Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Belz...]

You get this exact same silly question in discussions of all sorts of crimes. "Would you still be against the death penalty if he murdered your (whatever)?". "Would you still be against castration if he raped your (whatever)?".

It's an appeal to emotion because, unpacked, the question really means "Would you still have the same opinion if you were really, really angry?".

It's an important question, because you seem to hold this opinion about a bunch of statistics, not actual people.

Unless you were talking about teens having sex with one another, which is not the topic of the thread.

 

[varwoche]

It's an important question, because you seem to hold this opinion about a bunch of statistics, not actual people.

Let's not further the illusion that Kevin is making a case based on evidence, given that he dismisses studies that contradict his claims with a wave of the arm.

 

[jimbob]

If you need things boiled down to three word slogans before you can understand them this probably isn't going to help you.

A couple of years ago I would have said that the best evidence showed no statistically significant increase in adverse life outcomes for people who become sexually active at thirteen. So as long as they were having safe sex I wouldn't have said that there was an evidence-based reason to criminalise sex with them at that age as long as it was safe, consensual and so on.

(According to this 6-8% of girls and 8-11% of boys in the USA claim to have had sex before they were fourteen. The age of consent is thirteen in Spain and with Romeo and Juliet Laws I believe there are quite a few other civilised jurisdictions where people can legally have sex at twelve or thirteen. So while thirteen is a shocking figure to some USians it's merely at the low end of the existing range of legal ages, and it's consistent with the low end of when children become sexually active whether you make it legal for them to do so or not. Sometimes we do want to criminalise "normal" human behaviour but it inevitably incurs a high social cost so you'd best have hard evidence that you are preventing more harm than you are causing).

However since some new and better-controlled studies have been done I think there's good reason to discourage people under fourteen from having sex, and less-good reason to discourage people under sixteen. So I'd now say that, since you have to draw a line somewhere, drawing a line around fifteen or sixteen seems like the least worst option.

On the other hand I don't think the available evidence supports going on a frothing witch hunt when you find people in the 13+ range having consensual sex. I think we should strongly discourage it but we shouldn't get overexited and treat it like rape or murder.

Would I be right in understanding that a "Romeo and Juliet Law" would concern two individuals who are similar in age?

If that is true, then there are several countries with laws like that.

I believe the difference allowed is typically three years, raising to maybe five years at the older age-range. Not 31-years.

When a man supplies a 13 year old girl with alcohol and drugs, then proceeds to rape her after she repeatedly says no, he should not be expect to be treated with kid gloves just because he gave her a ride home after, then fled when he found out it deserved more than a slap on the wrist.

So I wonder how many other young girls have fallen victim to Polanski? It is not uncommon for rapists who are caught to later admit to other rapes. Would a child rapist stop after just one offense? Here is an interesting link to recidivism rates. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/rcd.html

Ranb

Indeed; the point has been raised before several times (not only by me), but the more the merrier.

I see no reason to doubt the Girl when she said that she said no, given that Polanski has admitted to plying her with drink and what would seem to fit the bill as a date-rape drug, and having admitted having penetrated the girl.

Polanski has not admitted that the girl said no, but why should she have lied? Even if she had said yes, and was an adult, it would still be date-rape. A witness tells us that the girl seemed "sullen" after the incident, which doesn't sound as if she was in a happy place, so lends credence to her claim, especially as the witness had motive to protect Polanski, not attack him.

 

[dudalb]

So while thirteen is a shocking figure to some USians it's merely at the low end of the existing range of legal ages, and it's consistent with the low end of when children become sexually active whether you make it legal for them to do so or not. Sometimes we do want to criminalise "normal" human behaviour but it inevitably incurs a high social cost so you'd best have hard evidence that you are preventing more harm than you are causing).

And not just "Usians" (your use of this term as a derogatory term for Americans is noted) .
There quite a bit of ourtage in Europe over the blind support of Polanski shown by "Les People" and the French Cultural minister.
But keep on you attempts to excuse and or justify underage sex. It's fun watching you dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

 

[jimbob]

So laws against underage sex that have exemptions for situations when both parties are close in age* is used to justify a situation where the girl was 13 and the other was 31-years older?


