You're not going to be able to cite such a law, because such a law does not exist and you know it.

Yeah, what you're doing there is called cherry-picking. You're choosing to focus on the specific language of the California law without acknowledging the broader context of national law.

And for a bonus you threw in a nice as little hand-wave of evidence. I've cited a legal definition for "statutory rape". That you reject it is irrelevant to its veracity.

Or perhaps this will convince you. It's a bunch of links to various legal cites specifically describing Penal Code: Section 265.1 (to which Polanski plead guilty) as California's Statutory Rape Law.

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, your say-so is not what determines the law.

Nor did I claim it to be. I actually provided sources that support my assertion. Feel free to provide your own to counter those assertions. Until then, all we're left with is your say-so that I'm wrong.

As I stated earlier, I consider "statutory rape" to be an inflammatory misnomer which mostly serves to get dumb people over-exited.

What you consider to be statutory rape is wholly irrelevant to what actually is statutory rape.

There are (as of 2009) reasonably solid evidence-based reasons to discourage younger teenagers from being sexually active, even if they are engaging in safe sex. People being people, that's also a good reason to make and enforce laws that prohibit adults from having sex with younger teenagers. However that doesn't make consensual, non-distressing sex remotely comparable to rape. Both acts involve sex and both are rightly illegal but that's just about where any similarity ends.

No, it's not. The major difference between rape and consensual sex you're conveniently overlooking is lack of consent. Sex with a minor is not consensual because under the law a minor cannot give consent. That's why they call it statutory rape.

So if you're going to point to the very rare jurisdictions where they do call sex with a voluntarily participating underage person "rape" or "sexual assault" I'm happy to say that their abuse of the language is irrational and counterproductive. In this case the California lawmakers got their terms exactly right.

I'm not sure what makes the above statement more ridiculous. The fact that it's so astoundingly irrational on its face, or that you made it mere moments after saying this to me:

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, your say-so is not what determines the law.

So apparently, what determines the the law is you.

I hope you have drafted sternly worded letters to the Attorneys General of each of the 33 states (which out of 50, constitutes "very rare jurisdictions" according to your crazy logic) that use the terms "rape" or "assault" in their statutory rape laws to let them know you personally disapprove of such "irrational" and "counterproductive" language.

Maybe after that you can get a hold of the dictionary people and have the word "rape" completely eradicated from the English language.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Which insinuations?", he asked innocently...

Or wait...hold on. Is this one of those things where you think what happened being unlawful is just an arbitrary "legal fiction"? Are we going to get to hear about how a 30- or 40-year-old man getting in trouble for having sex with a 13-year-old is as unjust as an 18-year old getting in trouble for having sex with a 17-year-old the night before she turned 18, or how the girl's having periods at the time means she's "sexually mature" and therefore sex with her is only looked down on because of society's moral hangups and Polanski shouldn't have gotten in trouble at all?

Here's you're implying that those are my positions. This is a lie.

This is true, of course; nobody has said those things yet. I'm just leery because when a certain individual joins a thread involving sex and minors in any way, that's always where it ends up going. Like, without exception. If it didn't happen here, it would surprise the stuffing out of me - though I admit it would be a very, very pleasant
surprise.

This was in response to this passage...

So...I see this thread is still devoted almost entirely to attacking straw men. You can't go three posts in a row in this thread without finding someone being accused of "ignoring" what Polanski did or of "excusing" his actions or of claiming that there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 13 year old if she consents.

...so you are stating that whenever I join a thread involving sex and minors in any way I ignore what a child molester did and/or claim that there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 13 year old if she consents. This is also a lie.

First of all, they were questions, not claims. I suppose it could always be argued that a question is just a claim in disguise; but I'll leave such quaint platitudes to students of rhetoric. Secondly, I said it's where all such threads END UP going when said individual joins them. And yes, some of them took a while - but the ones I read all ended up there eventually. And this person seems to be a newer poster to the thread. I was just asking to see if that was the intention here, so the issue could be brought out immediately and the thread did not have to get dragged out over a dozen more pages of hints, vague references, and subtly-directed responses. And thirdly, my post was directed toward a certain person, not anyone else.

If the thread doesn't go there - great, let that issue die.

Here you are claiming that in the past I've dragged this out over a dozen or more pages of hints, vague references and subtly-directed responses. I'm guessing this is going to be your escape hatch when you get called you on your slime: You'll say "Of course I can't prove Kevin ever said anything like that, he cunningly hid it in a dozen pages of hints, and only with my brilliant deductive skills did I figure out he thinks forty year olds should be able to screw thirteen year olds".

Here's an unsubtle and specific response: Back your defamatory claims up, by linking to specific posts of mine and explaining in your own words (1) exactly what I'm claiming and (2) why it is bad. Do it here or do it in a thread of your own making, I don't care.

If you can't back them up then retract them and apologise. I'm through tolerating this sort of treatment from people like you.

 

[applecorped]

Then don't reply.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yeah, what you're doing there is called cherry-picking. You're choosing to focus on the specific language of the California law without acknowledging the broader context of national law.

Now you're just repeating yourself, and even if you had a point then you would still be making a purely semantic argument which gets us nowhere with regard to how we should actually judge the Polanski case. I'm dropping this subthread as unproductive.

 

[gtc]

Replying to multiple people individually:

How surprising. You didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, you're repeating the same mistakes and you're either deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting what I said.

Firstly, I didn't say the Polanski case involved safe sex - Polanski and the girl's statements agree that it did not.

Secondly none of us know whether it was non-distressing, since Polanski and the girl's statements disagree on that point and the medical evidence showed no sign of trauma. Back to remedial skeptic training with you.

And yet all your talk about consensual, non-distressing and safe-sex with 13 year olds is still irrelevant to the case.