She also said no, despite being drugged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methaqualone#Effects

Usual effects include relaxation, euphoria, and drowsiness, also reducing heart rate, respiration, increased sexual arousal (aphrodisia) and parasthesias (Numbness of the fingers and toes). Larger doses can bring about respiratory depression, slurred speech, headache and photophobia (pain in the eyes when exposed to light).

Sounds like a date rape drug to me.

*I am assuming this is what is meant by "Romeo and Juliet laws".

 

[Segnosaur]

And not just "Usians" (your use of this term as a derogatory term for Americans is noted) .
There quite a bit of ourtage in Europe over the blind support of Polanski shown by "Les People" and the French Cultural minister.

Looks like the French cultural minister is not the only one questioning the arrest. French President Sarkozy has also voiced some opposion. (I kind of find that suprising, given the fact that after the initial comments by the French cultural minister, there seemed to be a demand by others in the french government to quiet any pro-Polanski support.

From: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...arkozy-criticizes-US-justice-in-Polanski-case
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has criticized moves by US prosecutors to have film director Roman Polanski arrested on a 31-year-old conviction for sexually abusing a minor. n an interview that is to appear Friday in the daily Le Figaro, Sarkozy said, 'I understand the gravity of the charges against Roman Polanski. But I will add that it is not good administration of justice to reach a verdict 32 years after the facts and when the accused is 76 years old.'

One thing I've noticed... There are a lot of people in Hollywood who have publicly endorsed support for the free Polaski movement. One thing I've noticed though... most (but not all) seem to be people behind the scenes (producers, directors, executives, etc.) Perhaps the actors themselves (at least the big-name actors) are probably smart enough to not risk their career by coming out in suport of a pedofile.

One name that I did find curious... Alfonso Cuaron (who directed one of the Harry Potter movies). You'd figure that since he had a hand at creating of the most popular "children's" movies of the past decade, he'd be a bit more cautous about publically supporting a pedofile.

See: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/b...aming-names-the-free-roman-polanski-petition/ for a list of Ponaski fans.

On the other hand, it looks like there is at least one 'significant' person in Hollywood who has openly stated that he thinks Polanski should be extradited and punished... Jamie Foxx

From: http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/2009/10/15/11410431-wenn-story.html
Hollywood actor Jamie Foxx has called for convicted sex offender Roman Polanski to finally face justice ...

I think I'll celebrate Jamie Foxx's good sense by going out and renting the movie Stealth....

er, maybe not.

 

[Prometheus]

Sarkozy's comment is true, but off the mark, though, since it's not the case that a verdict is being reached 31 years later. A verdict was reached 31 years ago wheh Polanski plead guilty. Ironically, If he'd just skipped town before entering a plea the statute of limitations would have run out by now and he'd be untouchable.

 

[applecorped]

I think I'll celebrate Jamie Foxx's good sense by going out and renting the movie Stealth....

er, maybe not.

Jamie Foxx for President!

 

[tyr_13]

On the other hand, it looks like there is at least one 'significant' person in Hollywood who has openly stated that he thinks Polanski should be extradited and punished... Jamie Foxx

From: http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/2009/10/15/11410431-wenn-story.html
Hollywood actor Jamie Foxx has called for convicted sex offender Roman Polanski to finally face justice ...

I think I'll celebrate Jamie Foxx's good sense by going out and renting the movie Stealth....

er, maybe not.

Law Abiding Citizen opens Friday.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's an important question, because you seem to hold this opinion about a bunch of statistics, not actual people.

Oh, really? I thought those statistics were gathered from actual people. Large numbers of actual people, in fact, from whom we might be able to deduce statistically significant trends.

I'll go tell the world's epidemiologists that they were doing it wrong. They should have been studying actual people all along, not just a bunch of statistics.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, really? I thought those statistics were gathered from actual people. Large numbers of actual people, in fact, from whom we might be able to deduce statistically significant trends.

I'll go tell the world's epidemiologists that they were doing it wrong. They should have been studying actual people all along, not just a bunch of statistics.

Nice dodge. You're not fooling anyone.

The fact of the matter is you are arguing about things you see as numbers rather than judging it from the point of view that these people are... well, people. It's easy to be detached, even cynical, about people you simply see as statistics. But the point is that if it were your kid, you'd want her protected by the law, "sexually mature" or not. Why should it be different for people you don't know ?

 

[Pardalis]

I understand the gravity of the charges against Roman Polanski. But I will add that it is not good administration of justice to reach a verdict 32 years after the facts and when the accused is 76 years old.'

Now whose fault would that be for prolonging this for 32 years?...

If Polanski hadn't fled, he would have had his pardon by now.

 

[Sledge]

Sarkozy is also wrong, if that quote is accurate. It's not a question of reaching a verdict on the case, it's a question of finally sentencing him based on the verdict passed 32 years ago.

 

[jimbob]

Oh, really? I thought those statistics were gathered from actual people. Large numbers of actual people, in fact, from whom we might be able to deduce statistically significant trends.

I'll go tell the world's epidemiologists that they were doing it wrong. They should have been studying actual people all along, not just a bunch of statistics.

Nice dodge. You're not fooling anyone.

The fact of the matter is you are arguing about things you see as numbers rather than judging it from the point of view that these people are... well, people. It's easy to be detached, even cynical, about people you simply see as statistics. But the point is that if it were your kid, you'd want her protected by the law, "sexually mature" or not. Why should it be different for people you don't know ?

Except that... Kevin is claiming the statistics support his case when they don't:

Let's not further the illusion that Kevin is making a case based on evidence, given that he dismisses studies that contradict his claims with a wave of the arm.

Back to the case under discussion:


I wonder how many studies have been done on the harm of a man having sex with an unwilling girl 31-years his junior.

 

[Matthew Best]

How do we know she was unwilling?

 

[jimbob]

Her original testimony

ETA: I and I would trust her on this more than the person who admitted to having drugged her.

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

Investigators also interviewed actress Angelica Huston, who was present in Nicholson's home while Polanski was sequestered in a bedroom with the child. Huston said the teenager "didn't appear to be distressed," adding that "she seemed sullen, which I thought was a little rude."

being sullen would not be surprising, given we know that Polanski did have sex with her just before the incident.

 

[Matthew Best]

Wasn't that disputed by his original testimony?

 

[jimbob]

see my ETA:

I don't know about you but I'd also like to know how many 13-year olds know enough about sodomisation to describe it accurately unless they have experienced it.

 

[Matthew Best]

I and I would trust her on this more than the person who admitted to having drugged her.

Why?

being sullen would not be surprising, given we know that Polanski did have sex with her just before the incident.

Wouldn't being "distressed" be more likely?

I don't know about you but I'd also like to know how many 13-year olds know enough about sodomisation to describe it accurately unless they have experienced it.

Is it really that difficult to describe something without having experienced it? I don't know about you but I have never experienced sodomisation but I think I could make a reasonable fist (sorry!) at describing it.

How accurate was her description anyway? How do you know how accurate it was?

 

[marksman]

Wasn't that disputed by his original testimony?

Not really. Polanski never "testified". He told the investigator that he and the girl had sex, that he had supplied her with alcohol and drugs, and that the sex was "spontaneous". Although he did deny that he forced her to have alcohol or drugs, his lawyer (who was there during this interview) stopped him from further describing the nature of the sexual acts.

Decades later, Polanski told a filmmaker (still not testimony) that the sex was consensual.

Now, do we have "proof" that it wasn't consensual? No. The physical evidence is inconclusive. She claimed it was nonconsensual. He eventually denied it. The prosecutor dropped the charges of forced sex as part of the plea agreement that Polanski agreed to. (And then Polanski fled the jurisdiction when he discovered the agreement didn't keep him from going to jail.)